Limbaugh apologizes to law student fo...

Limbaugh apologizes to law student for insult on sex, says he intended no personal attack

There are 1245 comments on the 680News story from Mar 3, 2012, titled Limbaugh apologizes to law student for insult on sex, says he intended no personal attack. In it, 680News reports that:

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 680News.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#1313 Mar 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already posted, Darling.
And it's 70 ***MILLION**.
No one is expecting for you to admit you are wrong, my dear.
You did not post any facts to back up your post. Try again. Just saying it doesn't make it true. LMAO

Or is it that you can't??????????
no big O

Romeoville, IL

#1314 Mar 23, 2012
LoveInTheFamily wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not post any facts to back up your post. Try again. Just saying it doesn't make it true. LMAO
Or is it that you can't??????????
Just saying it doesn't make it true.

It does if you are a liberal....

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1315 Mar 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, darling, they used numbers that are released by the FEC as soon as they get them.
Why are you trying to p[ut the blame on OpenSecrets: you ran you big mouth and have been proved wrong.
Same thing. the fact is they wait till the information is in BEFORE they put it up on their site.
Now if you posted a link to back up you assertion to a REPUTABLE source I must have missed it.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1317 Mar 24, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>One thing about Sharpton: Why is he still allowed to be a host on MSNBC when he is leading protests? I'm no O'Reilly fan, but imagine if he were out there stirring it up in the streets.
I have to agree with you regarding this point. And I don't either watch him on MSNBC, nor feel he ever deserved the position. Much too radical for me.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1318 Mar 24, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well.........he's not black enough.
STFU you clueless azzhole - who was talking to you?

I have no qualms speaking and debating intelligently with any conservative - we all, regardless of ideology, have something of value to offer. But not you - you're a divisive, lying, spamming POS - go the fcuk away already will you?
George Jefferson Hilliard

“Accept No Substitutes”

Since: Oct 11

Millbury, OH

#1319 Mar 24, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with you regarding this point. And I don't either watch him on MSNBC, nor feel he ever deserved the position. Much too radical for me.
It's very disturbing. But MSNBC will claim that they're not biased. Well, the appearance of bias is certainly there. So is the president weighing in on the matter at this stage (beyond a statement saying that the death of any young person is a tragedy.) Black on black youth violence claims dozens of lives weekly, but the president doesn't comment on them.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1320 Mar 24, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>It's very disturbing. But MSNBC will claim that they're not biased. Well, the appearance of bias is certainly there. So is the president weighing in on the matter at this stage (beyond a statement saying that the death of any young person is a tragedy.) Black on black youth violence claims dozens of lives weekly, but the president doesn't comment on them.
MSNBC was hired al Sharpton because while all their talking heads where saying how racist conservative where. it was pointed out that they hade the Least amount of people of color on the air.. Bill O'Reily had almost twice the number of woman and minorities guest as the now departed Olbermann.( Not sure how many women and minorities Olbermaann now has on Current TV)

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1321 Mar 24, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>It's very disturbing. But MSNBC will claim that they're not biased. Well, the appearance of bias is certainly there. So is the president weighing in on the matter at this stage (beyond a statement saying that the death of any young person is a tragedy.) Black on black youth violence claims dozens of lives weekly, but the president doesn't comment on them.
The only news network that has ever claimed to be "unbiased" and "fair and balanced" is in fact Fox News.

MSNBC has "Morning Joe" - a former republican senator as host. Many of the others who have shows have either been directly involved with a given president, but yes, the bias leans left, as Fox vehemently claims they do not, but all shows indicate leaning far right.

You want to eradicate this problem? I know I most definitely do - the only way is to reverse Reagan's ruling regarding truth in media. The reversal of the "Fairness Doctrine" has created a poisonous and toxic atmosphere within our society.
George Jefferson Hilliard

“Accept No Substitutes”

Since: Oct 11

Millbury, OH

#1322 Mar 24, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only news network that has ever claimed to be "unbiased" and "fair and balanced" is in fact Fox News.
MSNBC has "Morning Joe" - a former republican senator as host. Many of the others who have shows have either been directly involved with a given president, but yes, the bias leans left, as Fox vehemently claims they do not, but all shows indicate leaning far right.
You want to eradicate this problem? I know I most definitely do - the only way is to reverse Reagan's ruling regarding truth in media. The reversal of the "Fairness Doctrine" has created a poisonous and toxic atmosphere within our society.
The "Fairness Doctrine" resulted in a completely one-sided media before 1987. It's blatantly unconstitutional. But don't forget, even if it were reinstated, it wouldn't apply to cable or satellite, just over the air broadcasting.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#1323 Mar 24, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>The "Fairness Doctrine" resulted in a completely one-sided media before 1987. It's blatantly unconstitutional. But don't forget, even if it were reinstated, it wouldn't apply to cable or satellite, just over the air broadcasting.
As a political science major, I have to disagree with you regarding you assessment of the Fairness Doctrine.

