03-03-2012 04:56 PM - edited 03-03-2012 05:01 PM
Wasn't much there (who is Ace of Spades and why should I care what he says?), but good grief here.
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'd be "embarrassed" and "disconnect the phone," "go into hiding," and "hope the media didn't find me."
What a pity Rush doesn't have a daughter we could pay to testify so.
03-03-2012 04:59 PM
Wasn't much there, but good grief here.
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'd be "embarrassed" and "disconnect the phone," "go into hiding," and "hope the media didn't find me."
What a pity Rush doesn't have a daughter we could pay to testify so.
One has to wonder after 4 marriages, and unknown sexual encounters between wives, why Rush doesn't have any children . . . . .
03-03-2012 05:17 PM
I almost forgot about this.
Someone did the math about how much sex a student must be having to incure the costs that she says they are incuring.
How much sex are they having?
This is horse####!
The way oral contraceptives (otherwise know as "the pill") work is that you have to take it every day for it to work. You have to take one pill every day whether you have sex every day or once a month or once a year. A 30 day supply can cost anywhere from $40 - $100 per month without insurance. Plus you have to pay for a pelvic exam at least once a year, out of pocket, around $200 - $300. These costs don't change regardless of how much sex you have, and they don't include other methods such as condoms or spermicide which would need to be added to prevent STDs.
LOL, I was watching Bill Maher just now, and he suggested the Rush Limbaugh thinks the pill works like Viagra in that you have to take it every time you want to have sex!
03-03-2012 05:42 PM
03-03-2012 06:08 PM
there is so much wrong with that I don't even......
03-03-2012 07:36 PM
This essay is so on point it deserves to actually be printed here in addition to the link you provided:
"So, Sandra Fluke---Georgetown law student---testified in front of Congress about using birth control and the expense. The response from the right is to act like she's the first woman on Earth to have confessed to having sex for reasons other than baby-making, and thus to call her the town dump. I wish I could say I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Rush Limbaugh, who has been married four times and is a well-known fan of taking big bottles of Viagra to the Dominican Republic, said this about Fluke:
LIMBAUGH: 'What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] 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.'
On top of the baffling assertion that there's a direct correlation between the amount of sex you're having and the price of the birth control pill (believe me, they charge you the same whether you're getting laid or not), you of course have the notion that any woman who has sex is a "slut" and a "prostitute". And I mean any. Limbaugh tries to give himself cover by saying the "taxpayer" would be on the hook, but in fact, this is about whether or not insurance plans women pay into should cover their fucking health care. More importantly, the idea that contraception is health care and not just some per-fuck admittance fee for sex has long been established. Conservatives are pretending that Obama is requiring insurance companies to cover something they've never covered before, but in fact, they already cover it. The only thing that this is about is whether or not that coverage should be universal and treated like preventive care, which means offered without a co-pay. For instance, my insurance covers about 40% of the cost now and will, starting in 2013, cover 100%. Since 99% of American women have used contraception and since insurance companies already accept that contraception is a service that should be covered, Limbaugh basically characterized the 99% of American women as "sluts" and "prostitutes". I don't imagine you get a pass if you've only used condoms, either, because roughly 0% of women who use only condoms do so out of some noble unwillingness to accept insurance coverage for their contraception. Additionally, women who only use condoms still get other kinds of health care related to being sexual, such as Pap smears and gynecological consultations on their contraception choices, which, by Limbaugh's logic, puts them firmly in the "slut" and "prostitute" category, since insurance covers that sexuality-related care as well. So I suppose that puts the percentage of American women who are "sluts" at the level All in his world, except maybe a handful of lifelong celibates. And he probably has a few choice, judgmental words for those women, as well.
Which shouldn't be a surprise. Conservatives try to pretend like these blatant anti-woman attitudes are about something other than just seething hatred of women for being female, but this entire contraception debacle has demonstrated that nope, it's just misogyny. For instance, check out the Craig Bannister piece I blogged about at XX Factor today. After going on at length about how women on the pill must all be filthy sluts who spend all day sucking and fucking, Bannister ends his piece with the unapologetic double standard:
'If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should've gone to law school.'
