Has Rush gone too far?
-
jmog
Have you ever watched Maher's show? The first 5 minutes is political comedy, the rest is billed as a political talk show just like Hannity, Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.I Wear Pants;1109144 wrote:Maher gets a pass because as a comedian and being advertised and promoted as a comedic show we assume that they're saying things for laughs.
Rush does the reverse, advertises as a political talk guy/commentary person who says things that are ridiculous and bigoted and then tries to say he's a comedian.
He has used those terms during the sit down political talk. -
QuakerOatsgut;1109168 wrote:What is it about Rush, anyway, that elicits such outrage from Liberals? If the guy is such an ignorant idiot, why is he even worth their time? Common sense says Rush does make his share of valid and pertinent points, which Liberals see as a threat. And like they typically do with dissenting views they try to crush the messenger when they can't refute the message.
Bingo. But to elaborate, it is more so the liberal media that hates him, largely because he continuously either puts everything into context, or tells the full story (when the msm leaves half of it out, purposefully), or goes well beyond the msm's pathetic reporting and the interference they run for radicals like obama by informing the audience of important matters that otherwise would never see the light of day.
They can't stand that he makes an end run on their profession, lends balance to reporting by offsetting their incredible bias, has a huge audience, and makes millions doing it all.
Most people don't have time to try and keep the msm honest, thus they turn to Rush and others like him to do it, and rightfully so. Had the msm not become such a bastion of tainted, weak, like-minded liberals, it would have never given rise to guys like Rush.
There is a reason why Rush and other radio commentators, along with Fox News have had meteoric success, the msm delivers a tainted product, and at least half of America knows it. But instead of looking within, the shameless liberal press can only throw sh!t against the wall and hope some of it sticks ---- what a pathetic lot they have become. -
gut
And his New Rules a the end, which is typically about the only time any of his jokes actually hit the mark. The opening has it's moments.jmog;1109191 wrote:Have you ever watched Maher's show? The first 5 minutes is political comedy, the rest is billed as a political talk show just like Hannity, Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.
He has used those terms during the sit down political talk.
He's made his share of distorted factual statements, talking about "climate change" a while back with "record highs in MN over 120!". It was the heat index (not sure if it was even a record) and not the actual temperature.
But I watch a replay of the show when nothing else is on. Generally a pretty good diversity and quality of panelists, although almost always stacked 2 liberals, plus Maher, to 1 conservative so they can collectively drown him/her out when they are called on their propagandistic bullshit. -
gut
Entirely true. Yes, Fox and Rush are biased and frequently just as guilty of slant. If only the lazy, liberal "journalists" spent half as much time getting both sides of a story correct as they do attacking Fox and Rush.QuakerOats;1109203 wrote: There is a reason why Rush and other radio commentators, along with Fox News have had meteoric success, the msm delivers a tainted product, and at least half of America knows it. But instead of looking within, the shameless liberal press can only throw sh!t against the wall and hope some of it sticks ---- what a pathetic lot they have become.
Rupert Murdoch is no idiot. He must have had to keep pinching himself over the fact that few, if any, were willing to fill the void of the conservative view in the media. Probably wakes-up every day struggling to understand how he still has basically a monopoly on it. I don't know what the numbers and profits are, but when you think about what CNN used to be and what MSNBC could have been, somebody had to be choosing an agenda over money (not that the money isn't still good, just not what it could be).
The really sad part is that these "journalists" spend more time attacking and correcting each other than doing their job of vetting what goes on in Washington. And the sadder part is despite an obvious need and demand for truly fair & objective reporting, not many can get a foothold because that just doesn't seem to generate the interest. Guess maybe I should count myself among those to blame. I don't need anyone to spoon-feed me my opinions. -
fish82
You people give him a pass under the guise of "comedy." The fact remains that the opening monologue might be construed as "comedy." The remainder of the show is political roundtable discussion, the same as any other talk show. Couple that with the fact that Maher is treated as a mainstream pundit by every other talking head show...appearing on said shows weekly.I Wear Pants;1109144 wrote:Maher gets a pass because as a comedian and being advertised and promoted as a comedic show we assume that they're saying things for laughs.
Rush does the reverse, advertises as a political talk guy/commentary person who says things that are ridiculous and bigoted and then tries to say he's a comedian.
Anyone who would give him a pass, is at best misinformed and highly unobservant...at worst just plain stupid. -
QuakerOatsThe main stream media forfeited its primary duty --- watchdog of government --- when they inculcated their 'newsrooms' with a rabid liberal bias due to staffing at levels where 90% of the newsroom identify themselves as democrat supporters. There is absolutely zero checks/balances in a newsroom when it has a 90% liberal tilt --- I don't care what level of objectivity they claim; it isn't there anymore, and thus the vaccum was created for those yearning for the truth, the whole truth.
