Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Limbaugh Foot Finally Gets Stuck in his Mouth (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Limbaugh Foot Finally Gets Stuck in his Mouth
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As you've probably heard, Rush Limbaugh has been roundly criticized for his remarks concerning Sandra Fluke, a college student who testified before Congress regarding the need for birth control among college students. Rush called her a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Now, criticism of Rush is nothing new (to put it mildly [Smile] ). What does seem new is the number of advertisers pulling out of Rush's show.

Reports are still coming in as of this time. It had gone up to 9 this morning, but the NY Daily News was reporting 20 as of 12:36 PM today and Politico was reporting 25 as of 3:51 PM. (Google was still showing the headline as being 21 advertisers a few minutes ago.) I don't recall so many advertisers jumping ship so quickly before.

Apparently his apology didn't do much. Although Newt Gingrich's SuperPac is staying on.

Could this be the End of Rush? Will lack of advertisers finally silence the Voice of Conservatism? Will El Rushbo fade into the sunset?

Naw. He's going to soldier on, attacking as usual. He's all ready blamed the media for it.

But this time he felt it. This time his words finally hit him in the wallet, probably the only way anyone outside his ideology can reach him. I don't know if he'll change his tone any, but he will think twice before going ahead and attacking again.

And if nothing else comes of it, that is a good thing. [Big Grin]

Posts: 7838 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His attack was so blatantly misogynistic, and so stereotypical an instance of "slut-shaming", that even conservatives felt ashamed for being associated with him. *Subtle*, *deniable* bigotry is the ticket for political success. This was anything but -- and it showed how a certain far-right fraction of the Republican actively despises women.
Posts: 3018 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rush also called everyone else that pays the money her pimps. Maybe Johns would have been more accurate.
Posts: 7399 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How are his comments inaccurate?
Posts: 1416 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
How are his comments inaccurate?

He equated 'having sex and wanting contraception' with being a slut. Nevermind that 'slut' is a pretty ugly word, he's also inaccurate. A woman who's married but on the pill is not a slut by any definition I'm aware of.

If you're talking about the prostitution angle specifically, a prostitute trades sex for payment. These women are not asking to trade sex for payment. They want their contraceptive costs covered whether or not they are having sex, and they're not offering to have sex to earn it.

Finally,

quote:

"Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."

He doesn't seem to know how birth control pills work. You don't take a pill every time you have sex unless you're dealing with your contraception by taking Plan B, you take a pill every day if you are open to being sexually active in a week's time.

So, "so much sex" apparently means "having sex."

His language was intentionally inflammatory and, I suspect, intentionally misleading. Edit the quote to be more accurate and it becomes:

"Your daughter ... testifies she's having [...] sex [and] she can't afford her own birth control pills, and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."

Now, setting aside who would be paying for these, exactly, that would be accurate for many women (and probably for the woman in question). And that I would have much less of an issue with.

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rush also suggested that since "he" was paying for her birth control that women should have to post sex tapes online for his viewing pleasure. His comments were beyond the pale. They are particularly outrageous by going after a college law student who really isn't a public figure. Only extreme new junkies would have known who Fluke was (and they would have forgotten about her after a couple weeks) if Rush hadn't attacked her in such a vicious way.

Plus ditto to all the inaccuracies Chael pointed out.

Posts: 965 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had suggested myself a while back that much of the gay marriage angle is about the financial benefits of marriage, and when you throw in marriage fraud for same gender married couples who are getting benefits but aren't having sex with each other, how is that very different from the government paying people to have sex? And then throwing them in jail if they find out they aren't having sex but are just taking the money?

I can see how people could purposefully insult themselves with Rush's comments and get themselves worked up into a tizzy over them because they delight in being aggrieved, but big picture he makes a good point there. Most of this is about contraception for recreational sex. There are some exceptions but they are red herrings.