Yep! He trotted out the "if a woman has sex with one man, she will have sex with anyone who asks" line. (Which is, may I remind you, often used to rationalize rape---the "will have sex" turns into "has to have sex, whether she likes it or not" very easily.) I thought I was beyond being surprised by the levels of ignorance, misogyny and prudery that emanate from the right, but nope! Here is a grown ass man who actually still believes that single women can be divided into virgins and "whores"*, and of course still believes that having sex is roughly the worst possible thing a woman can do, a man having sex is just being a man.
To be clear, women are perfectly capable of dishing out the misogyny as well. Female misogynists are a special breed, morons who think they can escape being classified as women---and therefore as filthy whores who don't deserve any respect---if they hate on other women just as much as the male misogynists do. This is a uniquely stupid thing to believe, because not only do they not get a pass (remember, Limbaugh basically classified all women as "sluts" and "prostitutes"), but their male counterparts who are using them are probably laughing at them behind their backs for being such tools. With that in mind, I give you Tina Korbe of Hot Air:
'At one point, Fluke mentions a friend who felt “embarrassed and powerless” when she learned her insurance didn’t cover contraception. Can you imagine how proud and empowered that same friend would be if she learned she has the ability to resist her own sexual urges? We can only assume she doesn’t know that because Fluke and she both labor under the illusion that contraception is a medical necessity.'
Conservatives are their own worst enemy when trying to persuade the rest of us that women (and let's be clear, as the David Albo example proves, they are only referring to women---Albo felt so entitled to sex, he demanded an apology for not getting any) are "empowered" by not having sex for no good reason. After all, if pointless self-deprivation was so empowering, then folks like Korbe wouldn't be trying to push their lifestyle choices on the rest of us in a desperate bid to feel better about themselves by dragging everyone else down. Korbe just comes across as someone who is afraid of sexually satisfied people, because as long as we're walking around and being happy, we're making her look like a fool for depriving herself for no good reason. After all, she describes women who use contraception as "animals", even though in reality, using contraception is one of those things that sets us apart from other animals. In fact, I'd point out that most animals fuck according to the ideal Rick Santorum model: joylessly, infrequently, and only for procreation. Most even wait until the female is ovulating, to minimize the time they spend rutting! If your objective is to not be like other animals, the best strategy is to fuck all the time and take advantage of our unique ability to enjoy sex for its own sake.
Beyond all the hatefulness, prudery, and misogyny is just the plain weirdness of all of this. Reading the right wing reaction to Sandra Fluke, you get the strong impression that they think that a single woman in her mid-20s who is sexually active is some kind of freakish outlier, as if Fluke admitted to being a mercenary with side business in running drugs to pay off law school. In reality, Fluke is as normal and American as apple pie. Being sexually active before marriage is just what people do; 93% of Americans have premarital sex before turning 30. We can safely guess there's no love here for women whose main pregnancy prevention strategy is to only have sex with women. Additionally, since no distinctions between women who use contraception in or out of marriage are being made here, women who use it to have monogamous sex with their husbands are being rolled into the "town dump" category as well, which means that basically, the utterly normal and nearly universal experience of being female is being characterized on the right as something disgusting and beyond the pale. Which is just a long, roundabout way to say they straight up hate women. "
03-03-2012 07:46 PM
03-03-2012 08:04 PM
This "apology" is worthless as it comes only after advertisers pulled out, and not because he had recognized any error in judgment on his own.
And it is inadequate as it dismisses what he did as a "poor word choice" and his "attempt at humor." But he sees no problem with the comparison he made between a woman using birth control and a woman who demands payment for sex. He expressed no regret for his consistently misogynistic treatment of women or willingness to change.
In fact he didn't even recognize, let alone, apologize for the way he attacked her (personally, for being a woman who admits to using contraceptives instead of debating her argument with any merit) or the way he simply dismissed any thing she might have to say by simply labeling her a woman of ill-repute.
