Rush Limbaugh: Certified Cretin

[Jesus_lol]

i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the free speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money

Edited March 7, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[i<3LSOP]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331140521' post='2397253']
i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the fee speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money
[/quote]

Yes, exactly. He can say what he wants because that is not against the constitution... but he could and did loose quite a few people.

Our problem is that some of those in office want to take away our freedom of speech.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331140521' post='2397253']
i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the free speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money
[/quote]Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments.

All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions.
-Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against?
-Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331142422' post='2397265']
Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments.

All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions.
-Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against?
-Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary?
[/quote]

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331142422' post='2397265']
Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments.

All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions.
-Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against?
-Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary?
[/quote]

Well that's true. We all know that it is utterly impossible to be concerned/think about two issues at once.

[add]

[quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1331045572' post='2396844']


It's good to know my obligation to be a good Christian ends the second someone is sinning more than I am. I shall bear that in mind the next time I'm tempted to make degrading comments about a complete stranger.
[/quote]
None the less, Limburger has no room to talk. You don't throw stones, if your a sinner.

[beatitude]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1331084289' post='2397061']
Please pardon me for having been raised in those "unenlightened dark ages" when there were clear standards of right and wrong, when behaving like rabid cocker spaniels in heat was frowned upon instead of celebrated, and reputation actually meant something.
[/quote]

Is there any pejorative term in existence for men who have premarital sex, or sex with multiple partners? The nicknames that get applied to men who sleep around aren't pejorative. Some even have an admiring flavour - 'stud', 'Don Juan', 'Casanova'. Meanwhile, women are the ones who get called s*luts, and in the Good Old Days a woman who was known to have had sex outside of marriage would have struggled to find a man who would marry her. A man who had done exactly the same thing didn't have that problem. It was only female reputations that were so highly prized - if by 'reputation' you mean having your past behaviour held against you forever. One mistake and that was it, you were permanently damaged goods. Present-day sexual mores aren't in keeping with Catholic teachings on human sexuality, but neither was this. I am not looking back to it nostalgically.

[4588686]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1331154697' post='2397362']
Is there any pejorative term in existence for men who have premarital sex, or sex with multiple partners? The nicknames that get applied to men who sleep around aren't pejorative. Some even have an admiring flavour - 'stud', 'Don Juan', 'Casanova'. Meanwhile, women are the ones who get called s*luts, and in the Good Old Days a woman who was known to have had sex outside of marriage would have struggled to find a man who would marry her. A man who had done exactly the same thing didn't have that problem. It was only female reputations that were so highly prized - if by 'reputation' you mean having your past behaviour held against you forever. One mistake and that was it, you were permanently damaged goods. Present-day sexual mores aren't in keeping with Catholic teachings on human sexuality, but neither was this. I am not looking back to it nostalgically.
[/quote]

If only we could undo this damage done by feminists to the sexual health of our nation.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331167445' post='2397457']
If only we could undo this damage done by feminists to the sexual health of our nation.
[/quote]

This is so true

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331168671' post='2397468']
This is so true
[/quote]

Back when whores were whores, hypocrisy was a virtue, and women knew how to shut their beaver dam mouths.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Hasan

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331168791' post='2397471']
Back when whores were whores, hypocrisy was a virtue, and women knew how to shut their beaver dam mouths.
[/quote]
My grandma "knew" her place and she ruled the house like a queen, and my grandfather and uncles did exactly what she wanted. None of my female relations have EVER held back an opinion on anything.

[4588686]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Mill%27s_logic_1867.jpg[/img]

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331169239' post='2397481']
Not in my universe, only yours.
[/quote]

Ah. I forgot that it was only in my universe where the feminist movement was the agitating force in pressing for silly things like suffrage, property rights, sexual autonomy, sexual harassment protections, ending the notion that rape was a fate worse than death, than a woman minus a hymen was not marriage material, that a woman was essentially her father's property. If only we could go back to the conservative eras where it was understood that a woman's dignity depended on her not being exposed to the travails of full economic and political social participation.

[Era Might]

Rush's comments reveal the kind of man he is. "[color=#000000]I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; [/color][color=#000000]for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:36-37)[/color]

That said, all the shock and offense is just victorian prudishness reborn. Pornography is an acceptable economic good in our society, but everyone is aghast that Rush Limbaugh would make some comments like that?

The Left needs to decide what it wants. If you want to free the body, well, Rush Limbaugh's comments are a perfect example of the flesh at work. Our animality is not restricted to selling your body for money. Racism, greed, violence, and yes, old fashioned rudeness and pride and gossip and scandal...all of it is part of naked man, and if you're going to have a sexual revolution, at least don't do it by halves.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Era Might

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331170171' post='2397494']
Ah. I forgot that it was only in my universe where the feminist movement was the agitating force in pressing for silly things like suffrage, property rights, sexual autonomy, sexual harassment protections, ending the notion that rape was a fate worse than death, than a woman minus a hymen was not marriage material, that a woman was essentially her father's property. If only we could go back to the conservative eras where it was understood that a woman's dignity depended on her not being exposed to the travails of full economic and political social participation.
[/quote]

The early feminists were bad arse.