People should pay for their own recreation. I've heard costs as low as $9 a month for generic birth control pills. That's less than 2 gallons of gas now. If we're paying for everyone's recreation now, how about my World of Warcraft account?

There is the broader issue too of why this is the purview of the federal government. This should be a state issue with the insurance. And further on down the line it's something this student can take up with her university. Surely the university can shop around for a different plan. If you get the federal government mandating this, there's that camel putting his nose in the tent again.

There are at least a couple more reasons to be wary of this, and that is that it is very likely to result in more STDs, and the other thing is that it's environmentally unfriendly. Those drugs end up in the water supply and have adverse affects on wildlife, especially frogs.

Posts: 7399 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
College students, male or female, that want to engage in promiscuous unsafe sex and have the government pay for birth control pills might reasonably be called sluts.

At UNLV, the term for such persons was more graphic: young, dumb, and full of ***. Even most promiscuous people in college seemed to agree that folks that run off and have sex with strangers without using a condom SHOULD BE SHAMED. They are a threat to public health.

But Rush should have picked on a male student to make the point, and to avoid an avalanche of sanctimonious whining.

Notwithstanding the above, I think that it's well worth the government's money to invest in the non-reproduction of sluts.

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What did offend me was Rush's use of the word "prostitute." Most prostitutes are forced into the profession either through direct coercion, drug addiction, or gruesome economics. I don't know the stats on that; I speak as one who has been neighbor, fellow-student, or attorney to quite a number of folks in the trade. I consider what Limbaugh said an insult to them. I know one married woman who literally started selling her body in order to obtain intensive medical therapy for her teenage child, in hope that child might be able to lead a normal life.

I'm not sure what's more offensive; Rush's statement, or the sanctimonious implication that a college student that has drunken anonymous condomless sex, is somehow morally better than someone who supports her family the only way she knows how.

[ March 07, 2012, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
College students, male or female, that want to engage in promiscuous unsafe sex and have the government pay for birth control pills might reasonably be called sluts.

At UNLV, the term for such persons was more graphic: young, dumb, and full of ***. Even most promiscuous people in college seemed to agree that folks that run off and have sex with strangers without using a condom SHOULD BE SHAMED. They are a threat to public health.

What does this have to do with the price of fish?
Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Limbaugh is getting exactly what he wanted. The man has been making millions by stirring people up for over a decade. He knew exactly the consequences of calling this woman a prostitute and so forth, and he judged the publicity to be worth the lost sponsors.

The controversy is certainly a negative for Romney, as this event obviously feeds into the "war against women" narrative the Republicans are trying to fight. But Rush doesn't make money when Republicans win elections - he makes money when they're angry.

Pete: the arguments Fluke laid out before Congress were on behalf of married students and women with conditions treatable by birth control. She (wisely) didn't argue for support of sexual licentiousness by college kids. As far as I know she's never made any aspects of her sex life public, which is half of why Limbaugh's remarks were insulting.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm not sure what's more offensive; Rush's statement, or the sanctimonious implication that a college student that has drunken anonymous condomless sex, is somehow morally better than someone who supports her family the only way she knows how.

Perhaps you've been reading things that haven't trawled across my screen yet. Source?
Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I can see how people could purposefully insult themselves with Rush's comments and get themselves worked up into a tizzy over them because they delight in being aggrieved, but big picture he makes a good point there.

He could have made the points without being insulting. He chose not to. He didn't insult /me/, and so I am not personally aggrieved, but I certainly do find his manner crude, and his proudly-displayed ignorance unlikeable.

If he wanted to propound a point of view in such a way that it didn't get lost in the chaff, there was a way for him to do that. He has enough of a pulpit that he would have been quite loud enough. Again, he chose not to.

As far as the question of whether birth control should be covered by health insurance plans--that, I haven't given much thought one way or another. Frankly, it seems a bit of a tempest in a tea pot. If you think it's important, I would be interested to know why.

