http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sandra-fluke-limbaughs-apology-doesnt-change-anything-20120305,0,4455709.story
Look like AOL just announced they are splitting too.
QuoteReporting from Washington—
Two days after Rush Limbaugh issued a tepid apology to Sandra Fluke, the woman who he called a "slut" and a "prostitute" for her advocacy for expansion of access to birth control, Fluke dismissed Limbaugh's statement as insufficient.
The 30-year-old Georgetown law student noted in a Monday appearance on "The View" that Limbaugh had only apologized for his choice of words, as she sought to refocus the discussion on access to contraceptives being a matter of women's rights .
"I don't think that a statement like this, issued saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything," Fluke said. "Especially when that statement is issued when he's under significant pressure from his sponsors, who have begun to pull their support from the show."
Limbaugh's apology – "I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke" – came after some advertisers, including Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Quicken Loans, had pulled their ads from his show.
Limbaugh again apologized on his show Monday, insisting that the apology had nothing to do with his lost advertisers. The apology was "heartfelt" and "sincere," he said.
Before welcoming her to "The View," hosts Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg took issue with the practice of advertisers pulling away from an entertainer whose opinions have offended some listeners.
Goldberg, referencing her past experience angering sponsors, said advertiser revolt was "a slippery slope."
"If you don't like something somebody's saying, you have the right to protest, but to take away their livelihood, I think, is not the right way to go," Goldberg said.
Fluke told Goldberg that she disagreed with the comparison because Limbaugh's single statement that he regretted his choice of words came after he'd been on the attack for days.
"I think you're doing a disservice by comparing yourself, because this was not someone who made one accidental statement," Fluke said." This was three days of significant portions of his three-hour show. He insulted me and the women of Georgetown -- who have received no apology – he insulted us over 53 times."
Among the statements Limbaugh made about Fluke, he characterized her testimony to a panel of lawmakers as asking "you and me and the taxpayers" to pay her "to have sex." He said the request made her a "slut" and a "prostitute" and would make the American public "pimps."
The comments drew criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. President Obama placed a phone call to Fluke on Friday to express support and thank her for speaking out in support of his administration's new rule requiring employers, including Catholic hospitals and universities, to offer health insurance plans that cover contraceptives.
Limbaugh's apology failed to stem the advertiser revolt: At least seven sponsors have pulled their ads from his show, including Carbonite, a data backup service, and ProFlowers.com, both of which announced their decisions after the apology was issued.
On "The View," Fluke said Limbaugh was not alone in attacking her personally for her viewpoint.
"It is really important for us all to understand that this was not one person who went crazy and made 'funny' outrageous statements," Fluke said. "This is evidently a segment of our political commentators who think that it is acceptable in today's society to say these things about women."
Fluke said Limbaugh also had incorrectly portrayed her testimony. Fluke said she advocated for a woman's right to contraceptives as a part of health insurance coverage. She did not argue that the government should pay for contraceptives, but said employers and universities that offer health insurance plans should ensure such coverage is included in those plans.
In his apology, Limbaugh said that he believes "it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level."
Fluke had argued that contraceptive coverage was important for women's health and she focused on its medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy. She told the story of a friend who lost an ovary because she did not have access to birth control, which might have prevented the growth of a cyst.
Fluke said she had not heard from Limbaugh personally.
"I think his statements that he made about me on the air have been personal enough, so I'd rather not have a personal phonecall from him," she said.
Seems like this Fluke lady has her shit together. Nice to see.
QuoteLimbaugh's apology – "I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke" – came after some advertisers, including Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Quicken Loans, had pulled their ads from his show.
I dont know any of these companies but there may be some indication that at least a part of Limbaugh's audience is made up of people who tune him in so that he can put them to sleep.
Being a pill popper didn't knock em down, this won't either.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 01:44:51 PM
Seems like this Fluke lady has her shit together. Nice to see.
Is it? I haven't really followed the story, but it's hard to have anything but contempt for a law student.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 01:44:51 PM
Seems like this Fluke lady has her shit together. Nice to see.
Is it? I haven't really followed the story, but it's hard to have anything but contempt for a law student.
That's how bad limbaugh is he makes her look sympathetic.
Also whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/103126/seven-advertisers-bail-from-rush-limbaugh-despite-
QuoteThe tally of advertisers who have pulled their spots from PREMIERE NETWORKS host RUSH LIMBAUGH's show over his comments about law student/activist SANDRA FLUKE last week (NET NEWS 3/2) now stands at nine, although it is presently unclear whether LIMBAUGH's weekend apology (NET NEWS 3/3) will result in any returning advertisers or whether the advertising suspensions are permanent or temporary.
The list of advertisers pulling spots from LIMBAUGH's show includes CALIFORNIA regional mattress chain SLEEP TRAIN and national advertisers QUICKEN LOANS, CITRIX (GOTOMYPC), SLEEP NUMBER, PROFLOWERS.COM, CARBONITE (which initially said it would hold off pulling its ads until its CEO spoke to LIMBAUGH), AOL, and LEGAL ZOOM. QUICKEN LOANS' sister CLEVELAND CAVALIERS have pulled spots from LIMBAUGH's show on CLEAR CHANNEL Talk WTAM-A/CLEVELAND, which happens to be the team's flagship station, according to WTAM, citing TALKING POINTS MEMO. Most recently, MICHAEL ROZBRUCH of TAX RESOLUTION SERVICES tweeted: "We have decided to join other advertisers and suspend our sponsorship of The RUSH LIMBAUGH Show."