There is no indication that he is actually remorseful for the way he treated this woman or that he will not continue to treat women in the same misogynistic way in the future.
The truth is that he will suffer little or no personal repercussions for this, only the latest of egregious offences to women in general and all people who actually care about things like equality and honor, because the people who listen to his show and support him have no problem with the ideas he espouses and spews forth. This behavior is not alarming to them because it is par for the course.
03-03-2012 09:43 PM
"I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
What words would he use if he had meant it to be a personal attack? He tries to make it sound like he didn't keep attacking for for three days straight.
03-03-2012 09:54 PM
A personal attack on women in general, for having icky lady parts?
03-03-2012 10:33 PM
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh apologized to women's contraception activist Sandra Fluke for his "insulting word choices" after calling her a "####" and a "prostitute" after her testimony before Congress.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices," Limbaugh said in a statement released on his website Saturday.
Meanwhile, at least five advertisers have pulled their ads from his show.
Yeah, that's what I'm guessing too. Limbaugh is very, very sorry ... that his show is losing sponsers.
03-04-2012 11:50 PM
4-HBabe wrote:Jingai wrote:
I don't have a problem with her testimony. I have some concerns about the numbers she used, and with some
of the interpretations that others have made based on it, but I have no problem with her testifying. If I had a problem,
would I have gone to the effort of being the only person in the thread to actually find her testimony?
I don't have any problem with someone using contraception. It is well and good to attempt to project other's opinions
on me, but tilting windmills would serve you better in all honesty. No one at all is suggesting that she cannot obtain
Medicine prescribed to her by a doctor, nor is anyone suggesting that rights to equal healthcare access be denied.
Don't engage in hyperbole, it diminishes discussion.
Actually, that is exactly what this debate is about. Congress is trying to pass a law that says it is ok for insurance companies to deny coverage based on religious reasons. So, if you happen to work for a company that considers itself religious you are now saying that women do not have the right to receive medication prescribed by their doctors paid for by their insurance. And what you did was dismiss her testimony as partisan propaganda instead of representative of actual concerns of women in this country.
Actually, the law is specifically to strengthen the First Amendment protections against the government exerting
undue influence on religious institutions. The law would allow for the insurance companies to keep available to
religious institutions plan options which do not include contraceptive coverage. Currently, under the unconstitutional
PPACA, the government is authorized to set benefit and coverage criteria on all policies, which is what started this
to begin with. The Government issued a mandate, which Churchs found to be against their religious beliefs. This
mandate is in conflict with the 1st Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. If the mandate were to
go into effect, the Churches would end up paying for insurance coverage which would include services and products
that they find objectionable. An individual company's policy position is not going to be relevant, because it is
specifically Churches which are protected. And again, in no way was her ability to obtain contaception denied
by Georgetown University.
So, it is alright for a religion to not condone certain things, but that religion has to pay for someone else to use those
same things, and that is equality? That doesn't sound very equal to me, and the facts clearly demonstrate that that is
not the case at all. The idea that somehow a religious exemption is infringing on someone's rights is utterly specious.
It is a false narrative advanced to further the eroding of the Constitution and the equal protections it guarantees.
No one is asking any "religion" to pay for anything. These institutions which are loosely affiliated with a religion,and do not include being a member of their religion as a condition of employment should be held to the same standards as all employers in this country. These are not religious schools or hospitals, and the majority of their employees do not share their religious beliefs. Further, it doesn't cost them any thing to allow their insurance plan to cover birth control.
Insurance companies charge both the individual and the institution providing the policy. Georgetown insurance experienced an increase in 10.2% in FY2011, including the costs of student health insurance, which is a pass through cost for the university, that is, it is passed along directly to the students. Increasing the coverage level
will increase the costs of the insurance, further exaserbating the financial plight of the female students at Georgetown, making Ms. Fluke's entire exercise moot.
She got a call from President Downgrade. You seem to share her beliefs, have you gotten a call from President Downgrade? If you have, cool, but I suspect you haven't. You are a smart person, I'm sure if you think about it
you'll figure out what an Obamunist is. It isn't really that hard, but I'm not in the mood tonight.