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
College students, male or female, that want to engage in promiscuous unsafe sex and have the government pay for birth control pills might reasonably be called sluts.

At UNLV, the term for such persons was more graphic: young, dumb, and full of ***. Even most promiscuous people in college seemed to agree that folks that run off and have sex with strangers without using a condom SHOULD BE SHAMED. They are a threat to public health.

What does this have to do with the price of fish?
Chael, if you peruse the thread, you might notice that some folks here, such as Aris, seemed to be arguing that the word "slut" should never be used, and that "sluts" should never be "shamed." I disagree, as stated above. Colleges have an epidemic of unsafe sexual behavior that should be shamed -- both the men and women that practice it. Though Limbaugh in his typical idiocy seems to have picked a poor example.

I also said that I agree that it's in the government's interest to fund birth control to the colleges and elsewhere. I've been saying that for years on this forum.

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
His language was intentionally inflammatory and, I suspect, intentionally misleading.

What else would you expect from that profession? He's a political entertainer, like Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher. They distort political utterances in order to make their audience feel smug. That's what they do. Those that are trying to use this incident to smear Romney (???) and the Republican party generally are no better.

[ March 07, 2012, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
[QB] but big picture he makes a good point there. Most of this is about contraception for recreational sex.

And the attached point he makes is that "recreational sex" is for sluts and prostitutes.

quote:
People should pay for their own recreation.
If that had been Limbaugh's point, then he'd have the woman a *thief*. He did not. He called her a slut and a prostitute.

The point was CRYSTAL CLEAR, and I don't think that anyone here is dumb enough to miss it.

quote:
There is the broader issue too of why this is the purview of the federal government.
Yeah, people are *so* often called sluts and prostitutes for wanting to put something under the purview of the federal government. e.g.:
Person A- Marijuana should be banned at the federal level, and use taxpayers money to wage a war on drugs.
Person B- To say that reveals you for a slut and a prostitute.

Person A- We should have a nationwide drinking age.
Person B- You slut and prostitute!

...no, this doesn't really fit in with what Limbaugh did.

The point wasn't the woman wanting money that she didn't have a right to. He'd have her a thief, if that was the point.
The point wasn't the woman seeking something to be national policy. He'd have called an authoritarian, or a wannabe-tyrant, or a big-government toady, or whatever, if that had been the the point.
The point was strictly about women wanting to have sex without a reproductive purpose. That was the point, and the only point.

And nobody here is dumb enough to miss it, I think. Though many pretend to be dumb enough to.

[ March 07, 2012, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3018 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Chael, if you peruse the thread, you might notice that some folks here, such as Aris, seemed to be arguing that the word "slut" should never be used, and that "sluts" should never be "shamed." I disagree, as stated above. Colleges have an epidemic of unsafe sexual behavior that should be shamed -- both the men and women that practice it. Though Limbaugh in his typical idiocy seems to have picked a poor example.

That's all well and good, expect, in context "slut" is being used to refer to a woman who simply admits to any amount of interest in sex at all, so as to create shame by implying that she's indulgent and irresponsible. That's what "slut shaming" is, and that's actively what Rush was up to. (Not to mention the whole "co-ed" nonsense that he was promoting, to create the false impression that this is an irresponsible kid as well a girl invading men's territory, rather than a 30 year old law student)

The issue Aris was talking about has nothing to do with criticizing irresponsible behavior, but is instead about using the specter of irresponsibility as a weapon against people.

Posts: 9083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Rush also suggested that since "he" was paying for her birth control that women should have to post sex tapes online for his viewing pleasure. His comments were beyond the pale. They are particularly outrageous by going after a college law student who really isn't a public figure. Only extreme new junkies would have known who Fluke was (and they would have forgotten about her after a couple weeks) if Rush hadn't attacked her in such a vicious way.

Plus ditto to all the inaccuracies Chael pointed out. [/QB]

That was the part that bothered me the most. Childish name calling is one thing, I can explain that when my kids ask about it, but an old man saying that he wants to watch college girls have sex? Way out of bounds.