Although your assessment of cable and satellite are correct, Reagan really got this ball rolling during his deregulation era, hiring FCC chairman Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, and referred to as the "Wyatt Erpp" of the FCC, he referred to television as "a toaster with pictures" - but in fact, the Fairness Doctrine did not dictate one sided media - it's mission was to ensure that any given media outlet "had to air opposing viewpoints" - in essence, stating a network could not strictly promote its own "views", but give opposing viewpoints a chance to be heard.
It is in no way a one sided issue - maybe further reading into the implications of this would behove you.
George Jefferson Hilliard

“Accept No Substitutes”

Since: Oct 11

Millbury, OH

#1324 Mar 24, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
As a political science major, I have to disagree with you regarding you assessment of the Fairness Doctrine.
Although your assessment of cable and satellite are correct, Reagan really got this ball rolling during his deregulation era, hiring FCC chairman Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, and referred to as the "Wyatt Erpp" of the FCC, he referred to television as "a toaster with pictures" - but in fact, the Fairness Doctrine did not dictate one sided media - it's mission was to ensure that any given media outlet "had to air opposing viewpoints" - in essence, stating a network could not strictly promote its own "views", but give opposing viewpoints a chance to be heard.
It is in no way a one sided issue - maybe further reading into the implications of this would behove you.
Well, that would certainly put the news divisions of ABC, CBS and NBC out of business today.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1325 Mar 24, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only news network that has ever claimed to be "unbiased" and "fair and balanced" is in fact Fox News.
MSNBC has "Morning Joe" - a former republican senator as host. Many of the others who have shows have either been directly involved with a given president, but yes, the bias leans left, as Fox vehemently claims they do not, but all shows indicate leaning far right.
You want to eradicate this problem? I know I most definitely do - the only way is to reverse Reagan's ruling regarding truth in media. The reversal of the "Fairness Doctrine" has created a poisonous and toxic atmosphere within our society.
Well if past history tell biase or not , one of Fox news main anchor Neill Cavuto worked for Jimmy Carter.
and the fairness doctrine was needed when we had a totel of three networks to chose from for our news. today there are hundreds of choices for our news. In truth Fox news is not a massive giant, its just the biggest pygmy in the jungle .Compare the percentage of the US audience that Fox draws to what Walter Cronkite drew back in the 60's

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#1326 Mar 25, 2012
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU you clueless azzhole - who was talking to you?
I have no qualms speaking and debating intelligently with any conservative - we all, regardless of ideology, have something of value to offer. But not you - you're a divisive, lying, spamming POS - go the fcuk away already will you?
Here's a hanky......now soof.
missy

Glen Ellyn, IL

#1327 Mar 25, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>It's very disturbing. But MSNBC will claim that they're not biased. Well, the appearance of bias is certainly there. So is the president weighing in on the matter at this stage (beyond a statement saying that the death of any young person is a tragedy.) Black on black youth violence claims dozens of lives weekly, but the president doesn't comment on them.
That's because obama is racist along with his hideous wife.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1328 Mar 25, 2012
George Jefferson Hilliard wrote:
<quoted text>The "Fairness Doctrine" resulted in a completely one-sided media before 1987. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
Except that the ***US SUPREME COURT*** voted 8 to ZERO that it was completely constitutional, ScrotumSniff.

I guess your $69 internet degree didn't cover constitutional law...
Oh really

Scottsbluff, NE

#1329 Mar 25, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that the ***US SUPREME COURT*** voted 8 to ZERO that it was completely constitutional, ScrotumSniff.
I guess your $69 internet degree didn't cover constitutional law...
"The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."
no big O

Romeoville, IL

#1330 Mar 25, 2012
Oh really wrote:
<quoted text>
"The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."
Oh Reall... I don't know if you are new to this thread or not but if you are let me give you a piece of advice... do not give facts or be logical w barefoot.... she wont understand logic, and facts are irrelevant to her...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1331 Mar 25, 2012
Oh really wrote:
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time
Fairness Doctrine = 8 to 0.

I am responsible for what I say, not what you rewrite me into what you think I said.
Demorrhoids in Action

AOL

#1332 Mar 26, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fairness Doctrine = 8 to 0.
I am responsible for what I say, not what you rewrite me into what you think I said.
Whaaaaaaaaaaa wah wah, mommy, someone rewrote me!

Quick, give me my pacifier...Wah wah wah...
limbaughs weepy boil

United States

#1333 Mar 26, 2012
Demorrhoids in Action wrote:
<quoted text>Whaaaaaaaaaaa wah wah, mommy, I don't wanna go to war!
Quick, give me my pacifier...Wah wah wah...
Limbaugh remains a coward. Today he hides behind a mic in a fortified compound. He'll never be a real, free American.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Georgetown University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News U.S. Senate Democrats may refuse to vote on Tru... May 24 Red Crosse 114
News Gadhafi: U.S. should seek peace with bin Laden (Feb '09) Apr '17 Putin warns T ramp 53
News Islamic Georgetown Prof Offers Tortured Defense... Mar '17 Texxy 1
News What's Wrong with Slavery and Rape? Feb '17 Rabbeen Al Jihad 5
News The slippery slope to Trump's ban on Muslims (Dec '15) Feb '17 Rocky 2
News John Carroll University should change name, div... Jan '17 JCU Streak 1
News Political ignorance and the election (Nov '16) Nov '16 Trumpobots 25
More from around the web