RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:39:59 AM)

I love these horrendous analogys
quote:

Imagine an alcoholic demanding insurance coverage for his cab fare so he could safely go out and get drunk, or a drug addict coverage for his needles.

Equate women with addicts
marvellous
even addicted women didnt deserve that.




mnottertail -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:43:01 AM)

Hardly, do you know that birth control pills are widely prescribed for other wideranging health reasons to a great number of women other than to provide for their unconrollable slutting?  Some perhaps as old as your old slut of a great grandmother (go look in your bedroom, see how many uncontrollable sluts you got in there right now, because of Obamas pandering to the lusts of godless  vaginal things we call women).

Condoms are sort of single use, but not oral contraceptives.




Hillwilliam -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:44:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


Imagine an alcoholic demanding insurance coverage for his cab fare so he could safely go out and get drunk, or a drug addict coverage for his needles. Rush's words may have been over the top, but certainly hit the mark.



Imagine an aging lothario wanting insurance companies to cover viagra so he can go on vacation to the Dominican Republic and fuck a roomfull of young prostitutes.

OOPS, I forgot. They already do.[:D]




MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:47:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Misunderstood?
Truly ?
and hes getting big bucks to "misunderstand" now he is paying for his ignorance!
Wow, I wouldnt accept that as an excuse from someone who has been in the business for 20 odd years. That truly is making excuses for him.
Please show where he could have gotton this "misunderstanding" from??
from her transcript if you please.
Im quite willing to read how he could have misconstrued it to the point of thinking she wants to have 3000 dollars worth of sex every month?
Id expect it from a noob, or a moron, but him? only with malice, vindictiveness and misogyny
ya, the queen of sheba is my real name.

I don't know for sure that he misunderstood, it was simply my interpretation of his comments. But, then again, you don't know for sure that he was intentionally being malicious. That is just your interpretation of his comments. Neither of us can prove that, so it doesn't really matter. That is completely beside the point anyway.

Did no one actually read what I posted thoroughly? I made one brief comment about Rush's interpretation, and suddenly that is all anyone wants to talk about. What about the fact that Rush is being accused, by Maddow, of wanting the government to make birth control decisions for people. Where is the support for her comments?

THAT was the point of my post. THAT was what I was debating. I wasn't trying to debate the ultimate thought process behind Rush's comments, because quite frankly no one can prove that one way or another. Attempting to prove what someone was thinking is the ultimate exercise in futility, as it can only be attributed to the individual listener's perceptions.




kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:54:54 AM)

quote:

I've not heard anything from him about wanting the government to make birth control decisions for people. If there is a link to him saying that he does want the government to do so, please show me. I'll gladly change my perspective if such quotes exist, but I know that I certainly haven't heard him say anything of the sort.


It was edited from the article. See around 16:00. "In your radio studio, or on Capitol Hill, on the campaign trail, or in the state legislators - these guys are saying "We know best. GOVERNMENT should be making these decisions about women's health. We've got it all figured out." And frankly this is not a talk radio problem. This is also Mitt Romney's problem on this issue..."

And then she gets into Mississippi's Personhood Bill.

We've been talking about these sorts of bills for several weeks, before you started participating; let me know if you need a briefing.

Around 18:00:

"The point is that there is a difference in the two parties on this issue right now.... the Democrats aren't playing doctor on this issue, they are not saying government should be the ones that make a decision on contraception - YOU should...."




tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:56:02 AM)

quote:

quote:

tweakabelle

A far more credible explanation is the Rush invented the entire thing because it suited him politically, that Rush was malicious. Rush's history of personal vituperation and looseness with the truth, whenever he feels they are politically warranted both support this view. It is difficult to explain the enormous gap between the facts and Rush's vitriol otherwise. How precisely might one jump from:
"he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills."
to
she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute."
without malice???

MDomCouple
Malice may be involved, and likely is. However, that doesn't mean he invented her stance. It is quite possible that he simply misunderstood what she was advocating, it angered him, and he lashed out. That doesn't involve intentionally lying, simply misunderstanding.


I'm glad that we agree malice is a likely candidate. I'm far from convinced that we can extend the excuses you offer to a 30 year + media veteran. "Misunderstanding" Fluke's comments, becoming enraged by them and "lashing out" isn't exactly professional behaviour by any standard. Whatever credibility these excuses might have vanishes when Rush's remarks are viewed against his long history of similar vitriol and falsehoods directed at this political opponents and deployed, it seems with promiscuous regularity.


quote:

But, all that said, what does any of this have to do with my original point, which is that Maddow seems to be wrong about what Rush was saying. I don't see anything he has said that would indicate he wants the government to control birth control.