Actually, the thing about all of this that bothers me the most is that anyone is defending what he said.

Posts: 3384 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What else would you expect from that profession? He's a political entertainer, like Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher. They distort political utterances in order to make their audience feel smug. That's what they do. Those that are trying to use this incident to smear Romney (???) and the Republican party generally are no better."

To be honest, what is so disturbing about Rush is how successful he is. It's as if he constantly pokes and prods subconscious urges that roil around in the nether parts of his listeners minds. They don't know what to think of the world they find themselves in or how to dredge up the thoughts he raises on their own, so they rightly and tellingly call themselves dittoheads. The world of business has a saying that if two people agree all the time, one of them is unnecessary. In entertainment (and politics) the exact opposite is true: if listeners/voters are split 60-40, do whatever it takes to get the attention of the 60.

This sex issue excites him and this time the words broke through the dura separating that part of his mind in his sealed studio from the normally un-amped world of workaday society outside where his $450,000 Maybach 57S is parked. I wouldn't be totally shocked if one day there isn't a celebration to honor Rush where a bunch of yahoos show up wearing loincloths. And if there were such a celebration, what award would he be presented?

[ March 07, 2012, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 6321 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Aris

> The point was strictly about women wanting to have sex without a reproductive purpose. That was the point, and the only point.

I agree with this part. I'm glad you see this as about other people than the one's enjoying it being forced by our federal government to pay for recreational sex.

So the point is, why should someone else be forced by our federal government to pay for this?

Now I don't mind if two parties mutually agree to it, consensual as it were. And I don't even mind if the state as opposed to the federal government mandates this, like Nevada legalizes prostitution. But there is just nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to get into this, and if I hear the commerce clause or the general welfare clause one more time I'll... I'll... well I don't know what I'll do... maybe dance around throwing my arms up and down until I collapse from exhaustion like this chic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4coES_ei4PU&feature=related

Posts: 7399 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"What else would you expect from that profession? He's a political entertainer, like Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher. They distort political utterances in order to make their audience feel smug. That's what they do. Those that are trying to use this incident to smear Romney (???) and the Republican party generally are no better."

To be honest, what is so disturbing about Rush is how successful he is.

Lefties have helped made Rush as successful as he is. You extend his megaphone every time he says something controversial, like this slut remark. Yeah, he'll lose a few advertisers for a few days, and then they will come back seven-fold.

What, you think you can kill a monster like Rush by tripling his publicity? [Crying]

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm particularly disgusted with lefties that are trying to crucify Romney (the most moderate candidate left in the fray) on Rush's remarks. Acting like Rush is the head of the Republican party.

You have no king but Rush. Enjoy living in the world you helped to create.

Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm particularly disgusted with lefties that are trying to crucify Romney
Stupid people come in all flavours and colours.
Posts: 10207 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Acting like Rush is the head of the Republican party.
Actually, yes, he is.

Can you remember the last time that a high-ranking Republican criticized Rush without later apologizing? I can't. [Frown]

He is a modern-day Huey Long. He wields his microphone to stir up his Dittoheads to do what he says. He is a force, a major force, in the Republican Party, and doubtlessly one of the main reasons the party has become so monolithic and intrasigent. Rush keeps the part in line, whether they admit it or not.

quote:
What, you think you can kill a monster like Rush by tripling his publicity?
Actually, that's the only way to kill his popularity. Only when enough people see him for the hateful rabble-rouser that he is will people turn away from him. Yes, there will still be his core group. But if enough people are repulsed by him, then his core group will be shamed by others into dropping him, too.

He will need to take a few more of these truly outrageous stances before it will happen. But hopefully it will happen soon. We need to get away from this attitude that the opposition is evil and cannot be talked to, and start treating each other like adults.

