Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Daily Reminder that Rush Limbaugh did nothing wrong

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1546
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 1546

Banned
-
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Posts
121
I'd like tp preface this by saying I am not a republican, I don't partially like any politicians or media figures and Limbaugh seems to be another neocon Israeli shill. But in this instance, in 2012, he did absolutely nothing wrong. The only argument people had against him was that he used mean and incendiary language. No one could actually defend this woman's lifestyle or welfare demands. Sadly, the cuckold advertisers got scared and pulled forcing an apology for Limbaugh.

>What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled". I take it back.

>Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled  Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

Limbaugh remarked that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk",and continued on to suggest that Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlin scholarship ... exclusively for women". He also asked, "Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?" 

He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."

On March 2, 2012, Limbaugh defended his previous comments about Fluke, saying, "not one person says that, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'"

Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is  "no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.'" Limbaugh commented on Fluke receiving a call from President Obama, who stated that her parents should be proud of her, saying, "I'm gonna button my lip on that one."

He went on to say that if his daughter had testified that "she's having so much sex she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it," he would be "embarrassed" and "disconnect the phone", "go into hiding", and "hope the media didn't find me". He continued later, "Oh! Does she have more boyfriends? They're lined up around the block. They would have been in my day." He continued that Fluke testified that her "sex life is active. She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That's what she's saying."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_controversy
 
Brutal noreplypill.
 
he just died and you bumped this. curious indeed :feelshehe:
Because @PPEcel bumped a thread about Rush Limbaugh and this was one of the similar threads that showed up and it had no replies.
 
@Robtical thoughts?
 
More reasona why it's cucked to pay taxes. You pay for whore's birth control.
Guys realizing this is one of the main things that governments don't like about redpilled/blackpilled communities, not the loosely defined 'threat' of "misogyny" @based_meme

But it also explains why men's communities that do not want to appease women are seen as anti-liberal from the start.
 
Guys realizing this is one of the main things that governments don't like about redpilled/blackpilled communities, not the loosely defined 'threat' of "misogyny" @based_meme

But it also explains why men's communities that do not want to appease women are seen as anti-liberal from the start.
Pretty much. Being right-wing is portrayed as being the bad guy in pop culture (though it's slowly becoming the David to the Goliath), so blackpilled communities are naturally painted as such. When you're black pilled all of this stuff is quite transparent.
 
Pretty much. Being right-wing is portrayed as being the bad guy in pop culture (though it's slowly becoming the David to the Goliath), so blackpilled communities are naturally painted as such. When you're black pilled all of this stuff is quite transparent.
But also because although mostly ineffectual and lip service, the rightwing has voiced opposition in the past to taxpayers having to pay for birth control, abortion, tampons, childcare or any other services meant for women. Thing is the rightwing didn't even mean it in a gendered sense but more in an anti big government/anti welfare sense. But liberals at least in western countries have become all about openly pandering to women and requiring others to pay for their personal choices and decisions and insulate them from any negative consequences. So they interpreted it that way and as a "war on women."

What the government doesn't like about men's rights type groups or incels that oppose paying taxes and contributing to society is the same thing they don't like about sovereign citizens. And same for the giddy statist "liberals" that are civilians but still want to make an example out of anyone that opposes them and like to unfairly label those that oppose them as nazi terrorists.
 
Last edited:
But also because although mostly ineffectual and lip service, the rightwing has voiced opposition in the past to taxpayers having to pay for birth control, abortion, tampons, childcare or any other services meant for women. Liberals at least in western countries have become all about openly pandering to women and requiring others to pay for their personal choices and decisions and insulate them from any negative consequences.

What the government doesn't like about men's rights type groups or incels that oppose paying taxes is the same thing they don't like about sovereign citizens. And same for the giddy statist "liberals" that want to make an example out of anyone that opposes them and like to unfairly label those that oppose them as nazi terrorists.
The bolded, I would say, is the most important point. Red pill/black pill communities (but mostly black pill, I think) represent a real danger to the establishment, not just in the form of potential dissidence (active rebellion), but civil disobedience or civil noncompliance (passive rebellion). Active rebellion is easy to deal with (shoot and arrest them). Passive rebellion is more of a challenge. What can governments do when enough men check out of society? Arrest people for LDARing?
 
The bolded, I would say, is the most important point. Red pill/black pill communities (but mostly black pill, I think) represent a real danger to the establishment, not just in the form of potential dissidence (active rebellion), but civil disobedience or civil noncompliance (passive rebellion). Active rebellion is easy to deal with (shoot and arrest them). Passive rebellion is more of a challenge. What can governments do when enough men check out of society? Arrest people for LDARing?
That's why they portray such people with the loosely defined label of "extremist", "dissident", "hateful", "violent", "movement/leaderless movement" to try and scare people about such groups and encourage a crackdown on suspected people that have such views anyway. In addition to that they try and "infiltrate" such groups to make them seem like they are way more dangerous and violent to force the narrative (ie astroturfing by inserting conversations with openly antisemitic and genocidal themes, accusing others of being shills (they do this to Alex Jones all the time with accusing him of being an Israeli shill), accusing people of hating minorities and engaging in dogwhistles without evidence, talking about the need for violence and mocking those that are engaging in passive resistance or want to be peaceful).

Being that a lot of these ""intelligence"" agencies (who weren't "intelligent" enough to prevent events like 9/11 and the boston marathon bombing from occurring) are located in western countries they are also very fond of injecting race and religion into debates, plans and theories that originally the host group did not intend on pushing forward. That's another reason why they love portraying their opposition as white supremacist racists. They are stuck in the culture war of the 1960s and how they used these divisive methods successfully in the past to try and fuck up targeted groups that way with cointelpro ops.

Many here that have coped with politics have probably been surprised initially at the amount of vitriol and misrepresentation directed toward men that distrust police and big government by the media and fear mongering/mocking/blowing out of proportion things about such men that want to remove theirselves from such influence. It should be no surprise then that the same strategies are now aimed at redpill/blackpill communities.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Lv99_BixNood
Replies
18
Views
707
der_komische
der_komische
FrenchSandNigger
Replies
13
Views
505
Julaybib
Julaybib
highschoolcel
Replies
18
Views
777
Jud Pottah
Jud Pottah

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top