Appalling slur from Stephen Colbert against Rush Limbaugh.

Colbert claimed on his show that Limbaugh would do anything with his mouth for money.

Clearly this is not true. Limbaugh hasn't made an unequivocal apology in order to get back his departed sponsors or to keep the existing ones. In fact he's reiterated the basic charges he first made.

Good for him for sticking to his principles, what ever he says they are. Colbert's claim u true and slanderous, surely.

That's real leadership, and God knows the GOP needs some of that...

I do not know these people of whom you speak. Are they footballers?

Surely you are trying poorly here to get a rise from people.. you surely cannot be so politically messed up in the head as to agree with Limbaugh.

I think you will find that Limbaugh has apologised, has backtracked although just stopping short of the Republican favourite... the flip-flop.

If this man was a Muslim there is no way on earth his show would be on the radio. The fact that he panders to the red necked American and is a Christian is the only reason he is still on radio. Heaven knows, if there is one the 'Middle-America' loves its someone who spews either racial or religious crap all day and falls on the right of the political divide.

Surely, he is ...

Have you been in the US for so long that you no longer recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Worse, I am surrounded by republicans, deal with a lot of politically right leaning people...

Losing my mind dealing with these dullards!!!

Me too - it is tiring sometimes, isn't it?

I'm glad she didn't accept his so called apology.

Obviously not THAT poorly...!

But to your specific question - no, not looking to get a rise out of people per se - but a response? Yes..., and no, pretty sure my head isn't so messed up in that regard - though probably is in other regards...

He had his behind his back when he made it.

I held back but here I go.

The point of his commentary is about the matter of insurance for birth control. The girl is an activist, and some of her figures are wonky. She is also at Georgetown U, not a community college. Also, the fact that free birth control is available through already established programs in this country. For those with the "rare" conditions she "testified" too, I am sure there are options. The Draconian idea she outlined, is a bit over the top. Just like Limbaugh, but isn't that both their point?

I do prefer Colbert to Limbaugh, for entertainment value, and I agree Limbaugh can be a sanctimonious P..>K, and I hate him pimping his damn tea, give it a break dude. I am not a ditto head BTW, but do listen while driving sometimes.

If you are surrounded by Republicans, I guess you all make a pretty good living or you are employed? Just kidding.

Let the Flames begin.....

Brits don't find the provision of free contraception 'draconian', so I think they are puzzled more than anything by the US approach.

By Draconian, I meant these poor Georgetown law students (extensive cost of University: another issue), are so destitute they cannot afford birth control to prevent pregnancy. They are the 1% or at least top 25%, just getting accepted in that program is a significant achivement academically and guarentees a fat pay check at graduation. It is a Catholic School that they chose to attend. Typical Americans (I am one) want their cake and eat it too. That is like complaining about crucifixes in the college, IMHO.

Sorry for the edit, but it is a Private College not a Public or state run institution. They can make their own rules if the government does not subsidize them.

Culturally, I know what you mean. My wife had this debate with a US professor in her Ethics class, UK vs. US. He is rabbibidly pro-life. She also introduced the recent Australian Ethics Professors arguement on "post-birth abortions" if you haven't seen that one. All in all a big mess either way.

If the fundemental question goes back to full public health care then another debate ensues.

Actually you weren't kidding. You live in Texas; that means you're naturally surrounded by Republicans whether or not you're employed.

Disclaimer: I am a native Texan, not a Brit.

It doesn't have to go that far.

It isn't hard to make the case that it is in the public interest (from a purely financial standpoint if nothing else) to make contraception freely available to everyone in order to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies (which have a disproportionately high chance of costing the state money at some point in the future ...)

That could be the case for eugenics, just saying (that is in the finacial arguement). "The government does not want the lower class to reproduce and therefore provides birth control free to them."

I do agree that it should be available to those that chose, but also free will, if they do not want to have a child they can abstain from certain forms of "sex" as defined by our previous President (Clinton).