Rush Limbaugh: Shoot Women Who Want Abortions?

Rush Limbaugh lives off of remarks like this. It gets him in the news, and keeps people talking about him. Unfortunately, his follower are stupid enough to believe these remarks.

Rush Limbaugh advocating violence against women? I'm not surprised. It's the kind of thing we should expect from people who refer to abortion as "baby murder", etc. From people like Bill O'Reilly who referred to Dr. George Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" before he was murdered by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder.

The history of anti-abortion violence (a form of domestic terrorism) in the US is deeply disturbing, and the violent rhetoric spewed by people like Limbaugh shouldn't be ignored.

Cheryl and Randall Sullenger went to prison in 1988 for conspiring to blow up the Alavarado Medical Center abortion clinic.

David Trosch was a Catholic priest who insisted that killing abortion providers was justifiable homicide.

James Charles Copp is an anti-abortion activist who is currently serving 25 to life for murdering abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian.

Shelly Shannon is an anti-abortion activist who was convicted of attempted murder for shooting Dr. Tiller in both arms in 1993.

And the list goes on and on.

I am not encouraging violence, but maybe we would be better off if someone aborted Rush Limbaugh. That would be one way to shut him up.

That there are ignorant, violent people like Limbaugh around to say incredibly offensive things like that is no surprise. What is shocking is that anyone who would say things like that would find an audience and be given air time. The people who really should feel ashamed, as it is clear Limbaugh is immune to shame, are those who listen to the moron.

"The people who really should feel ashamed, as it is clear Limbaugh is immune to shame, are those who listen to the moron."

And so should the people who pay him to say it.

I agree with both comments.

You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun

As you will note the subject of the first sentence is "abortion" not the woman or person performing the abortion, therefore the subject of the second sentence as indicated by the phrase "each one" is still abortion.
Now you can debate the callousness of the method of abortion, be it tongs and dissection, medical overdose, partial birth/brain suction or, as Rush suggested, use of a gun but in any case the result will always be the same ... another innocent baby is murdered.

The point is that in no truthful reading of the sentence can you get to "Rush Limbaugh: Shoot women who want abortions?".

You can when you understand that the fetus that would be shot, with a bullet fired from a gun, would be inside a woman's body.

Okay, Eric, describe exactly how one performs an abortion with a gun without shooting the mother. Genius.

For those of you that talk about a subject without all of the information, the term is "partial birth abortion". In this procedure fetus is partially extracted from the mother and then executed, normally by fatal incision to the neck.
The substituting of a small caliber handgun for the scalpel would result in the same outcome.

Thanks for asking. Now you are up to speed on this topic.

... and just to be more informative, Oblama is fully supportive of partial birth abortion.

lol watch Eric squirm and start bringing up unrelated points..


lolz

I've been totally on topic of abortion methodology.

What is unrelated?

the fact that your ranting about partial-birth abortions has nothing to do with performing an abortion with a gun or SUGGESTING it as Rush Limbaugh has done.

Next?

The method of abortion was never restricted to in utero, either by Rush or by you. You also never proscribed injury to the mother but I took that into account based on your tone.

The method as described above, partial birth aborton, satisfies the criteria of aborting a viable fetus with a small caliber handgun without injuring the mother in the process.

How is this not on topic?

It's on topic, but it's also similar to screaming about the rand corporation putting electrodes in the brains of blue eyed babies. It's nonsensical and invalid.

Nonsensical and invalid, just like all of Eric's postings.

You quoted Limbaugh's statement, but maybe you didn't understand it.

"You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."

The "each one" is the key to understanding why your comments about "partial birth abortions" don't work. Each abortion. Not each "partial birth abortion". True, the method of abortion was never restricted to in utero, but it's clear that it included in utero abortions. So it's clear that what Limbaugh was calling for was for shooting fetuses while they were inside a woman's body. Or, in short, for shooting women.

CH :
You presented an article with a quotation and a mis-leading headline. If you don't want debate and only validation you should just use a headline that states your hatred for Mr. Limbaugh and offer no attempts at justification. The fact that you deliberately mis-interpreted the quote to use as a headline is disingenuous.
For example if the headline was "Rush Limbaugh:Abort babies with a gun" I would not argue about the headline.

And just to clarify for all the low information posters, I am NOT defending what Rush said. I am only trying to get accurate headlines to articles.

You presented an article with a quotation and a mis-leading headline.

No I didn't -- and nobody else appears to think so either. You appear to be the only person struggling with the reading comprehension needed to understand the title and story.