It is kind of difficult for the liberal press to be objective, when they would rather get invited to White House cocktail parties. I am glad they are getting their arse kicked; they brought it on themselves. -
BigdoggJust a sample of Rush stupidly:
Limbaugh vs. Reality
Bogus Economics
LIMBAUGH: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94)
REALITY: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94).
LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
LIMBAUGH: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70)
REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one.
LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)
REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")
LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)
REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.
LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.
LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.
LIMBAUGH: "Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?" (Radio show, 6/28/93)
REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to "appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years...and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh." In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph's advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine.
Weird Science
LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)
REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."
LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163)
REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93).
LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135)
REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93).
LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: "Mr. Limbaugh's claim simply isn't true," says Dr. Hugh Scully, chair of the Canadian Medical Association's Council on Healing and Finance. "The vast majority of Canadians, including physicians, receive their care here in Canada. Those few Canadians who receive health care in the U.S. most often do because they have winter homes in the States--like Arizona and Florida--and have emergent health problems there." Medical care in Canada is hardly "too expensive"; it's provided free and covered by taxes.
LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).
LIMBAUGH: Denouncing Jeremy Rifkin of the Beyond Beef campaign as an "ecopest": "Rifkin is bent out of shape because he says the cattle consume enough grain to feed hundreds of millions of people. The reason the cattle are eating the grain is so they can be fattened and slaughtered, after which they will feed people, who need a high protein diet." (Ought To Be, p. 110)
REALITY: Sixteen pounds of grain and soy is required to produce one pound of edible food from beef (USDA Economic Research Service). As for needing a "high-protein diet," the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Agriculture recommend that from 4.5 percent to 6 percent of daily calories come from protein. The amount of calories from protein in rice is 8 percent; in wheat it's 17 percent (USDA Handbook No. 456).
LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (The Bum's Rush, p. 136). Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.
Brotherhood...and Sisterhood./QUOTE]
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895 -
Footwedge
Again and again and again. If you have a problem with Maher, then you and the others that he has offended should start a thread about the crap he spews. This thread is about Rush Limbaugh. Hellllllooo?jmog;1109191 wrote:Have you ever watched Maher's show? The first 5 minutes is political comedy, the rest is billed as a political talk show just like Hannity, Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.
He has used those terms during the sit down political talk.
People here like 82, Fishy and the rest that are on the "defend Rush" bandwagon, are also saying that Maher received a free pass for calling Palin's daughter a slut. That it bull$hit. Google Maher Palin daughter slut...and watch all the hits come rolling up....and as it should be....and...as it was. Or this Ed Shultz...whoever he is....who apparently was suspended by his employer for spouting similar $hit...as he should have been.
No....this thread once again proves that certain individuals apparently have a hard time reasoning their political views on their own, and resort to defending a person to whom has defined their political beliefs for them. And that my friends is truly, truly sad.
We have a guy, that calls his show the "advanced course of conservative studies". Yet, through a simple google search we find that the man has stated on more than one occasion that "deficits don't matter". Now there's a good little conservative, don't you think?
But, but, but...."if Rush says it's true....it must be true".
Not to mentioned the perceived belief that conservatives are more for the honor and glory of joining our military and fighting "for the cause".
Yet this "conservative" (as loosely as I can put it) defected from serving his beloved country by finding a doctor to write him up a "get out of serving in Vietnam" free card. His morbid diagnosis? Well...he had in layman's term a boil on his ass....an ingrown hair follicle if you will.
And who can forget...all the chastisement he spewed on how drug offenders should max out their prison terms. "We need to get tougher on crimes" the rotund one would preach. Yet, the same self proclaimed "master of conservatism" was clandestinely shoving massive quantities of oxycontine through his piehole. What a guy!! What a model of principled conservatism, I tell ya!!
and yet...whether it be here on the poli boards of OC...or those that post daily on [URL="http://www.politicalforum.com....none"]www.politicalforum.com....none[/URL] from the right will ever admit the man is a fraud...a sham...and more blatantly...a perverse entity who actually plugs up the good that comes from true conservative intellectuals.
I'll listen to the chubby fella every now and again. And he never, ever lets me down. I tuned him in and....heard him declare to his sheep that the housing bubble pop was "100% the fault of F &F". Muhahahaha Rushie. Even the Wall Street Journal was calling out their own for their share of housing crisis debacle. Not Rushbo.