I'm interested in examining Rush's role in this affair, as per the OP. How Maddow fits into that is peripheral at best. I only responded because I saw embedded in your comments about Maddox some points that I felt were disputable, and could be used to exonerate Rush of his culpability in this matter. So I'd prefer if we stuck to the OP if that's OK with you.




MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:05:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I've not heard anything from him about wanting the government to make birth control decisions for people. If there is a link to him saying that he does want the government to do so, please show me. I'll gladly change my perspective if such quotes exist, but I know that I certainly haven't heard him say anything of the sort.


It was edited from the article. See around 16:00. "In your radio studio, or on Capitol Hill, on the campaign trail, or in the state legislators - these guys are saying "We know best. GOVERNMENT should be making these decisions about women's health. We've got it all figured out." And frankly this is not a talk radio problem. This is also Mitt Romney's problem on this issue..."

And then she gets into Mississippi's Personhood Bill.

We've been talking about these sorts of bills for several weeks, before you started participating; let me know if you need a briefing.



I know all about the various bills, such as the one from Mississippi that you mention. However, I don't see how that equates to Rush advocating that the government take over birth control. That is the point I'm trying to discuss here.




tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:09:54 AM)

quote:

Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A far more credible explanation is the Rush invented the entire thing because it suited him politically, that Rush was malicious.



So Rush invented Fluke's testimony?


He definitely invented the "slut' and 'prostitute' slurs. Which are the slurs that have caused so much contention. He's admitted as much by apologising for them.




kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:10:46 AM)

[image]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m05zeyclxb1qaqasro1_500.jpg[/image]

My new favorite politician. Oklahoma Senator Judy Eason McIntyre holds a sign at a pro-choice rally yesterday that reads, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd fuck a Senator."




Lucylastic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:11:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Misunderstood?
Truly ?
and hes getting big bucks to "misunderstand" now he is paying for his ignorance!
Wow, I wouldnt accept that as an excuse from someone who has been in the business for 20 odd years. That truly is making excuses for him.
Please show where he could have gotton this "misunderstanding" from??
from her transcript if you please.
Im quite willing to read how he could have misconstrued it to the point of thinking she wants to have 3000 dollars worth of sex every month?
Id expect it from a noob, or a moron, but him? only with malice, vindictiveness and misogyny
ya, the queen of sheba is my real name.

I don't know for sure that he misunderstood, it was simply my interpretation of his comments. But, then again, you don't know for sure that he was intentionally being malicious. That is just your interpretation of his comments. Neither of us can prove that, so it doesn't really matter. That is completely beside the point anyway.

Did no one actually read what I posted thoroughly? I made one brief comment about Rush's interpretation, and suddenly that is all anyone wants to talk about. What about the fact that Rush is being accused, by Maddow, of wanting the government to make birth control decisions for people. Where is the support for her comments?

THAT was the point of my post. THAT was what I was debating. I wasn't trying to debate the ultimate thought process behind Rush's comments, because quite frankly no one can prove that one way or another. Attempting to prove what someone was thinking is the ultimate exercise in futility, as it can only be attributed to the individual listener's perceptions.

His comments about slut, prostitute, and that hes sure her parents should be so proud, but he would hide, isnt vindictive, its all a big misunderstanding...[8|][8|]
his words failed him.
he knows EXACTLY what he was doing.
Maddow was going off his "misinderstanding" YOu DONT need to take the pill only when having sex. Its a daily thing...nothing to do with having a pill for each sex act..
We are talking Rush Limbaugh here, this was NOT an accident, it was incendiary and meant to be.Thats what earns him the big bucks, but he made his bed, Im sure he is happy to lay in it.
The Scum sucking ditch pig ....may his testicles turn square and fester. Him and his groupies are so very happy to be rooting in shit.

You may have been debating the controlling women
by the very nature of putting women down to be sluts and prostitutes is to demean and dehumanize. THe catholic church and the religious right have been all about controlling women in the last year... rush just topped it, well for now, till someone else decides to be a dick wad.
As david frum said in a CNN article this morning.
"Rush scraped the bottom of the barrel, the only place discourse can move is up."
Im not so confident.




MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:11:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm glad that we agree malice is a likely candidate. I'm far from convinced that we can extend the excuses you offer to a 30 year + media veteran. "Misunderstanding" Fluke's comments, becoming enraged by them and "lashing out" isn't exactly professional behaviour by any standard. Whatever credibility these excuses might have vanishes when Rush's remarks are viewed against his long history of similar vitriol and falsehoods directed at this political opponents and deployed, it seems with promiscuous regularity.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point completely, but it seems as though you are saying you are dismissing the idea that Rush misunderstood and lashed out, because it isn't professional behavior. Yet, you are willing to say that he was being intentionally malicious, which isn't exactly professional behavior either. So, either his 30 years in the media industry counts or it doesn't. If it counts, then neither of our estimations of his behavior are likely. If his experience doesn't count, then both of our estimations are equally as likely.