Will B: now you are using your own bias to interpret the sentence.
Rush has 3 hours to talk. If he had wanted to say the word "each" or "every" or "in utero" in his statement he probably would have.
It would be just as valid to say that, even though he did not say it, "Rush thinks every abortion should be partial birth and the use of a handgun should be included". Equally valid interpretation of two vague sentences.

P.s. Eric -- my posts aren't written to the specifications of whether or not you will "argue about the headline." I think I've had issues with you before mis-comprehending things that other readers do not. This is a habit with you, and I think it's about time you realize that you might be the problem and not the non-issues that you constantly complain about.

rush limbaugh fans are barely amusing...

"Duh, he wasn't saying to shoot women. He might have been saying to pull the fetus halfway out of the birth canal and shoot it in the head" -- yeah, that's some excellent reasoning and totally makes his quote less offensive (sarcasm).

CH : As I said, I understand your article. Basically you hate Rush Limbaugh and will this forum to post your interpretations of his statements as your justification for the hatred. I get it. I get it.
This is not the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.

Eric. I realize reading is very hard for some.. but do try very hard.. pretend this is school and getting an "A" is the difference between you getting an extra dessert or no dessert at all, okay? Now try hard:

"You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."

Do you get it? He said nothing about any particular form of abortion. Your desperate and long-winded attempt at trying to justify or change what he said is a failure. Period. Each abortion, not just "partial birth" abortions. EACH abortion. Not every abortion is partial birth. In fact, YOU are the only one who has this strange out-of-left-field hangup on the partial birth abortion concept as far as this entire situation/article/discussion thread is going. Your argument, again, is a nonpoint. And nothing more than another example of desperation on the side of those who actually follow the likes of Limbaugh. Period.

Eric S Jan 20, 2013, 5:00pm EST
CH : As I said, I understand your article. Basically you hate Rush Limbaugh and will this forum to post your interpretations of his statements as your justification for the hatred. I get it. I get it.
This is not the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.


Sadly, Eric. You're the only person on this thread who does not get it. Or you do get it and are being purposely disingenuous. Neither would surprise me.

I'll tell you what I "get" by your various comments on this thread (and others). You appear to look up to people like Rush Limbaugh and despise it when people point out their actual quotes while sharing the actual implications of the things they say. You feel threatened when your heroes and idols are exposed for the living garbage they are and you lash out at people who share in the general opinion that these people are garbage (i.e. Rush Limbaugh and his kind) and while doing so you publicly display a lack of comprehension of basic English grammar and prose while further revealing your motives and shared personality of those you idolize.

But do continue commenting and flinging your typical poo -- I get revenue every time you show up and your nonsense sure does appear to entertain those who DON'T have a problem comprehending what's laid out in front of them.

Get it it now?

It's not that Eric can't understand it, Chelsea, although clearly he is not the brightest bulb on the tree. It is that he doesn't want to understand it. He wants to pretend there is some other meaning he can claim that Limbaugh intended other than "let's shoot women who want abortions".

Denial, it ain't just a river.

CH : As I said, I understand the purpose of your article. Basically, you hate conservatives in general and Rush Limbaugh specifically and will use this forum to post your interpretations of his statements as your justification for the hatred. I get it. I get it.

The fact that my post was deleted four times before you allowed it to stand tells me why there are no other opposing viewpoints. Plain and simple, you censor out opposition and accept only validation.
Patting yourself on the back for having only like minded followers because you squelched all opposition is not validation.

Have fun in your tiny little echo chamber.

1. Your post was deleted because it was nonsensical. I finally decided to let it stand BECAUSE I knew it wouldn't garner any support, and I hoped that you would see the err in posting it after that. I guess you're oblivious to that, still.

2. Your incorrect statements of me hating conservatives doesn't have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh saying pregnant women should have abortions performed with guns. You're making ad hominem and unrelated (snide) comments because you are without a foot to stand on in this argument. As Rory said in comment 5:19, you are trying so hard to pretend his quote has another meaning that you're just making yourself look bad -- and attacking people and making definitive statements that are incorrect about others' character only further shows how petty you are and how unequipped you are to be a part of this discussion.

"It would be just as valid to say that, even though he did not say it, "Rush thinks every abortion should be partial birth and the use of a handgun should be included". Equally valid interpretation of two vague sentences."

The key difference in those two sentences is that one is something Limbaugh actually said, and the other is just something you made up in what I consider to be a fairly desperate attempt to come up with something that you can twist enough to fit your rather bizarre interpretation of Limbaugh's statement.

What's the problem?

Hm. So...abortions should occur with a gun? Thus killing both the fetus and the woman?