The President called her after the fact to apologize for the way she had been treated by Limbaugh. Because, unlike Limbaugh, the President is a man of integrity. What does that have to do with anything? It didn't have any bearing on her testimony and it certainly doesn't in any way excuse Limbaugh's characterization of her. So, the use of the work "Obamunist" is to imply that anyone who happens to have similar beliefs to those of the President is a communist? I'm not sure what the point of this entire paragraph is. It certainly has no bearing on the point of the argument other than to insult the President. So, good job there?
I'm curious, did the President ever call Gov. Palin after Bill Maher used an extremely derogatory insult in reference to her? Did he call and apologize to Laura Ingrahm, after Ed Schultz used the exact same derogatory slur that Mr. Limbaugh did? Perhaps he was busy apologizing across the globe, but I'm pretty sure he has long distance and international on Air Force 1. Seems like his integrity is somewhat haphazard in its application.
I've already explained that, but I suppose I'll have to repeat myself, despite my general disdain for doing so.
Ms. Fluke attended Georgetown University law school knowing that contraceptives were not covered under its student health insurance. She spend her time at Georgetown attempting to have the policy of the University
changed to include contraceptive services in the student health care plans. To suggest that she was somehow an
unknowing victim of this lack of coverage is specious at best.
She never claimed to be "an unknowing victim." It is not fair for any employer to assert its religious beliefs on its employees, and she is actively trying to change that. If it were entirely funded by the Catholic Church then maybe they could make a case for denying medical coverage to their employees under the guise of religious freedom. But the University receives most of its income from the tuition of its students (the majority of whom are not Catholic) and from the government just like any university.
She isn't an employee, she is a student. She is also free to get coverage in the private market. Georgetown University actually gets a fair bit of funding from various sources, outlined on its fiscal report, but aside from that,
students pay the direct co-pay portion for their insurance. Simply put, if Ms. Fluke got her demand met, and had the
additional cost of $1000 for C.S. added to the policy coverage, that cost would be split in half between the
University and the students. This would worsen the financial impact on the female students, which seems to
be the whole point that Ms. Fluke is trying to alleviate, according to her testimony.
You're lucky I like you, or I wouldn't bother to repeat myself so much.
No where in this thread have I said that calling her derogatory names is acceptable. I have repeatedly repudiated
those who have done so. It is unacceptable behavior.
Actually, because she knew ahead of time that it would not be covered, it does make it right of them to not cover it.
That is the policy, she knew it well beforehand, by her own admission. What she is now doing is attempting to compel
a religious institution to do something that is expressly against its teachings, which, as a law student, she should know
is against the First Amendment of the Constitution. Maybe she should take Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 course,
she can still enroll at rushforhillsdale dotcom. It is free, for the record.
By this logic it was ok for southern universities to deny entrance to black students in the 60's because they knew ahead of time that they wouldn't be allowed in. If I recall they tried to use religious beliefs to justify slavery and prevent segregation too. Was it an infringement on their religious rights to force them to recognize racial equality? Just because this is their stated policy does not make it right. And it doesn't mean that the women who are effected by that policy should just shut up and deal with it. It is not a religious institution. It is a University that has loose historical ties to the Catholic Church. No one is trying to make the Catholic Church give birth control to the nuns. The first amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another. Allowing this university and other employers to deny health care coverage to their employees favors their religious beliefs over those of their employees.
You should enroll in Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 web course. A religious exemption from providing
coverage does not violate an employee's right to free exercise of religion, which is what the 1st Amendment
protects. The 1st Amendment enjoins the Government from compelling a religious institute to act in a manner
contrary to its religious beliefs. Compelling a Church to provide coverage is a violation, the Church choosing
not to provide coverage is not. Again, at no time was anyone barred from finding or otherwise obtaining coverage.
Ah, speaking of finances, this is an excellent teachable moment to demonstrate precisely why, from a fiscal standpoint,
the government shouldn't be involved in this at all. Ms. Fluke wanted $1000 a year from the government for costs for her
birth control pills. Planned parenthood has birth control pills for $600 a year. Wal-mart sells generic pills for $60 a year.