But, again, that is an irrelevant discussion point. No matter our perspective, I fail to see how it is possible for either of us to provide enough evidence to prove our contention.


quote:


I'm interested in examining Rush's role in this affair, as per the OP. How Maddow fits into that is peripheral at best. I only responded because I saw embedded in your comments about Maddox some points that I felt were disputable, and could be used to exonerate Rush of his culpability in this matter. So I'd prefer if we stuck to the OP if that's OK with you.

Maddow was brought up as another media veteran commenting on Rush's statements. Her comments also seem to be incorrect. So, examining the criticism leveled against Rush hardly seems to be "peripheral at best." If we can't debate what Maddow said about Rush and his comments/motives, then we can't debate anyone's criticisms. If we can't, then what are we doing here other than constantly shouting "Rush was rude?"




Lucylastic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:13:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

[image]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m05zeyclxb1qaqasro1_500.jpg[/image]

My new favorite politician. Oklahoma Senator Judy Eason McIntyre holds a sign at a pro-choice rally yesterday that reads, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd fuck a Senator."

hehehheheh
ALtho gawd, Im not into the money and power crap
shudder.. while there are a couple of cuties, the majority would turn me off boinking and Im not taking that chance




kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:17:00 AM)

Maddow may merely be lumping Rush in as part of The GOP's vagina monologue - I have yet to see one way or the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-do-remember-that-women-vote-right/2012/03/02/gIQAGGVJnR_story.html

When will Republicans stop their vagina monologue?

March is federally recognized as Women’s History Month, and Republicans have been celebrating the occasion in a most unusual style: with a burst of interest in women’s private parts.




SternSkipper -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:17:25 AM)

quote:

Hardly, do you know that birth control pills are widely prescribed for other wideranging health reasons


Ron, you're not still giving them to your neighbor with the really bad manboobs are ya. You know it's wrong to tell him they are sweetener for coffee right?




tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:20:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I love these horrendous analogys
quote:

Imagine an alcoholic demanding insurance coverage for his cab fare so he could safely go out and get drunk, or a drug addict coverage for his needles.

Equate women with addicts
marvellous
even addicted women didnt deserve that.

Yup. Looks like Rush's vicious misogyny can now be given the status of 'communicable disease'.

This particular poster claimed Rush's comments "hit the mark". Leaving the violent connotations of that aside, as Rush himself is fast becoming the major casualty in this affair, it's kind of poetic justice that the damage to Rush was entirely self inflicted.




MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:22:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Maddow may merely be lumping Rush in as part of The GOP's vagina monologue - I have yet to see one way or the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-do-remember-that-women-vote-right/2012/03/02/gIQAGGVJnR_story.html

When will Republicans stop their vagina monologue?

March is federally recognized as Women’s History Month, and Republicans have been celebrating the occasion in a most unusual style: with a burst of interest in women’s private parts.

So, the only defense of Maddow's comment is that the GOP is discussing abortion issues around the country? I don't see how that makes her comments about what Rush believes factually accurate.




kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:38:50 AM)

1. "You" refers to talk radio, Capitol Hill, Republican candidates, and state legislators.

2. It's a very small part of a 20 minute piece.

3. I haven't seen one way or the other Rush's position on all the anti-women legislative efforts.




tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm glad that we agree malice is a likely candidate. I'm far from convinced that we can extend the excuses you offer to a 30 year + media veteran. "Misunderstanding" Fluke's comments, becoming enraged by them and "lashing out" isn't exactly professional behaviour by any standard. Whatever credibility these excuses might have vanishes when Rush's remarks are viewed against his long history of similar vitriol and falsehoods directed at this political opponents and deployed, it seems with promiscuous regularity.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point completely, but it seems as though you are saying you are dismissing the idea that Rush misunderstood and lashed out, because it isn't professional behavior. Yet, you are willing to say that he was being intentionally malicious, which isn't exactly professional behavior either. So, either his 30 years in the media industry counts or it doesn't. If it counts, then neither of our estimations of his behavior are likely. If his experience doesn't count, then both of our estimations are equally as likely.

But, again, that is an irrelevant discussion. No matter our perspective, I fail to see how it is possible for either of us to provide enough evidence to prove our contention.