Quote"All of this," LIMBAUGH said, "is political," adding that the examples of women denied coverage of contraception by GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY's health plan that FLUKE sought to testify about were anecdotal and "unprovable" hearsay, and that FLUKE, knowing that GEORGETOWN is a Jesuit Catholic school, went there to change the policy. He repeated his apology's assertion that the segments from last week were intended as satire and prompted by reports of FLUKE claiming that she could not afford birth control. "I acted too much like the leftists that despise me," he said. "It's wrong, and that's why I apologized. Don't be mad at them or mad at her, everybody was being true to their nature except me."
On the departed advertisers, he said he is "sorry to see them go," but noted that they had done well through their access to the LIMBAUGH audience. "It's a business decision and it's theirs to make. They've decided that they don't want you, and so be it." He said that he "knew the political inclinations" of the advertisers and that they didn't care, nor did he, as long as they were making money. He said that he rejects "millions" of dollars a year from potential advertisers, including, he claimed, GENERAL MOTORS. He said the show will "replace those who leave... who no longer want your business" and advised listeners to "make your own decision" on doing business with those advertisers. And he repeated the apology as well as his assertion that the left does not apologize for its own comments (including BILL MAHER's calling SARAH PALIN names) and that the right should not descend to the left's level.
Classy move there suggesting that his audience shouldn't do business with the advertisers who are leaving. It would make me think twice about advertising with him, were I a company looking to place ads - if the parting can't be amicable once it came to that, it might be too high a risk.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Classy move there suggesting that his audience shouldn't do business with the advertisers who are leaving. It would make me think twice about advertising with him, were I a company looking to place ads - if the parting can't be amicable once it came to that, it might be too high a risk.
It is amusing, especially when combined with Limbaugh's assumption that it is possible for his show to "descend" to a lower standard. He's not even funny any more, from what little I have heard.
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Yeah that is not the point. The point is to keep birthrates at a manageable level to help keep education and social costs under control. You know, money for good public policy. Would you rather far more money come out of your pocket later?
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Yeah that is not the point. The point is to keep birthrates at a manageable level to help keep education and social costs under control. You know, money for good public policy. Would you rather far more money come out of your pocket later?
but you're paying out to the wrong people. college educated women and ones with work medical benefits aren't the ones getting knocked up and getting uncle sam to pay for the kids.
Don't we need more kids? You'd think banning contraception would be the desirable public policy if that were the idea.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 03:20:49 PM
Don't we need more kids? You'd think banning contraception would be the desirable public policy if that were the idea.
No, we need dieback. And it'll come one way or the other.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 03:20:49 PM
Don't we need more kids? You'd think banning contraception would be the desirable public policy if that were the idea.
well, most people on the pill don't want kids (at that point in their life). you don't need more unwanted kids.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Yeah that is not the point. The point is to keep birthrates at a manageable level to help keep education and social costs under control. You know, money for good public policy. Would you rather far more money come out of your pocket later?
No, that isn't the point at all - it is not the job of the state to attempt to manage birth rates via subsidized birth control, at least not in the USA.
The point is whether or not religious institutions should be allowed to restrict access to health care for their employees (or students in this case) if they decide that some defined medical procedure or service is antithetical to their arbitrary religious views.
How does Uncle Sam even enter in to the picture? Isn't GU the one on the hook for her birth control?
Sex lives? Birth rates? Jesus Fuck, people. You're no worse than the Santorumtards. None of you knuckleheads even read the Fluke testimony, did you? Polycystic ovarian syndrome, anybody?
What Fluke testified to had nothing to do with the use of birth control for sexual activity, but the use of birth control for a variety of other medical-proscribed uses.
left hand: sexy horny co-eds
right hand: icky feminine issues
Which one do you think we're going to latch on to :D
You're all penis nazis.
At least I respect women, their needs and their rights.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
You're all penis nazis.
At least I respect women, their needs and their rights.
so where does the ball gag fit into that equation? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Yeah that is not the point. The point is to keep birthrates at a manageable level to help keep education and social costs under control. You know, money for good public policy. Would you rather far more money come out of your pocket later?
No, that isn't the point at all - it is not the job of the state to attempt to manage birth rates via subsidized birth control, at least not in the USA.
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
You're all penis nazis.
At least I respect women, their needs and their rights.
I posted the article after you all were just whispering about it in random threads. <_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
You're all penis nazis.
At least I respect women, their needs and their rights.
How much is your house cleaner's contraception setting you back each year? :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2012, 02:58:37 PM
It is amusing, especially when combined with Limbaugh's assumption that it is possible for his show to "descend" to a lower standard. He's not even funny any more, from what little I have heard.
I listened to him a bit last week & thought his Fluke thing was pretty funny up until he uttered the words "slut" and "prostitute". That was a huge tactical blunder & suddenly made the whole thing a lot less funny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Sex lives? Birth rates? Jesus Fuck, people. You're no worse than the Santorumtards. None of you knuckleheads even read the Fluke testimony, did you? Polycystic ovarian syndrome, anybody?
What Fluke testified to had nothing to do with the use of birth control for sexual activity, but the use of birth control for a variety of other medical-proscribed uses.