Posts: 7838 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Chael, if you peruse the thread, you might notice that some folks here, such as Aris, seemed to be arguing that the word "slut" should never be used, and that "sluts" should never be "shamed." I disagree, as stated above. Colleges have an epidemic of unsafe sexual behavior that should be shamed -- both the men and women that practice it. Though Limbaugh in his typical idiocy seems to have picked a poor example.

How Pyrtolin read Aris's comments was also how I read Aris's comments. I could be wrong, of course. [Smile]

For my part, I don't believe the word 'slut' is very helpful for the circumstances you have mentioned, despite the attempt of some to edit its denotations. 'Slut' most commonly refers to a person who engages in promiscuous sex, not unsafe promiscuous sex, and it too often has an edge of hatred which hardly belongs (unless the person in question is HIV-positive and not telling people, but I digress).

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who doesn't know that Rush is a hateful rabble-rouser? Just a few years ago some Democrats on this forum were saying they wished they had a Rush Limbaugh of their own. If Republicans paid as much attention to Michael Moore as Democrats do to Rush Limbaugh, then Michael Moore would be as powerful as Limbaugh.

quote:
Only when enough people see him for the hateful rabble-rouser that he is will people turn away from him.
And you think that's going to happen over megaphone handwringing over the word "slut"?
Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You have no king but Rush. Enjoy living in the world you helped to create."

Um, Rush created his fanmash and keeps it alive by constantly throwing it red meat like this bit. Like I said, he would just be another fat fathead if he didn't control so much of the Republican machinery. As was pointed out, nobody who wants the blessing of the GOP can afford to piss him off. If they disagree with him they hope to ignore him and be ignored by him. Romney said that he wouldn't have chosen the words Rush did, but doesn't either condemn his dehumanization of the woman or say that he doesn't agree. I would say those were weasel words.

Posts: 6321 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you think that's going to happen over megaphone handwringing over the word "slut"?
No, but I think it may happen if enough sponsers get spooked, afraid that this guy may cost them money. [Smile]

In America, people are shamed via their pocketbook. [Wink]

Posts: 7838 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it interesting that no one seems to be pointing out that many women are on birth control for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy. You don't have to want to have sex to want to be on birth control... you might simply want to prevent having so much pain that you pass out every time you have your period.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
I find it interesting that no one seems to be pointing out that many women are on birth control for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy. You don't have to want to have sex to want to be on birth control... you might simply want to prevent having so much pain that you pass out every time you have your period.

If it's for non-contraceptive reasons, plans already cover it, as far as I'm aware. My information could be wrong (please tell me if so)--this isn't an area I've personally had to look into.
Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently not in all cases, or Fluke wouldn't have testified about that aspect.
Posts: 6321 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"You have no king but Rush. Enjoy living in the world you helped to create."

Um, Rush created his fanmash and keeps it alive by constantly throwing it red meat like this bit. Like I said, he would just be another fat fathead if he didn't control so much of the Republican machinery. As was pointed out, nobody who wants the blessing of the GOP can afford to piss him off. If they disagree with him they hope to ignore him and be ignored by him. Romney said that he wouldn't have chosen the words Rush did, but doesn't either condemn his dehumanization of the woman or say that he doesn't agree. I would say those were weasel words.

Rush would not be rush without people like you, Al. You sustain him. You are the machine that he rages against. College students sick of the sit in brainwashing hear him like a breath of fresh air, and don't have the cognitive skills to realize that he's just brainwashing them in the other direction. You help make Rush the issue of the day, and then you wring your hands at how popular he is? What a tragicomedy.
Posts: 39673 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with this part. I'm glad you see this as about other people than the one's enjoying it being forced by our federal government to pay for recreational sex.
Cherry, I'm not impressed by your dishonest debate tactics.

If you want to discuss about the issue of contraceptives or anything else being funded by the federal government, pro and cons, that's one issue.

If you want to discuss about whether it's acceptable behaviour for Rush Limbaugh to call a woman "slut" and "prostitute" for potentially having recreational sex, that's a completely different issue.