Your post verges on pure sophistry.

Rush has a long history (which you don't dispute) of behaving in precisely this obnoxious manner towards his political opponents. It happens with such regularity that it cannot be reasonably viewed as other than pre-meditated and calculated. People such as Rush are not called 'shock-jocks' for nothing. The attempt to draw a false equivalence fails lamentably.

It seems that you are trying to mount some kind of tenuous case to ameliorate his outrageous behaviour. This is despite your earlier agreement that malice is a "likely" cause of his behaviour. It's even more surprising in view of Rush's less-than-gracious apology for his behaviour. Personally I find it difficult to imagine reasons why a person with such a vicious disposition, appalling history and vindictive nature should ever be let near a microphone. It appears that even his sponsors are coming around to my point of view.

If you do wish to place Rush's behaviour into a wider context, then the Republican 'War on Women' seems the appropriate context, not the red herring of Maddow's comments. The debates over ideologically-driven attempts to usurp women's control over their bodies rage across the USA at the moment. Rush's vicious outburst can be seen as just another salvo in that ongoing struggle. The reactions of posters here, advertisers and ordinary people across the USA who all seem united in their rejection of the nasty politics of Rush and the GOP in this area are a portent of an even greater rejection of the 'War on Women' come November.










Lucylastic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 8:46:42 AM)

I just got a hold of this
Rush's 53 Smears Against Sandra Fluke

Feb. 29, 2012:

1) “she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills”
2) “they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!”
3) “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
4) “Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills.”

March 1, 2012:

5) “You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute”
6) “she's having so much sex”
7) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
8) “they want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want”
9) “the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”
10) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
11) “having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet”
12) “four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet”
13) “Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex.”
14) “to pay for these co-eds to have sex”
15) “she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day”
16) “Therefore we are paying her to have sex. Therefore we are paying her for having sex.”
17) “Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?”
18) “Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
19) “we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”
20) “'If we're paying for this, it makes these women sluts, prostitutes.' And what else could it be?”
21) “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?”
22) “I'm having sex so damn much, I'm going broke.”
23) “She's having so much sex that she's going broke! There's no question about her virtue.”
24) “having so much sex she's going broke at Georgetown Law.”
25) “Here's a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as often as she wants it sex -- given.”
26) “She's having so much sex it's amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.”
27) “Maybe they're sex addicts.”
28) “to pay for her to have sex all the time.”
29) “she wants the rest of us to pay for her sex.”
30) “She wants all the sex that she wants all the time paid for by the rest of us.”
31) “Here this babe goes before Congress and wants thousands of dollars to pay for her sex.”
32) “a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman.”
33) “She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.”
34) “If this woman wants to have sex ten times a day for three years, fine and dandy.”
35) “to provide women from Georgetown Law unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
36) “so she can have unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
37) “You want to have all the sex you want all day long, no consequences, no responsibility for your behavior”
38) “The woman wants unlimited, no-responsibility, no-consequences sex, and she wants it with contraceptives paid for by us.”

March 2, 2012:

39) "she's having so much sex, she can't afford her birth control pills anymore.”
40) “she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it -- and we should.”
41) “She's having so much sex, she can't afford it.”
42) “this, frankly hilarious claim that she's having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can't afford it.”
43) “And not one person says, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'”
44) “Does she have more boyfriends? Ha! They're lined up around the block.”
45) "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can't afford it.”
46) “By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can't afford it.”
47) “they're having a lot of sex for which they need a lot of contraception.”
48) “Her sex life is active and she's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth control pills that she needs.”
49) “who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore.”
50) “she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it.”
51) “As frequently as she has sex and to not be pregnant, she's obviously succeeding in contraception.”
52) “Ms. Fluke, asserts her right to free contraceptive, to handle her sex life -- and it's, by her own admission, quite active.”

UPDATE: added thanks to your comments,
53) "Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade, or your contraception?"

Via Daily Kos, that has links to each comment AT the limbaugh site
Just in case you want to refudiate anything
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070884/-Rush-s-52-Smears-Against-Sandra-Fluke?via=sidebyuserrec

Yeah he being misunderstood alright.[8|][8|]
Please feel free to follow up for your own edification




Owner59 -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 9:03:32 AM)

Holy fuck`n SHIT!


The dupe/apologist/cons better just go for the standard fall-back excuse when a con-leader/hero get`s caught saying horrible things........"he was just kidding"....."he was making a joke"...."he wasn`t serious,just trying to get a laugh"........[8|]


That screed.........just can`t be explained or joked away........

No wonder the weaker minded cons are reduced to re-stating our 1st Amendment rights.[:D]




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625