Bullshit. If that was the point of her testimony, why didn't she lead with it? She tacked on the Polly Ovary thing to tug at people's heartstrings & divert attention from the obvious. What's funny is she herself admitted that 80% of the Polly Ovary women get their pills.
She's past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ). Don't try to peddle the notion that she was humbly appearing to try to get some help for a medical condition.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 04:32:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Sex lives? Birth rates? Jesus Fuck, people. You're no worse than the Santorumtards. None of you knuckleheads even read the Fluke testimony, did you? Polycystic ovarian syndrome, anybody?
What Fluke testified to had nothing to do with the use of birth control for sexual activity, but the use of birth control for a variety of other medical-proscribed uses.
Bullshit. If that was the point of her testimony, why didn't she lead with it? She tacked on the Polly Ovary thing to tug at people's heartstrings & divert attention from the obvious. What's funny is she herself admitted that 80% of the Polly Ovary women get their pills.
She's past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ). Don't try to peddle the notion that she was humbly appearing to try to get some help for a medical condition.
She did lead with it, douchy. When it's in your first 90 seconds, it's a lead.
But here, here's a fetus with a pancake on its head.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthasneen.com%2Fcooking%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fbanana-pancake-making-1.jpg&hash=68c0d62ea54a30ee4981a278638670e883650ac9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FFetus_amniotic_sac.jpg%2F250px-Fetus_amniotic_sac.jpg&hash=46905b0319d7f35f08b82392ffaa68ef587d9b4e)
Limbaugh is even more of a doofus than I thought. Still, things couldn't have possibly gone any better for this Fluke chick. She wanted to manufacture some controversy and, by god, she got it.
She should start her own PR firm.
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
Limbaugh is even more of a doofus than I thought. Still, things couldn't have possibly gone any better for this Fluke chick. She wanted to manufacture some controversy and, by god, she got it.
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
She certainly wanted to illustrate something she found unfair - is that "manufacturing controversy"?
Kind of like that Rosa Parks, and her manufacturing controversy by refusing to sit where she belonged?
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
Limbaugh is even more of a doofus than I thought. Still, things couldn't have possibly gone any better for this Fluke chick. She wanted to manufacture some controversy and, by god, she got it.
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
She certainly wanted to illustrate something she found unfair - is that "manufacturing controversy"?
Kind of like that Rosa Parks, and her manufacturing controversy by refusing to sit where she belonged?
No kidding. Like being called forward for Congressional testimony was all a nefarious plot by her to put contraception on the front pages!
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:
Uncle Sam is paying? I thought this whole brouhaha was about a handful of religious organizations whining that they shouldn't be forced to provide medical care to their employees if they have "moral" reasons not to.
So what is it? Oppressing poor innocent believers or wasting tax payer money?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
She should start her own PR firm.
I think she pretty much has.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:18:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:11:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
She should start her own PR firm.
I think she pretty much has.
Do you know what a PR firm is? :unsure:
Yes.
Your post suggested otherwise. :(
Another possibilty is he knowingly posted an incorrect statement. The fun part is you get to pick which one it was.
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 03:25:10 PMNo, that isn't the point at all - it is not the job of the state to attempt to manage birth rates via subsidized birth control, at least not in the USA.
I was talking about the specific point mentioned.
And it is not a requirement for the state to do this. But last I checked the state can subsidize all sorts of positive behaviors that it feels are advantageous. Lots of unwanted children, particularly of the teenage pregnancy variety and so forth, are a big burden on the state. It just makes sense that if people want to do something voluntarily that benefits society the state can encourage that behavior. It does in tons of other cases so why not this one? Ergo this is good policy, helping people who willingly want to do positive behaviors that lessen the burden on the state to provide other services down the road. It is not some attempt to subsidize bad sex habits which is absurd.
Unless there is coercion about it, where people's freedom is limited in some way, I guess I fail to see why it is unamerican to do a policy that is similar to hundreds of other policies we are already doing.
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:
I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all. I am a little puzzled my position, which is what I thought we have already been doing, is a troll.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:
I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all.
Your post did advocate for the government to take policies to make sure too many children weren't born. Not many positive ways to look at that.
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13485
QuoteLeader Pelosi called the hearing in response to the refusal of Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to allow Fluke to testify at last week's hearing "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"
In an unusual move, Chairman Issa did not allow the Democratic minority to have a single witness at last week's hearing, allowing testimony only from those opposed to the Obama Administration's decision on women's contraception to testify. The hearing's primary panel did not include a single woman, prompting Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) to ask "Where are the Women?"
I don't think a party gets to claim the moral high ground when it holds such a ridiculous hearing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.
Not really. It's the Republicans who are orchestrating a controversy about what you so accurately call "religious freedom or whatever".
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:
I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all.
Your post did advocate for the government to take policies to make sure too many children weren't born. Not many positive ways to look at that.
Why is it not a positive to help ensure the people having children are those who want to have them and raise them?
Edit: And actually I was not advocating that so much as saying this is why we subsidize that stuff to begin with. Since I think cheap and dependable birth control is so vital, having the government subsidize it would probably ensure that both come later rather than sooner.
How is it that AOL is even able to advertise anymore? Are Americans so stupid and pathetic that they're still using AOL?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 05, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 03:20:49 PM
Don't we need more kids? You'd think banning contraception would be the desirable public policy if that were the idea.