Now I don't know where Rush gets his 20 million listeners. Don't care. But any conservative...with true conservative values would never listen to someone like him. They just wouldn't...especially given the ease of information access provided over the past 15 years or so, readily availabale on the web.
There are plenty of outstanding conservatives that cite facts when presenting their principles. Start by reading the opinions of George Will, or Walter Williams, Pat Buchanan or many others...who actually walk the walk as how conservatives should live their lives...as opposed to galavanting through 4 wives....or dodging mandated military sevice as thought necessary decades ago. -
fish82
<Irrational, bandwidth-sucking rant clipped for brevity sake.>
There are about 5 hits of NOW condemning him. No "outrage" on any comparable level. Most of the hits deal with pieces showing the lack of said outrage. You obviously didn't read the results very closely. It amuses me that anyone who doesn't share your propensity for mouth-frothing at the mere mention of Rush's name is somehow "defending him."Footwedge;1109240 wrote: People here like 82, Fishy and the rest that are on the "defend Rush" bandwagon, are also saying that Maher received a free pass for calling Palin's daughter a slut. That it bull$hit. Google Maher Palin daughter slut...and watch all the hits come rolling up....and as it should be....and...as it was. Or this Ed Shultz...whoever he is....who apparently was suspended by his employer for spouting similar $hit...as he should have been.
Seek help, Bro. You're closing in on a meltdown. -
gut
That's the point - we don't need to. We don't believe he speaks for the Dems or even Liberals even if Fox told us that.Footwedge;1109240 wrote:Again and again and again. If you have a problem with Maher, then you and the others that he has offended should start a thread about the crap he spews. This thread is about Rush Limbaugh. Hellllllooo?
He's just another talking head guilty of bias and factual errors like everyone else. But because he supposedly has a bigger audience (guess it would depend on who or what he's compared to - CNN? Nope) they go after him. Funny thing is, many of those correcting his factual errors have little credibility themselves on such matters - who is fact checking their fact checks?
LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
Truth: Student loans under the Federal Program are insured against loss, and also cannot be discharged in bankruptcy except in some hardship cases. Interest rates on these programs reflect the lower risk (in addition to being federally subsidized). Other private loans to students are NOT guaranteed by the Feds (federal programs rarely cover all of tuition and board, except perhaps in hardship cases) and may or may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, and higher interest rates reflect the increased risk. Defaults are up and so is the interest rate on these loans (even the federally subsidized ones, unless they've passed legislation freezing the rate)
Just one example. Both can claim to be correct while guilty of being intentionally vague or misleading about the context they are talking about. The most common tactic is to ignore data that refutes you or doesn't show what you want, and pick any remotely credible outlier that does and cite that statistic. Maher does this all the time. Rush does this, too. And the people refuting Rush can and do the same. -
Footwedge
"Maher slut comment" googled. 7 million hits. And only 5 of them criticizing Maher? Umm OK.fish82;1109252 wrote:<Irrational, bandwidth-sucking rant clipped for brevity sake.>
There are about 5 hits of NOW condemning him. No "outrage" on any comparable level. Most of the hits deal with pieces showing the lack of said outrage. You obviously didn't read the results very closely. It amuses me that anyone who doesn't share your propensity for mouth-frothing at the mere mention of Rush's name is somehow "defending him."
Seek help, Bro. You're closing in on a meltdown.
LOL. You telling me that I'm closing in on "meltdown" mode....translated....your tacit cencession that the subject cannot be debated any more by you. -
Footwedge
The point is.....many right winged people that follow Rush do believe that he speaks for the GOP. I sourced a youtube where the man claims to be the "defacto leader" of the party.gut;1109261 wrote:That's the point - we don't need to. We don't believe he speaks for the Dems or even Liberals even if Fox told us that.
When one is so narcistic to state as much, the followers will believe. We all know the famous quote by Goebbels on propaganda, now don't we? -
QuakerOatsRush for president!!
That ought to put some here into epileptic convulsions. -
gut
And, yet, if he's such an ignorant idiot then why do Liberals care if people think he speaks for the GOP? Your argument is that Liberals are trying to convince us Rush speaks for the GOP because they want us to believe otherwise?!?Footwedge;1109266 wrote:The point is.....many right winged people that follow Rush do believe that he speaks for the GOP. I sourced a youtube where the man claims to be the "defacto leader" of the party.
When one is so narcistic to state as much, the followers will believe. We all know the famous quote by Goebbels on propaganda, now don't we?