The direct expense to the government is a whopping 16 times more expensive, Planned Parenthood, which is subsidized
by the government is ten times more expensive. This might be why almost a third of the nation's budget is health-care related.
I don't even know where to start with this. Walmart sells some generic brand contraceptives at a discounted price. These options do not include the majority of birth control prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Also, these older type contraceptives (that have been around long enough to be offered in generic form) are stronger concentrations and have a much higher incidence of complications. The newer medications that work with lower dosing are considerably more expensive. Plus, in order to receive a prescription for birth control a woman has to have a yearly pelvic exam which this insurance also will not cover if it is for the purposes of obtaining birth control. That is an additional yearly cost of $200-300. Further, the pill is not the only type of birth control prescribed by a doctor. There is the patch, the nuvo ring, depo shots and low dose hormone secreting IUDs, all of which have been used for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy, and all of which cost a lot more than $60 a year.
Second, it is not the responsibility of clinics like Planned Parenthood (That wouldn't even exist if people like Limbaugh had their way) to provide medical care to people who have insurance but are denied coverage due to the religious beliefs of their employers. These clinics exist to help people who do not have insurance and have no other means of obtaining care, and they are financially over-burdened to the point of breaking as it is. Not to mention continually loosing funding as congress comes up with ever more ways to make sure that no federal money ever finds its way to an abortion no matter how winding the journey. Also, NO ONE IS ASKING FOR MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT! Where did this rumor come from? She is asking for the insurance that SHE PAYS FOR to cover her medical care.
$600/year, the highest cost listed on Planned Parenthood's website, is roughly in line with the yearly costs
associated with other forms of contraception, save prophylactics. While not the only source, various clinics
and other health service providers are available, P.P is the largest, and markets itself to this niche extensively.
Federal law expressly forbids the use of Federal Taxpayer money to fund abortions. Congress is doing its due dilligence to ensure this is followed. If that puts strain on Planned Parenthood, then, while unfortunate, that is
Ms. Fluke gets her insurance from Georgetown University, which has a policy that contraceptive services are not covered. Ms. Fluke knew this well ahead of time. The insurance she received from Georgetown covered exactly
what she paid for. The conflict is not in coverage denied, but in additional coverage wanted free of charge, which
is something the University cannot afford.
Regarding the women who have financial difficulty, I've already demonstrated that the costs are not nearly
as astronomical as Ms. Fluke is implying, further Planned Parenthood has low income options which would
cover the students, and sixty bucks a year isn't exactly an insurmountable debt. Students attending the university
know in advance, this is one of the consequences of the choice to attend a private school. This is an issue of
personal responsibility, not an issue of health care. It isn't a secret, Ms. Fluke found out about it with no difficulty,
she simply doesn't want to accept the individual responsibility for having to find an alternative means of obtaining
coverage or paying for contraception.
Let me be clear, there is a difference between having a birth control pill being prescribed to a patient to relieve
a medical condition, and taking to birth control pill to "get it in" without worry of pregnancy. I have no problem with
tax dollars going to cover or assist women in getting a prescription filled for a birth control pill to relieve a medical condition,
but I don't think it is appropriate for my tax dollars to subsidize someone's trips to the smush room. There is a big
difference between the two.
No. There is no difference. If a doctor prescribes a medication to her patient the insurance company should not be allowed to deny payment based on religious reasons. Putting conditions on gaining access to birth control infringes on the rights of women and is the definition of inequality in health care. "Get it in?" I'm not even responding to this childishness. Again, NO ONE IS ASKING FOR YOUR TAX DOLLARS. This debate is about insurance companies providing the care their customers are paying for. These types of juvenile statements about smush room trips and the like only serve to further perpetuate out dated stereotypes that women who use birth control are sex maniacs. Maybe that's why Rush called her a ####, but I thought you were better than that.
Insurance companies do not deny coverage based on religion. The insurance provider determines the level
of coverage that is included in the policy. The PPACA gives the government the authority to compel insurance
companies to include certain items. The conflicthowever is that because the costs for the policies are shared
by both the individual and the group provider, both parties pay an equal share.