No, we need dieback. And it'll come one way or the other.
Why is that people are always trying to stop me then? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Not really. It's the Republicans who are orchestrating a controversy about what you so accurately call "religious freedom or whatever".
Well, I think both sides are milking this nonsense for all it's worth. I'm just saying that Fluke wasn't going in to testify because she thought the committee could use her expertise - she had an agenda and she wanted publicity. And she got more of it than she could ever have hoped for.
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 06:19:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Not really. It's the Republicans who are orchestrating a controversy about what you so accurately call "religious freedom or whatever".
Well, I think both sides are milking this nonsense for all it's worth. I'm just saying that Fluke wasn't going in to testify because she thought the committee could use her expertise - she had an agenda and she wanted publicity. And she got more of it than she could ever have hoped for.
"I think both sides are wrong" -Translates into - "My side really fucked up, but I still don't like the other side even if they are right".
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 06:11:05 PM
How is it that AOL is even able to advertise anymore? Are Americans so stupid and pathetic that they're still using AOL?
I think it's for old people. Sorta like the Jitterbug, it's grandma-proof.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 06:11:05 PM
How is it that AOL is even able to advertise anymore? Are Americans so stupid and pathetic that they're still using AOL?
I think it's for old people. Sorta like the Jitterbug, it's grandma-proof.
AOL is advertising their new automated PC cleanup/optimization service. Which is funny to old school guys like me who remember AOL as a virus to be removed rather than anyone you would remotely trust to fix your computer.
I could have sworn those old AOL CDS were living creatures. Nobody could have made so many, they were breeding and creeping into magazines and mailboxes. I remember despising AOL. Actually, I might still have an Email with them. haven't opened it in years. I did use AOL instant messenger for a while.
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 06:19:57 PMWell, I think both sides are milking this nonsense for all it's worth. I'm just saying that Fluke wasn't going in to testify because she thought the committee could use her expertise - she had an agenda and she wanted publicity. And she got more of it than she could ever have hoped for.
Of course the Democrats are milking it. It's one of the most ludicrous controversies in the last long time in American politics, and it's not like it's not a crowded field. When the Republicans chose to make an issue out of birth control pills in 2012, they deserve to have it milked to death by their opponents. That's some grade A bullshit they're putting forth.
The chick should be making me a sandwich.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
Of course the Democrats are milking it. It's one of the most ludicrous controversies in the last long time in American politics, and it's not like it's not a crowded field. When the Republicans chose to make an issue out of birth control pills in 2012, they deserve to have it milked to death by their opponents. That's some grade A bullshit they're putting forth.
I just find it even more hilarious they're doing it in an election year. This is classic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
The chick should be making me a sandwich.
Last chick made you anything, you popped out more twins than Mengele.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:27:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
The chick should be making me a sandwich.
Last chick made you anything, you popped out more twins than Mengele.
:)
Today at lunchtime I had THE CRAVE. While driving back from sating it, I caught some of Limbaugh's show and heard him talking about all the sponsors dropping them. He was basically saying that his sponsors had exploited and made money off of his listeners for years and it was funny that all of the sudden they were dropping him like a hot potato. Seemed like not the smartest thing to be saying when you know other sponsors are considering doing the same. :hmm:
OTOH I have always had trouble telling when El Rushbo is joking and when he isn't, and he seems to expect anyone listening to be able to easily make that distinction.
For some reason this whole drama has escaped me. Actually I think my time has been better spent on CK2, Dwarf Fortress and Deep Space Nine via Netflix.
When did he say all this stuff anyway?
The funniest thing about Rush is that his listeners truly take him seriously, when he's got about as much legitimacy as Howard Stern.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:42:47 PM
The funniest thing about Rush is that his listeners truly take him seriously, when he's got about as much legitimacy as Howard Stern.
It's probably not a coincidence that my dad listens exclusively to talk radio in the car, and is either listening to Howard or Rush at all times. :bowler:
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 06:03:15 PM
Why is it not a positive to help ensure the people having children are those who want to have them and raise them?
Edit: And actually I was not advocating that so much as saying this is why we subsidize that stuff to begin with. Since I think cheap and dependable birth control is so vital, having the government subsidize it would probably ensure that both come later rather than sooner.
I don't think that's a bad thing. But it is one thing to say we want to make sure that all children are cared and loved for and another to say that we should prevent children from being born because they won't be loved and cared for.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 07:35:56 PM
For some reason this whole drama has escaped me. Actually I think my time has been better spent on CK2, Dwarf Fortress and Deep Space Nine via Netflix.
When did he say all this stuff anyway?
Just the other week. She testified on the 24th or something like that.
The chick he called a slut kinda reminds me of Winona Ryder.
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2012, 07:53:39 PM
The chick he called a slut kinda reminds me of Winona Ryder.
younger Winona Ryder. :wub:
Quote from: Maximus on March 05, 2012, 07:57:44 PM
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
:D That's the thing that got me about what he said, I was going to mention it but I was on my phone then forgot by the time I got to a PC.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 04:36:23 PM
She did lead with it, douchy. When it's in your first 90 seconds, it's a lead.
Let's assume your angle is correct. How big of an epidemic is it? Let's run some numbers.
