Rush Limbaugh Will Sue All The Democrats For Repeating The Words He Said Verbatim

Serial libido killer Rush Limbaugh is making angry noises about maybe suing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because it quoted him accurately. He claims the DCCC defamed him and made him look bad and is trying to hurt his business -- and his feelings -- by accurately quoting a portion of his Sept. 15 radio broadcast, but out of context in a way that might suggest that Rush misses the good old days when you were free to rape any lady you wanted, without any dumb consent laws in the way.

On that particular day, which we obviously have to distinguish from all the other days Rush is complaining about how the PC police have made it so you can't even do any fun stuff anymore without the feminazis getting all upset about it, he was taking issue with a new consent <del>law</del> policy at Ohio State University. According to Rush, the new law "takes all the romance out of everything." And that is one heck of a shame because "seduction used to be an art. Now of course it’s prudish and it’s predatory and it’s bad.” And oops, we have just vomited all over our keyboard.

The real out-of-context quote, however, the one that has Rush ready to sue all the people to defend his honor and integrity, is this lovely thought:

How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that “no” means “yes,” if you know how to spot it?

Now, you might think Rush is suggesting that Real Men know women are all a bunch of totally-asking-for-it teases who are totally asking for it even when they are saying, "No, actually I am not asking for it." In fact, Rush continued with his bemoaning the new restrictions on "romance" and "seduction":

I’m probably -- let me tell you something -- in this modern -- that is simply -- that’s not tolerated. That would not be -- people aren’t even going to try to understand that one. It used to be it was a cliche. Used to be part of the advice young boys were given. But see, that’s what we have gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men.

If you are slightly appalled at the implications of Rush's bloviation on this subject, you are A Idiot, because obviously, that's not what he meant at all. According to his fancy-pants lawyers, who sent a Sternly Worded letter to the DCCC, quoting Rush Limbaugh for fundraising purposes shows a "reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program."

Why do you hate small businesses across America, huh, you lousy Dems? That is why Rush Limbaugh is demanding a retraction and an apology. For America!

The DCCC's reprehensible defamation of Rush Limbaugh is shocking and inexcusable; moreover, it is civilly actionable. [...]

Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously and emphatically condemned the notion that "no means 'yes.'" Mr. Limbaugh expressly stated that such a concept “is simply not tolerated,” prior teaching of this notion must be “change[d],” and “[w]e have got to reprogram the way we raise men so as to eliminate the notion that “‘no’ means ‘yes.’” Mr. Limbaugh could not have been more clear and categorical in his condemnation of the “‘no’ means ‘yes’” concept, and there is no conceivable way to interpret the above quoted text differently.

Well, now it's all clear. Rush Limbaugh is one of the leading voices fighting back against rape culture, and to think otherwise is simply absurd! And actionable! Can you even think of one man who has more respect for women than Rush Limbaugh? No! You cannot! Even that one time when he might have sort have maybe used his radio program to repeatedly, for hours and days on end, call a woman a slut just because she advocated for affordable access to birth control -- well, he already apologized for the liberals forcing him to do that, so why even mention it? In fact, Rush Limbaugh has a long record of condemning sexism and rape and trying to reprogram the way we raise men. It was less than a year ago, in fact, that Rush gave this sound advice to men who might be tempted to inappropriately ogle women:  

So let me offer a first suggestion, the first way to deal with this that came into my mind. You find yourself staring, looking at, casually glancing at a woman, but you know that it’s now socially taboo. You shouldn’t be doing it. And you think everybody is noticing you doing it and condemning you in their minds. You shouldn’t — so you walk up to the woman and say, “Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?”

Try that. Might help. And you don’t know ’til you try it.

Move over, Gloria Steinem, that's somerealfeminist talk for you.

Obviously, we are hoping that the Democrats will stop being so mean and defamatory and apologize immediately for suggesting that Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting sexist pig who tends to speak on behalf of the rapists and sexual harassers and sportsball lady-beaters , when it is just so obvious that his decades of saying the same things over and over and over again have clearly been taken out of context. However, should Democrats choose not to apologize to Limbaugh, and America, we hope Congress will step in quickly to do that tort reform thing they're always talking about, because it would be so tragic for slimy trial lawyers to make a quick buck in the matter ofRush Limbaugh v. Context.

[ WaPo / Brian2400 ]