But if you deliberately try to confuse the two issues, while knowing they're separate, then you're just a dishonest debater. I'd not have accused Rush Limbaugh of misogyny if he had called the woman a "thief" or a "parasite" or whatever.

[ March 07, 2012, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3018 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Rush would not be rush without people like you, Al. You sustain him. You are the machine that he rages against."

I see, blaming the victim we are. I must say that people who are literally persecuted, as opposed to just being sat on by Rush, don't feel that same sense of being the perpetrator.

Posts: 6321 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well she's only a thief if she isn't having the sex the rest of the people paying the insurance premiums are paying her to facilitate with contraception.

Many of these university policies don't cover hernia repair, one of the most common surgeries men require. Where's the uproar?

Look at all the exclusions and exemptions in these policies. It's almost like they make them purposefully to avoid covering many of the things people will most likely need.

I don't think he should have brought her name into it and personalized it to her, but in a general sense his point is valid.

The other thing going on here is that with all the sensationalism in the media and one person always trying to do something more outrageous than the next, it's small wonder that people have to constantly escalate the things they say and do in order to grab a headline. In that sense, this is just more of the same. Remember the Duke List? And everyone else is supposed to pay for her birth control pills as mandated by the federal government?

Posts: 7399 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well she's only a thief if she isn't having the sex the rest of the people paying the insurance premiums are paying her to facilitate with contraception.
Same as G2 in the other thread, can you please for a damn minute stop trying to play insane?

And it's not "sex" that contraceptives are facilitating, what they're facilitating is the lack of an abortion.

If anti-abortionists want to actually reduce abortions, rather than just penalize them, then availability of contraceptives (and other types of birth control) is what they should be advocating.

What do you think is the reason for the high rate of abortions in America compared to e.g. Western Europe, if not the lack of sufficient birth control?

[ March 07, 2012, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3018 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Medical care for a pregnancy and for other conditions that the same medication is used to treat cost several lifetimes worth of birth control. Covering it translates into savings for others insured on the same plan not additional costs.
Posts: 9083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As of 12:42 PM EST today, 39 advertisers have pulled their spots from Rush, according to Politico.

Even Rush has pulled their music from Rush! [Eek!]

quote:
In addition, the Canadian rock group Rush has also asked Limbaugh’s show to stop using its music on the air, according to media producer Bob Cesca. “The use of Rush’s music in this manner implies an endorsement of the views expressed and products advertised on the show,” an attorney for the band said in a letter to the radio show, as Cesca reported. “Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately stop all use of Rush’s music and confirm that you will do so.”
Fortunately for Rush, some companies are stepping up to support him.

quote:
SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday, while the CEO of Ashley Madison, an online dating service website, said on CNN Wednesday morning that he is “willing to step into the void left by other advertisers.”
I wonder what terms Rush would use for those using those services? [Wink]
Posts: 7838 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So far as I know, Sandra Fluke has not said why she feels the need for contraceptives. But I should not be surprised if at least some Georgetown students take birth control pills out of concern over a possible pregnancy following a rape. Washington, D.C. is one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, and any woman attending school there has reason to be concerned.

Looking at Rush Limbaugh, what I notice is that he has lost a lot of weight, and really looks much better. His foot-in-mouth condition seems to be a continuing problem, and I doubt it ever goes away. His faithful and huge audience will most likely stay with him, or at least enough of them - even if he loses three quarters of his listeners, he would still be ahead of many competitors. And the advertisers he loses will no doubt be replaced by others. Otherwise his remarks have been of great benefit to Barack Obama, which is probably not what he wanted.

Posts: 4350 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supposedly, giving drug addicts free recreational drugs, housing, and food would save money too. Should that also be mandated by the federal government?

Just because something will save money doesn't mean we should make it a law. It would save even more money if people would be responsible for themselves.

Posts: 7399 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1