According to wikipedia, Polycystic ovarian syndrome affects between 5 and 10% of women of childbearing age. Split the difference at 7.5%. Georgetown's law school has a total enrollment of 2,017, 47% of which are women. That's 948 women. Assuming 7.5% of them have Polycystic ovarian syndrome, that's about 71. Ms. Fluke says 20% (gasp) were denied free birth control pills. That gives us 14 women who were supposedly denied the free pills.
Was she making that big a deal over 14 people??
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2012, 07:53:39 PM
The chick he called a slut kinda reminds me of Winona Ryder.
Yeah, if Winona were a little heftier and looked a bit lesbianish. And didn't really look that much like Winona.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 08:26:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 04:36:23 PM
She did lead with it, douchy. When it's in your first 90 seconds, it's a lead.
Let's assume your angle is correct. How big of an epidemic is it? Let's run some numbers.
According to wikipedia, Polycystic ovarian syndrome affects between 5 and 10% of women of childbearing age. Split the difference at 7.5%. Georgetown's law school has a total enrollment of 2,017, 47% of which are women. That's 948 women. Assuming 7.5% of them have Polycystic ovarian syndrome, that's about 71. Ms. Fluke says 20% (gasp) were denied free birth control pills. That gives us 14 women who were supposedly denied the free pills.
Was she making that big a deal over 14 people??
That was just an example, you narrow-minded, blinkered philistine.
I hope you have plenty of daughters, so when they require hormonal rebalancing, you can simply give them aspirin bottles. Trog.
Quote from: Maximus on March 05, 2012, 07:57:44 PM
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
I took it to mean that the more sex you have, the more likely you are to "need" the pills-- versus using condoms for less frequent sexual activity.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 08:30:47 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 05, 2012, 07:57:44 PM
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
I took it to mean that the more sex you have, the more likely you are to "need" the pills-- versus using condoms for less frequent sexual activity.
LOL Please, stop while you're ahead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:27:55 PM
That was just an example, you narrow-minded, blinkered philistine.
I hope you have plenty of daughters, so when they require hormonal rebalancing, you can simply give them aspirin bottles. Trog.
Just the one, and I'll be able to take care of her without expecting a Jesuit university or others to, but thanks for the concern.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:32:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 08:30:47 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 05, 2012, 07:57:44 PM
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
I took it to mean that the more sex you have, the more likely you are to "need" the pills-- versus using condoms for less frequent sexual activity.
LOL Please, stop while you're ahead.
:lol:
Condoms are 100% effective!
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:32:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 08:30:47 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 05, 2012, 07:57:44 PM
I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but is the amount of birth control pills a woman has to take related in any way to the amount of sex they have?
I took it to mean that the more sex you have, the more likely you are to "need" the pills-- versus using condoms for less frequent sexual activity.
LOL Please, stop while you're ahead.
:lol:
Condoms are 100% effective!
Nothing is.
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2012, 07:53:39 PM
The chick he called a slut kinda reminds me of Winona Ryder.
Except not hot.
Well, this whole episode proves that Republicans have absolutely no fucking idea how vaginas work.
Probably explains why they're all so angry all the time. And why Limbaugh fucked all those little Dominican boys after he got caught with a bag full of viagra and oxycotin.
He hit the bitch switch. Best to back away.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:08:02 PM
Uncle Sam is paying? I thought this whole brouhaha was about a handful of religious organizations whining that they shouldn't be forced to provide medical care to their employees if they have "moral" reasons not to.
So what is it? Oppressing poor innocent believers or wasting tax payer money?
No, the religious organizations have been providing this care without a peep for decades. The new law simply says that certain kinds of care deemed necessary should be provided without a copay. Birth control pills was one of them.
This is entirely a manufactured "crisis." The organizations are being required to provide not a thing they haven't provided without protest for years. The change in the law costs a pittance.
Churches themselves (and their religious affiliates) are not required to provide birth control under the religious exemption. The new (and old) laws apply only to non-religious organizations affiliated with or owned by religious groups. Those non-religious organizations don't get exemptions because they are providing services to the general public and their employees are not necessarily religiously affiliated with the church running the thing.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 09:12:45 PM
He hit the bitch switch. Best to back away.
:yes: Pretty soon he is going to call your posting style "derspiessesque."
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2012, 09:40:51 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 09:12:45 PM
He hit the bitch switch. Best to back away.
:yes: Pretty soon he is going to call your posting style "derspiessesque."
I wasn't even trying to insult you then. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 06:34:27 PM
AOL is advertising their new automated PC cleanup/optimization service. Which is funny to old school guys like me who remember AOL as a virus to be removed rather than anyone you would remotely trust to fix your computer.
God, that shit used to root itself
deep, too. Like, CWS deep. :bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 09:55:48 PM
I wasn't even trying to insult you then. :(
Don't sweat it. The fact that he got defensive about it says more about him than it does about you.
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 06:19:57 PM
I'm just saying that Fluke wasn't going in to testify because she thought the committee could use her expertise - she had an agenda and she wanted publicity. And she got more of it than she could ever have hoped for.
The title of the hearing was "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" So I'm interested in who you think would have expertise worth listening to, as opposed to a publicity seeking agenda?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 04:36:23 PM
But here, here's a fetus with a pancake on its head.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthasneen.com%2Fcooking%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fbanana-pancake-making-1.jpg&hash=68c0d62ea54a30ee4981a278638670e883650ac9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FFetus_amniotic_sac.jpg%2F250px-Fetus_amniotic_sac.jpg&hash=46905b0319d7f35f08b82392ffaa68ef587d9b4e)
I LOLed.