I think you do need to step away from the computer and drink a few beers. Maybe if you kill off some of the whacky brain cells floating around in your head you'll find a balance. -
fish82
At least on the first 20 pages...where the bulk of the relevant hits reside. I know you know full well that 99% of those hits are gibberish with various parsings of the searched phrase and that your "7 million" figure is pure hyperbole. Anyone doing the same search will quickly see your folly.Footwedge;1109262 wrote:"Maher slut comment" googled. 7 million hits. And only 5 of them criticizing Maher? Umm OK.
No, your 1/2 page rant speaks for itself...most of it is not even related to the topic at hand, and is merely you regurgitating your same schtick that you do twice a week on here.Footwedge;1109262 wrote:LOL. You telling me that I'm closing in on "meltdown" mode....translated....your tacit cencession that the subject cannot be debated any more by you.
You're debating yourself on the subject of Rush's transgressions. If you'd actually stop, take a breath and read back, you'd see I haven't disagreed with anything you've said about him. Not once. Few if any people are defending what he said...merely commenting on the blatant hypocrisy that seems to be out there with Rush vs. the rest of the world's talking heads, or as gut so succinctly put it...why anyone would get so wound up about anything any of these people say. -
bigdaddy2003
The super pac for Obama won't give Maher's money back. -
I Wear Pants
Just to be clear, I don't think Maher is very funny nor do I watch his show often at all.jmog;1109191 wrote:Have you ever watched Maher's show? The first 5 minutes is political comedy, the rest is billed as a political talk show just like Hannity, Maddow, O'Reilly, etc.
He has used those terms during the sit down political talk. -
I Wear Pants
No more than Obama puts you into convulsions.QuakerOats;1109270 wrote:Rush for president!!
That ought to put some here into epileptic convulsions. -
I Wear Pants
Stop whining about people not liking Rush then. I'm not even saying he speaks for all Republicans or conservatives, just that he's an asshole and I'm not sad to see companies stop advertising on his show.gut;1109261 wrote:That's the point - we don't need to. We don't believe he speaks for the Dems or even Liberals even if Fox told us that.
He's just another talking head guilty of bias and factual errors like everyone else. But because he supposedly has a bigger audience (guess it would depend on who or what he's compared to - CNN? Nope) they go after him. Funny thing is, many of those correcting his factual errors have little credibility themselves on such matters - who is fact checking their fact checks?
LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.
Truth: Student loans under the Federal Program are insured against loss, and also cannot be discharged in bankruptcy except in some hardship cases. Interest rates on these programs reflect the lower risk (in addition to being federally subsidized). Other private loans to students are NOT guaranteed by the Feds (federal programs rarely cover all of tuition and board, except perhaps in hardship cases) and may or may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, and higher interest rates reflect the increased risk. Defaults are up and so is the interest rate on these loans (even the federally subsidized ones, unless they've passed legislation freezing the rate)
Just one example. Both can claim to be correct while guilty of being intentionally vague or misleading about the context they are talking about. The most common tactic is to ignore data that refutes you or doesn't show what you want, and pick any remotely credible outlier that does and cite that statistic. Maher does this all the time. Rush does this, too. And the people refuting Rush can and do the same.
If you want to try to get companies to drop Maher because you think he's an asshole and you get enough people to agree with you to call/write those companies that they decide they should stop advertising on his show I'm not going to come here and cry about it. -
gut
LMAO....This thread wasn't about people not liking Rush. It was about whether Repubs (and most of us aren't even Repub, we just aren't Dem or Liberal) agree with Rush. We don't.I Wear Pants;1109481 wrote:Stop whining about people not liking Rush then. I'm not even saying he speaks for all Republicans or conservatives, just that he's an **** and I'm not sad to see companies stop advertising on his show.
If you want to try to get companies to drop Maher because you think he's an **** and you get enough people to agree with you to call/write those companies that they decide they should stop advertising on his show I'm not going to come here and cry about it.
Then it was why don't we complain about him, why isn't he rebuked? And the answer is we don't care. He's really not relevant no matter how much the Liberals want to pretend he is.
Hope this helps. -
BGFalcons82
Nope, I still don't think you get my point. I'll type slowerFootwedge;1109240 wrote:People here like 82, Fishy and the rest that are on the "defend Rush" bandwagon, are also saying that Maher received a free pass for calling Palin's daughter a slut. That it bull$hit. Google Maher Palin daughter slut...and watch all the hits come rolling up....and as it should be....and...as it was. Or this Ed Shultz...whoever he is....who apparently was suspended by his employer for spouting similar $hit...as he should have been.
No....this thread once again proves that certain individuals apparently have a hard time reasoning their political views on their own, and resort to defending a person to whom has defined their political beliefs for them. And that my friends is truly, truly sad.