What passes as "feminism" today is embarrassing.

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1331171214' post='2397507']
The early feminists were bad arse.

What passes as "feminism" today is embarrassing.
[/quote]

what is that? That women should have sovereignty over their bodies (that is, abortion rights)? Some of feminism, mostly that which passes for academic feminism, is vapid, but most mainstream political feminism, which you all constantly pee all over, is the logical consequent of the very legal protections you all enjoy and take for granted. so throw your lot in the the conservatives. The same political strain that fought so nobly to keep you all barefoot, pregnant, and disenfranchised. But when you wake up someday and find that you have no longer have any substantive legal protections when your boss tells you to drop your skirt or pack your things, I hope you remember who really flooped you.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Hasan

[Ed Normile]

Hasan, this further lowers your credence in my eyes, let me explain. First the part about being caught with a half opened bottle of viagra, where did you come up with that, and since when was it illegal to travel with viagra, furthermore Rush has been married for several years and married once before that too. Mr Limbaughs attempt at humor was no where near as disgusting as Bill Maher referring to Sarah Palin as a cu*t repeatedly on air, or his calling for President bush to be shot, or horse whipped. Rush made the analogy, in an ill attempt at being homorous, that this woman wanted to be paid to be able to have sex. She added that she could see the stress on the face of her women peers at Georgetown as the catholic institution would not provide contraception or the morning after pill so they could have sex when they wanted. I think the term he used was appropriate for any woman who publicly admitted she needed $3000.00 a year for contraception. Now I am not up on condom prices, but even if they were $5.00 each, that would mean she and her woman peers "needed" to have sex 600 times a year at college, I bet their parents are proud !

If you would have bothered to even research the gal, you would realize that she is actually a 30 year old womans reproductive rights activist, who went to a catholic university to try and force her views upon the institution. The "hearing" was not an actual congressional hearing, it was a hastily called press conference as the woman was not allowed to testify before the senate who were looking into Obamas healthcare mandates for religious affiliated orgs. having to provide produce they find inconsistent with their beliefs, as the liberals tried to bully her in the actual hearing without her being vetted by the senate as to her actual credentials and knowledge of the subject, they tried to force her in at the last moment without notice and were rebuked so they threw a mock hearing in the form of a press conference. This ploy and the whole " republicans are trying to deny women contraception " is a non issue to confuse the gullible youth and the dullard liberals enough to sway their vote away from conservatives. There has never been one instance that any conservative politician has called for denying women contraception, but the foolish are, well, foolish, they fell for "hope and change" and now they are trying to discredit their opposition with the false " war on women " Liberalism is for the simple minded, and the progressive politicians prey on them.

ed

Edited March 8, 2012 by Ed Normile

[4588686]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1331172086' post='2397517']
Hasan, this further lowers your credence in my eyes, let me explain. First the part about being caught with a half opened bottle of viagra, where did you come up with that, and since when was it illegal to travel with viagra, furthermore Rush has been married for several years and married once before that too.
[/quote]

I'm only responding to this since everything else you noted I've already responded and don't care to try to carefully write up a post only to have an evasive response.


[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html"]http://www.cbsnews.c...62-1753947.html[/url]

I will post that link to Limbaugh (this was around the time he was exposed as a hypocritical drug addict) being found with Viagra after going to Dominican Republic while unmarried. I guess he only find silly sallies distasteful when they aren't servicing him.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Hasan

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1331154697' post='2397362']
Is there any pejorative term in existence for men who have premarital sex, or sex with multiple partners? The nicknames that get applied to men who sleep around aren't pejorative. Some even have an admiring flavour - 'stud', 'Don Juan', 'Casanova'. Meanwhile, women are the ones who get called s*luts, and in the Good Old Days a woman who was known to have had sex outside of marriage would have struggled to find a man who would marry her. A man who had done exactly the same thing didn't have that problem. It was only female reputations that were so highly prized - if by 'reputation' you mean having your past behaviour held against you forever. One mistake and that was it, you were permanently damaged goods. Present-day sexual mores aren't in keeping with Catholic teachings on human sexuality, but neither was this. I am not looking back to it nostalgically.
[/quote]

The term you are looking for may be , sinner. , then there are rogue, gigilo, immodest, unclean, unchaste, dog, defiler, indecent, debaucher, and ungentlemanly.

[4588686]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1331173556' post='2397527']
The term you are looking for may be , sinner. , then there are rogue, gigilo, immodest, unclean, unchaste, dog, defiler, indecent, debaucher, and ungentlemanly.
[/quote]

Let's cut to the chase. Are you going to seriously that contemporarily or historically there has existed the same attitude towards male promiscuity as female promiscuity?