It's interesting that the Republicans hold hearings to discuss this, do not invite a single woman to express her views, and in fact refuse to hear any woman's viewpoints during the hearing. The Dems then hold some hearings of their own, invite this woman to testify, and the immediate response of the right is to call her a slut and prostitute, claim she has too much sex, etc., etc., etc.
This goes far beyond this woman in particular, and rather illustrates that the religious right is still incredibly misogynistic, and still looks on a woman willing to speak about her sexuality in terms other than the passive as inately a threat to be reacted to with extreme prejudice.
The response of the candidates to Limbaugh's remarks is a lot more interesting, and disturbing, than Limbaugh. We all know he is a revolting douchebag.
As an outsider following American politics pretty closesly for 30 years or so, there does seem to have been a change in the right in the last few years.
The relogious right were always vocal and important but they never seemed to have quite the stanglehold on the right that they do now.
It's a great shame. Some hugely important and inventive policies have come out of the US right over the decades. It seems to me to be intellectually moribund at present. I hope it is a temporary phenomenen but read Speesh and others jumping to the defence of scum like Limbaugh makes me doubt it.
Rush Limbaugh is not the Religious Right, ya goofs.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh is not the Religious Right, ya goofs.
Of course not, but his listeners overlap pretty immensely, and he certainly panders to them. Without them, this entire contraception thing is a non-issue. Limbaugh is certainly no religious nut, but he is a nutjob radical right asshole, and that makes him a rather close ally of the religious right, and vice versa.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh is not the Religious Right, ya goofs.
Which issues does Rush part company with the Religious Right on (serious question - I've never heard his show)?
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 10:15:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh is not the Religious Right, ya goofs.
Of course not, but his listeners overlap pretty immensely, and he certainly panders to them. Without them, this entire contraception thing is a non-issue. Limbaugh is certainly no religious nut, but he is a nutjob radical right asshole, and that makes him a rather close ally of the religious right, and vice versa.
I don't think you have to be a Religious Right nutjob to disagree with the notion that Catholic institutions should be required by federal law (or executive fiat or whatever) to provide free contraception to students or employees.
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 10:20:27 AM
Which issues does Rush part company with the Religious Right on (serious question - I've never heard his show)?
Can't think of any off the top of my head. I can say his sense of humor and thought process are pretty distinguishable from your typical RR'er.
He's socially conservative-- bash him for that if you want, but he's not really part of the Religious Reich that keeps Berkut up at night.
Gups:
I've never heard him talk the Jesus talk on his show. He's the right wing equivalent of MSNBC--his raison d'etre is to bash Democrats. If some cultural conservative issues happen to come up while doing so, so be it, but that's not his main schtick.
So he takes his position on issues like this one on the basis that his enemies'' enemy is his friend rather than as a matter of principle?
I am not sure principle is part of his being.
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
So he takes his position on issues like this one on the basis that his enemies'' enemy is his friend rather than as a matter of principle?
You are overthinking this. He is an entertainer with a radio show. The political angle is just the schtick is uses to pull in an audience.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:35:15 AM
I don't think you have to be a Religious Right nutjob to disagree with the notion that Catholic institutions should be required by federal law (or executive fiat or whatever) to provide free contraception to students or employees.
Geez, everybody's just hearing what they want to hear out of this one. Not free contraception, healthcare packages that include coverage of contraception. Big, neon difference there.
And that's the kicker. Employees. To their students? I don't have a problem with them restricting availability to their students. By definition, a Catholic school is instilling their dogma in their students. Don't like it? Withdraw the student and send them to a protestant school, or even (gasp) public school. But as an employer, they're not some special class that gets to make up their own rules for dealing with employees that may or may not share their religious beliefs. They've got to follow the same rules that everyone else does.
So in summary: Mr. Limbaugh doesn't talk much about Jesus, but on actual policy he happens to agree with the religious right 19 out of 20 times?
... or are there any issues where he's at odds with the religious right?
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:35:15 AMI don't think you have to be a Religious Right nutjob to disagree with the notion that Catholic institutions should be required by federal law (or executive fiat or whatever) to provide free contraception to students or employees.
Yeah, you pretty much do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
So he takes his position on issues like this one on the basis that his enemies'' enemy is his friend rather than as a matter of principle?
You are overthinking this. He is an entertainer with a radio show. The political angle is just the schtick is uses to pull in an audience.
Like I said, I've never heard him speak. I only read news reports or comments about him. From these he seems to be failry influential.
More so 20 years ago, ever since the drug problems and previous nonsensical rants like this have destroyed his cred.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 06, 2012, 11:18:27 AM
Geez, everybody's just hearing what they want to hear out of this one. Not free contraception, healthcare packages that include coverage of contraception. Big, neon difference there.
The root cause of this particular teapot tempest is the basic evil underlying US health policy - the employer-based system for providing personal health care coverage.
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Like I said, I've never heard him speak. I only read news reports or comments about him. From these he seems to be failry influential.
Yes and Jon Stewart is influential as well, and has his own political take, but they are in the same business.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
You are overthinking this. He is an entertainer with a radio show. The political angle is just the schtick is uses to pull in an audience.