Georgetown University allows its students to obtain a waiver from the insurance cost, if they provide their own
insurance policy. Further, people can purchase supplemental policies on the private market, often for relatively
cheap yearly rates. These policies, between private person and provider, would cover costs associated with the
coverage they provide. In short, they can get private insurance to cover what Georgetown doesn't.
03-04-2012 11:59 PM
The unsubsidized insurance the University offers is still paid for by the University, in that the University
accrues a charge for the policy which is passed on to the students directly. The University pays for the coverage,
the students simply pay back the University in full. Thus, it isn't a student's private policy, it is a University policy
which is purchased by the University and then the costs associated are passed along. It is a subtle but important
difference. This policy costs, for the record, went up by 10% in the last year, so the argument that Ms. Fluke is
making, that female students are being harmed financially because they don't have this coverage, becomes
The additional costs, $1000 a year, would be accrued by the University, and passed along to the students, thus
increasing the insurance costs of the female students. the whole point of her testimony was to illustrate
how this lack of coverage was causing female students to experience undue financial burden, yet if she has
her way, all students, male and female, will experience an equal and equivalent additional financial cost associated
with the increased coverage.
03-05-2012 01:29 AM - edited 03-05-2012 01:31 AM
But it won't be $1000 a year per student, since the costs are spread among all the insured, and not all students will use it. Insurance companies don't charge everyone $100,000 a year because they cover open heart surgery. They really ought not to increase the cost of the insurance based on that alone anyway, since it's a pretty minor expense compared to other things covered routinely.
And since the University doesn't have a problem providing this insurance to its faculty and staff, it has forfeited the claim that this is a religious issue, since the church's doctrine is no birth control, period, not no birth control for students, married or otherwise.
Finally, if the University is passing along 100% of the premiums, the distinction you raise is meaningless.
03-05-2012 01:38 AM
He's actually pretty sharp.
For a republican.
But seriously, it can be difficult to debate an entire thread full of people who are all heatedly arguing with you. And he does it without calling people stupid or turning it into a personal fight. Even though I disagree with most of what he says, his behavior is still commendable.
03-05-2012 09:23 AM
03-05-2012 11:32 AM
03-05-2012 12:01 PM - edited 03-05-2012 12:02 PM
Glad you mentioned that.
Also, one thing that's also being overlooked in this debate is that these are law school students we're talking about, not 18-22 year old undergrads. Most of these students are pushing 30 and many are nearing 40. Some already have families to support while going to school.
Although that shouldn't make any difference to the argument, it kind of cast a different light on the "oh, these young co-eds (who says co-eds anymore? oO) are just girls gone wild that should wait to have sex" argument. How long are they supposed to wait, especially the married ones?
03-05-2012 12:41 PM
For the record, here is an updated lists of advertisers that have decided to cancel sponsorship to The Rush Limbaugh Show:
“Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program.” Sleep Train Mattress Centers
"Due to continued inflammatory comments– along w/valuable feedback from clients & team members– QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program.” Quicken Loans
“We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately.” Citrix
“As of today, LegalZoom has suspended all advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show.” Legal Zoom
“Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program." Sleep Number
"Mr. Limbaugh’s recent comments went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company. As such, ProFlowers has suspended advertising on The Rush Limbaugh radio program." ProFlowers
“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.” Carbonite (this is one of the companies that Limbaugh personally promotes by reading a script on his show)
"We have monitored the unfolding events and have determined that Mr. Limbaugh’s comments are not in line with our values. As a result we have made the decision to suspend advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Radio show." AOL
"Thank you for your comments and concerns. We have decided to join other advertisers and suspend our sponsorship of The Rush Limbaugh Show." Tax Resolution (this is a company that prominently features pictures of, and an endorsement by, Limbaugh on its website)
TM & © 2013 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
AdultSwim.com is part of Turner Entertainment Digital which is part of the Turner Sports & Entertainment Digital Network.