My point is that 2 congresswomen, not 2 pundits, not 2 news-readers, not 2 ninnies-at-a-wine-and-cheese tasting party, not 2 soccer moms, not 2 Rush listeners, and not 2 Huffpo columunists, (I'm referring to real people that can affect public policy and laws), went public with their disdain for Limbaugh and begged Boehner to write a national condemnation for his calling of a woman that wants to be compensated for having sex, a prostitute (among other things).
When one of their liking, i.e. Bill Asshat Maher, uses more vulgar language than Limbaugh, they don't utter a peep. Not one word. Maybe a glare at the questioner, but that's it.
To recap...Limbaugh makes a poor decision to use inappropriate language on the airwaves and then apologizes...several times either in writing or verbally on his radio program. Several congresswomen are "offended" and demand some sort of public flogging and a reprimand from Boehner telling Limbaugh that free speech can't be tolerated unless the congresswomen agree with it. When Asshat Maher uses worse language in a very similar public setting, he's ignored by these same congresswomen, he's smiled at, he's "just being one of the gals", and he's not labeled a misogynist...but that fucking Limbaugh is.
Personally, I don't care what language they use. If a woman wants compensated BY ALL AMERICANS for having sex with an untold amount of partners, she should be called what she is and she should wear her label proudly. If Maher wants to call Palin a c*nt, she should have the right to kick his family jewels all the way up his utopian ass. -
I Wear Pants
Several conservative leaning posters tried to argue that he has 20 million listeners which I think would make him not irrelevant.gut;1109489 wrote:LMAO....This thread wasn't about people not liking Rush. It was about whether Repubs (and most of us aren't even Repub, we just aren't Dem or Liberal) agree with Rush. We don't.
Then it was why don't we complain about him, why isn't he rebuked? And the answer is we don't care. He's really not relevant no matter how much the Liberals want to pretend he is.
Hope this helps.
I know I hear people in my area say things that they likely heard on his show.
Thing is it isn't even that Rush made the recent slut comment, which was stupid and hateful, it's that he has a very, very long history of bigoted comments and a history of comments (like his defending the LRA) which are unacceptable. No matter which way you lean politically there should be no support for that sort of thing. Yet a bunch of you more conservative guys on here seem to be angry that people would like to see Rush taken off air via lack of sponsors. If you truly didn't care and he wasn't relevant you wouldn't be so bothered by him losing his sponsors. -
I Wear Pants
Are you fucking kidding me dude?BGFalcons82;1109509 wrote:Nope, I still don't think you get my point. I'll type slower
My point is that 2 congresswomen, not 2 pundits, not 2 news-readers, not 2 ninnies-at-a-wine-and-cheese tasting party, not 2 soccer moms, not 2 Rush listeners, and not 2 Huffpo columunists, (I'm referring to real people that can affect public policy and laws), went public with their disdain for Limbaugh and begged Boehner to write a national condemnation for his calling of a woman that wants to be compensated for having sex, a prostitute (among other things).
When one of their liking, i.e. Bill Asshat Maher, uses more vulgar language than Limbaugh, they don't utter a peep. Not one word. Maybe a glare at the questioner, but that's it.
To recap...Limbaugh makes a poor decision to use inappropriate language on the airwaves and then apologizes...several times either in writing or verbally on his radio program. Several congresswomen are "offended" and demand some sort of public flogging and a reprimand from Boehner telling Limbaugh that free speech can't be tolerated unless the congresswomen agree with it. When Asshat Maher uses worse language in a very similar public setting, he's ignored by these same congresswomen, he's smiled at, he's "just being one of the gals", and he's not labeled a misogynist...but that fucking Limbaugh is.
Personally, I don't care what language they use. If a woman wants compensated BY ALL AMERICANS for having sex with an untold amount of partners, she should be called what she is and she should wear her label proudly. If Maher wants to call Palin a c*nt, she should have the right to kick his family jewels all the way up his utopian ass. -
BGFalcons82
Yeah, maybe I should have left out the, "If a woman" and just used her name. I was in a hurry. You got me on that one. Score one for IWP. So, to keep it about Ms. Fukk,I Wear Pants;1109521 wrote:Are you fucking kidding me dude?
She wants free birth control...right?
She doesn't have the money for it...right?
She demands Americans pony up the cash so that she can get her birth control for "free"...right? By the way....NOTHING IS FREE. Ever. Got it?
Therefore, she won't have sex unless Americans provide "free" birth control. Ergo...she wants compensation from All Americans so she can spread her legs for her partner-of-the-day. She is what she does. -
I Wear PantsSo everyone that believes that birth control being free and accessible provides substantial and quantifiable benefits for the country is a slut or prostitute?
Way to be grown up about a debate.