Pretty much, yeah. I don't doubt he actually disagrees with much of what he says, but he's an entertainer first & foremost.
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
So he takes his position on issues like this one on the basis that his enemies'' enemy is his friend rather than as a matter of principle?
He takes the very principled stand that anything Democrats do is bad.
edit: He's also not a big fan of Hollywood, academia, and the mainstream media. You get the drift.
I think that unlike both Stewart and Colbert, Limbaugh seems to be playing it both ways, trying to appear both as a comedian and a political commentator, whichever suits him at the time. Or it could be that he just lacks any sense of humour or finesse of these two.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
I think that unlike both Stewart and Colbert, Limbaugh seems to be playing it both ways, trying to appear both as a comedian and a political commentator, whichever suits him at the time. Or it could be that he just lacks any sense of humour or finesse of these two.
In what way are Stewart and Colbert not doing both?
Incidentally, I know we had this discussion before, but it seems that conservative "comedians" (not comedians who happen to be conservative, but the ones that make their conservatism a part of their shtick) in general seems to be less funny than the liberal ones.
It could be because comedy is, at its core, irreverential, which makes it often incompatible with conservatism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
I think that unlike both Stewart and Colbert, Limbaugh seems to be playing it both ways, trying to appear both as a comedian and a political commentator, whichever suits him at the time. Or it could be that he just lacks any sense of humour or finesse of these two.
In what way are Stewart and Colbert not doing both?
Neither of them claims to be "serious" even if they take on serious topics - it's pretty obvious they are comedy shows (with Colbert's show being a deliberate parody). Their shows feature comedic sketches and jokes, and Stewart always objects when e.g. a guest tries to call him a serious political commentator (it's different for Colbert, but that's because of his "conservative commentator" parodist persona).
Limbaugh's show has none of these elements - he is snarky, bitchy and over the top, but his show is not deliberately set up as a comedy show, but is a straightforward political radio talk show. I think if you wanted a direct comparison from the liberal side, then Rachel Madow and Bill Maher come much closer to what Limbaugh is doing.
If you want Languish comparisons, I'm like Limbaugh and Fireblade is like Colbert.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 12:24:29 PM
Incidentally, I know we had this discussion before, but it seems that conservative "comedians" (not comedians who happen to be conservative, but the ones that make their conservatism a part of their shtick) in general seems to be less funny than the liberal ones.
It could be because comedy is, at its core, irreverential, which makes it often incompatible with conservatism.
I think most political comedy isn't that funny but if you like it, you probably like comedians who agree with you more than those that don't.
The few really good political comedies that I can think of (Yes Minister, The Thick of It) have been pretty much non-partisan.
I think you have somewhat of a point Marty, but at the same time I think it's overstated. If Rush were playing to an audience you'd probably get howls of laughter at certain points.
AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT WE CAN TRUST THE DEMOCRATS WITH OUR MONEY, RIGHT??!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHOOO!
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 12:28:10 PM
Neither of them claims to be "serious" even if they take on serious topics - it's pretty obvious they are comedy shows (with Colbert's show being a deliberate parody). Their shows feature comedic sketches and jokes, and Stewart always objects when e.g. a guest tries to call him a serious political commentator (it's different for Colbert, but that's because of his "conservative commentator" parodist persona).
For your benefit I am going to ignore your analogy this one time.
Colbert brought his personae when he testified at a congressional hearing. He also had an influence on the primaries when he urged his viewers to support a non candidate who was still on the ballet.
Both Stewart and Colbert deal with real news issues. They are just much better entertainers then some others and so that might cause you to miss their politics. But they are definitely there.
Limbaugh is not a comedian - he is an entertainer, certainly.
Both Stewart and Colbert are clearly just comedians.
The counterpart to Limbaugh would be the d-bag on MSNBC from ESPN.
I don't think a left wing "serious" political commentator works in the similar way a right wing comedic political entertainer would work. Kind of funny, really.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are clearly just comedians.
Really, just like any stand up comedian or sit com? Thats just silly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are clearly just comedians.
Really, just like any stand up comedian or sit com? Thats just silly.
No, not at all. I meant to distinguish them from entertainers like Limbaugh who are in fact entertaining via political commentary, but not at all comedians. Rush might say something his viewrs find funny now and again, but getting his viewers to laugh is not his primary goal.
Stewart and Colbert are comedians who use comedy to make political points, but they make it pretty clear that the validity of the point takes second place to the comedic value.
A poor choice of words on my part.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are clearly just comedians.
Really, just like any stand up comedian or sit com? Thats just silly.
No, not at all. I meant to distinguish them from entertainers like Limbaugh who are in fact entertaining via political commentary, but not at all comedians. Rush might say something his viewrs find funny now and again, but getting his viewers to laugh is not his primary goal.
A poor choice of words on my part.
Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree with that.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 12:28:10 PM
I think if you wanted a direct comparison from the liberal side, then Rachel Madow and Bill Maher come much closer to what Limbaugh is doing.
I don't think Madcow is much of a comparison (nor Olbermann FWIW). Their tone is a lot more serious than Limbaugh's. Bill Maher is closer, though way cruder.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:36:50 PMa non candidate who was still on the ballet.
:bleeding: Cain in a tutu
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 06, 2012, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:36:50 PMa non candidate who was still on the ballet.