...and this is a pro-life statement....how?

My question of 11:07 was in reference to something else.

Are you now answering the voices in your head in this forum?

Eric

What's the problem?

That's an easy question to answer, YOU !!!

Remember when Shirley Sherrod was judged and fired for not just one but quite a few sentences? She was berated by the NAACP and fired from her government job. She then became a martyr because the whole speech cleared her of the knee jerk judgments made the idiots at NAACP and big government.

I would love to hear the whole Limbaugh conversation...

"I would love to hear the whole Limbaugh conversation..."

What exactly is it that you feel is holding you back?

Limbaugh Transcript, Jan 16, 2013

I looked, it's late, and I am tired but I didn't see the sentence Chelsea posted as proof Limbaugh wants to shoot women who get abortions. There was noting there. Obviously you are a Limbaugh enthusiast but I am not so I am not 100% familiar with his rhetoric.

I am going to look once more before I go to bed but right now your link makes this whole post look ridiculous.

O.k. I saw it, the last sentence. Google sarcasm. There is nothing there...

Lebrea, I know you fancy yourself as a genius so I am sure that you understand that I only questioned the context of Chelsea's posted quote as opposed to her post title. However, after reading the whole segment and understanding the context, are you capable of understanding the concept of sarcasm? Did Chelsea accurately state that Limbaugh wants to shoot women who get abortions? Call yourself a genius and I'll call your mother a liar.

Um, Mr. Tarpits is not the one with the pen name:

Super Smarty Pants, HA!

And my mother is a liar: mostly to her fundamentalist bible-thumping self, Thumper;-]

Mr Tarpits doesn't use a pen icon either which is a credit to him. Any money says his mother says he's good looking too.

Sorry to hear about your mother Hyper.

R. F.

It's the weasel's way of twisting and forming the subject into a pretzel type conversation. A manuever employed by conservatives when it becomes apparent to one of them, that they have made a statement which is totally ignorant and factually unsupportable.

I have noted this weasel trait in at least a half dozen conservative members here on GN. (Eric S. being one) It's childish mentality and demonstrates that the person who employs such tactics have no real counter position to put forth in the debate. Therefore, they resort to introducing peripheral subjects or twisting their responses in hopes of changing the subject. A means by which to avoid being shown for the ill informed debater which they actually are without having to admit that they have no logical nor factual counter response to pose in the debate.

Albeit, I must admit, Jeff H. having irresponsibly chosen to introduce denigrating remarks concerning Lebrea's mother into the discussion, was a new personal low in conservative debating. Further, it was notably a profound acknowledgement of his lack of normally acceptable ethical and moral standards.

Utilizing such defensive means by which to prevent one's self from having to face the reality that you have loss a debate, has no place here on GN and when such occurs, it must be denounced by all members for the dishonorable trash talk which it is.

"" A manuever employed by conservatives when it becomes apparent to one of them, that they have made a statement which is totally ignorant and factually unsupportable.""

What statement did I make that wasn't supported by facts? Simple question. Avoiding it might make me question how you were raised and you'll cry some more.

R.F. the mother comment was a figure of speech and it was not an attack on anybody's mother. It's a play on a mother's love for her child that makes her blind. Some people grow up thinking they are superior to everybody else cause "mama said". It was just a jab because he made a claim about something that wasn't in dispute. So far none of you jackasses can't answer the simple question.

I find it hilarious that you liberals all think you are intellectually superior and pretend to be seasoned writers with a common sense look at everything. You run around pointing out typos and questioned everybody based on their beliefs and then you are besides yourselves when somebody questions you personally.

I asked you simple questions that have stupefied you but here is another one. Do you have any understanding of terms like "sarcasm' "hyperbole" "metaphor" etc..? That''s sixth grade stuff! Your mother's would be ashamed!

""I never heard that 'figure of speech' and Lebrea's only comment in the post has nothing to do with anyone feeling superior. ""

And you don 't know Tarpit's and my history do you? This was never about you R.F. Sorry.

"" They way you talk I'd say you have an inferiority complex regarding your superiors. ""

Inferiority is a liberal complex. It's why I am so tolerant with your emotional outbursts and refusal to answer questions. I am related to your kind and I sympathize.

I have open questions in this thread. Are you capable of answering them?

Nothing this sad excuse for a human, says, surprises me. His warped world, doesn't scare me half as much as his followers. That's just to many nutbags running around loose. As for Mr blowhard himself, I doubt he even truly believes half the garbage that comes out of his own mouth. He knows statements like that keep him in the media spotlight, and making money. All else this heartless creature, couldn't care less.