:bleeding: Cain in a tutu
The amazing thing was Colbert was able to drum up support on that ballot. What does that say?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Gups on March 06, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
So he takes his position on issues like this one on the basis that his enemies'' enemy is his friend rather than as a matter of principle?
You are overthinking this. He is an entertainer with a radio show. The political angle is just the schtick is uses to pull in an audience.
I think he hides behind this line when he goes to far. Conservatives certainly take him seriously. I mean, they do give him awards and shit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 06, 2012, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:36:50 PMa non candidate who was still on the ballet.
:bleeding: Cain in a tutu
The amazing thing was Colbert was able to drum up support on that ballot. What does that say?
Nothing really.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
I think he hides behind this line when he goes to far.
Not so much these days. He used to flat-out describe himself as an entertainer, but he hasn't done so in a while.
QuoteConservatives certainly take him seriously. I mean, they do give him awards and shit.
Same with the left (I think they even have some "awards" and they definitely give him shit). When he does something bad he's the leader of the GOP/conservative movement, but when he's successful and the left wants to marginalize him he's just an entertainer.
Hmm, as if the Fluke thing weren't enough, Limbaugh is being blamed for the failure of the Chevy Volt :lol:
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/02/436898/gm-the-chevy-volt-has-become-a-political-punching-bag/
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 03:19:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
I think he hides behind this line when he goes to far.
Not so much these days. He used to flat-out describe himself as an entertainer, but he hasn't done so in a while.
QuoteConservatives certainly take him seriously. I mean, they do give him awards and shit.
Same with the left (I think they even have some "awards" and they definitely give him shit). When he does something bad he's the leader of the GOP/conservative movement, but when he's successful and the left wants to marginalize him he's just an entertainer.
I don't listen to him. I do know that conservative organizations have given him awards and attributed victories to him in the past. When the Left wants to marginalize him they call him vile liar and bigot not that he's merely an entertainer.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 04:22:52 PM
Hmm, as if the Fluke thing weren't enough, Limbaugh is being blamed for the failure of the Chevy Volt :lol:
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/02/436898/gm-the-chevy-volt-has-become-a-political-punching-bag/
Does anyone really think people aren't buying the Volt because Rush is making fun of it? That gives the guy WAY too much credit.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
I don't listen to him. I do know that conservative organizations have given him awards and attributed victories to him in the past. When the Left wants to marginalize him they call him vile liar and bigot not that he's merely an entertainer.
They call him that no matter what. But I've noticed that the narrative does shift between calling him leader of the GOP to a mere entertainer.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 04:35:07 PM
They call him that no matter what.
They call him that because he is, or else because he is very convincing at playing one on the radio.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 04:35:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
I don't listen to him. I do know that conservative organizations have given him awards and attributed victories to him in the past. When the Left wants to marginalize him they call him vile liar and bigot not that he's merely an entertainer.
They call him that no matter what. But I've noticed that the narrative does shift between calling him leader of the GOP to a mere entertainer.
Actually I've seen the opposite. When he was doing well, they were calling him the defacto leader of the GOP. When he's not doing well, nobody notices him. No need to marginalize someone who has done that to themselves.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:52:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
Both Stewart and Colbert are clearly just comedians.
Really, just like any stand up comedian or sit com? Thats just silly.
No, not at all. I meant to distinguish them from entertainers like Limbaugh who are in fact entertaining via political commentary, but not at all comedians. Rush might say something his viewrs find funny now and again, but getting his viewers to laugh is not his primary goal.
A poor choice of words on my part.
Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree with that.
Which is exactly what I was saying. :contract:
You know, when he started out Limbaugh was kind of funny. I blame the drug abuse and the decline of Republican fortunes.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 05:02:20 PM
You know, when he started out Limbaugh was kind of funny. I blame the drug abuse and the decline of Republican fortunes.
I still think he's pretty funny; otherwise I'd never bother listening to him at all. And he's a lot more in his element when the GOP is out of power than when it's in power.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 09:55:48 PM
I wasn't even trying to insult you then. :(
Don't sweat it. The fact that he got defensive about it says more about him than it does about you.
:lol: Yep. I get very defensive when I am told that I post like I post.
It's not an insult, except to the intelligence of the people who use the argument. It is just absurdly redundant.
Given how defensive you are about being called fahdizesque, I suppose you missed the humor of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 05:02:20 PM
You know, when he started out Limbaugh was kind of funny. I blame the drug abuse and the decline of Republican fortunes.
When he started out, you were six. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:35:15 AM
I don't think you have to be a Religious Right nutjob to disagree with the notion that Catholic institutions should be required by federal law (or executive fiat or whatever) to provide free contraception to students or employees.
You do have to be a Religious Right nutjob to disagree with the notion that the difference between being required by law to provide free contraceptives is virtually indistinguishable from being required to provide heavily-discounted contraceptives, which those organizations have done for years without a peep.
Only religious right nutjobs (and morons) think that this is a Constitutional issue. The change in the law is inconsequential in fact.
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2012, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 05:02:20 PM
You know, when he started out Limbaugh was kind of funny. I blame the drug abuse and the decline of Republican fortunes.
When he started out, you were six. :hmm:
I remember him in the late 1980's and early 1990's which was around the time when he went national. Keep in mind I was exposed to a lot of politics in my childhood.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Which is exactly what I was saying. :contract:
No, not really.