caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 OK I looked it up. He sent a written apology, then on the show he said it was sincere and "I again apologize". So I guess that makes two non-apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It is fascinating how ecstatic some folks are by Rush's unclever blunder. Again, it rang off message and was completely below his regular satire and wit.Additionally, it was completely off message. The Ivory Soap girl used "contraception" as a hot button code word and Rush fell for it. He went on and on about her having sex which had nothing to do with her points.He missed the target by a mile and he used banal words which were not clever, were completely incoherent to what she was expressing and were frankly childish. It was still funny, but did not relate to the issues.As I said above, let's see who comes out on top, now there is an inappropriate pun, in this battle.Obama is having his first press conference in 152 days and it just happens to be tomorrow on super Tuesday. Anybody want to bet that the boy prince overreaches on this issue?AdamCome on Adam, you are ecstatic when the other side makes unclever blunders that you can pounce on, that is politics.I did not realize the immense influence he had before this. If we have an equivalent to him here I guess it would be Don Cherry, who is a right wing hockey commentator. I don't mind him. For the record, from what I have seen of Bill Maher, I don't like him either. It could just boil down to personal taste in satire and wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Carol:The "other side" makes blunders all the time and it does not hit the echo chamber of the mainstream media.Barack O'bama's, "I have not visited all 57 states." hardly was ever mentioned by any main stream media at all.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Now that you have given that slut Fluke and those whimpering leftist men another good whomping...Carol,You left out the anatomically irresistible Sarah Palin, to hear the way they talk about her...I heard a rumor somewhere that she's a woman... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You can add Bachman to it also - a woman.Laura Ingram - a woman.Ayn Rand - a woman.Ann Coulter - a woman.[to be cont'd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 This I found interesting, even if it is an isolated testimonial statement: I found that two mattress companies – Sleep Train and Sleep Number – pulled their ads from the show.My wife and I had just purchased a Sleep Number bed. When I heard about the company’s cancellation of its advertising, we cancelled our order and went with a competitor. I was very nice to the person taking my call. No yelling or expletives. He told me that they were keeping track of the responses. He then asked if I would like to leave a comment. I did.My message was simple. Sleep Number had every right to complain and pull its advertising, and I had every right to cancel my order. That’s what makes America great. The issue, I said, was not about contraception but freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Will Obama Super PAC Return Misogynist Bill Maher's Million-Dollar Donation? John McCormackMarch 5, 2012 5:39 PMIn response to the media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's insulting comments about Democratic activist Sandra Fluke (comments for which Limbaugh apologized), Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that "the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC." She continues: Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”Former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, the man who runs Obama's super PAC, did not reply when asked if he will be returning Maher's $1 million donation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You can add Bachman to it also - a woman.Laura Ingram - a woman.Ayn Rand - a woman.Ann Coulter - a woman.[to be cont'd]Adam,They are reputed to be women, too?Dayamm!I wonder why the Fluke fan folks don't ever notice that.Ah... I forgot...It sounds like you and I have not learned how to do Fluke's "nuanced thinking." btw - Barring Ed Schulz apologizing for what he said about slut Ingram, do you know if any of these other "nuanced" critics have apologized? And in thinking about Schulz, I'm glad to see his apology was sincere as opposed to hypocrite Limbaugh who does not make sincere apologies for what he said about slut Fluke...Dumb me, something inside me keeps pushing me to think both were sincere. I shore have a lotta larnen to do.But from the looks of things, cunt Palin isn't going to get one.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Don't mind me...I'm nuanced challenged...I have trouble with enlightened thinking.Probably due to my hillbilly roots... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The Blunt-Rubio amendment, full-text. I expect that any Objectivish person would be opposed to the act that Blunt-Rubio attempt to override -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE11 WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.—12 ‘‘(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.—A health plan13 shall not be considered to have failed to provide14 the essential health benefits package described15 in subsection (a) (or preventive health services16 described in section 2713 of the Public Health17 Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health18 plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement19 under this title on the basis that it declines to20 provide coverage of specific items or services be-21 cause—22 ‘‘(i) providing coverage (or, in the23 case of a sponsor of a group health plan,24 paying for coverage) of such specific items25 or services is contrary to the religious be-liefs or moral convictions of the sponsor,2 issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or3 ‘‘(ii) such coverage (in the case of in-4 dividual coverage) is contrary to the reli-5 gious beliefs or moral convictions of the6 purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.7 ‘‘(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.—8 Nothing in this title (or any amendment made9 by this title) shall be construed to require an10 individual or institutional health care provider,11 or authorize a health plan to require a provider,12 to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific13 item or service contrary to the provider’s reli-14 gious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwith-15 standing any other provision of this title, a16 health plan shall not be considered to have17 failed to provide timely or other access to items18 or services under this title (or any amendment19 made by this title) or to fulfill any other re-20 quirement under this title because it has re-21 spected the rights of conscience of such a pro-22 vider pursuant to this paragraph.23 ‘‘© NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING24 RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.—No Exchange or25 other official or entity acting in a governmental 6BAI12057 S.L.C.1 capacity in the course of implementing this title2 (or any amendment made by this title) shall3 discriminate against a health plan, plan spon-4 sor, health care provider, or other person be-5 cause of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or6 person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of,7 participate in, or refer for, specific items or8 services pursuant to this paragraph.9 ‘‘(D) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub-10 paragraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to per-11 mit a health plan or provider to discriminate in12 a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B)13 and (D) of paragraph (4).14 ‘‘(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.—The15 various protections of conscience in this para-16 graph constitute the protection of individual17 rights and create a private cause of action for18 those persons or entities protected. Any person19 or entity may assert a violation of this para-20 graph as a claim or defense in a judicial pro-21 ceeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) The real scandal here is that "this woman gave testimony about how much promiscuous sex she and classmates are having."The real scandal is "secular fundamentalists ... pursuing their own caliphate in America, with secular fundamentalism enshrined as their version of Shariah law." Edited March 6, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Rush news roundup, from the shark-infested waters of American media:MSNBC: Stephen Colbert: Rush Limbaugh is a prostituteStephen Colbert went on a rant on “The Colbert Report,” completely tearing Limbaugh (or, as Colbert put it, the "poster boy for contraception") apart.Limbaugh absolutely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the importance of medicated sex, Colbert said, "because every time he’s slept with a woman, he’s had to slip her a pill first."Next, Colbert showed clips of the GOP presidential candidates giving less-than-outraged reactions to their fellow conservative’s choice of words. Rick Santorum brushed the whole ordeal off saying an "entertainer" like Limbaugh can “be absurd," while Mitt Romney said merely that Limbaugh's use of "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Fluke “weren’t the words he would have used."Popwatch: Jon Stewart slams Rush Limbaugh, Fox News over birth control issue “What is even going through Rush Limbaugh’s fevered mind to go from a young woman trying to get private institutions to cover contraception to prostitution slut having constant sexy sex on my dime?” joked Stewart. “You’ve got to misunderstand so many things. One, he seems to believe that anyone using contraception is automatically having a ton of sex. And that contraception is something a woman has to pay for every time she has sex. And that the woman is nevertheless benefiting financially from having all that dirty contraceptive-fueled sex.” Stewart, decked out in full bio-suit gear as his own personal “prophylactic measure” against Limbaugh, added: “Personally, I don’t get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says, because he is and has been for many years a terrible person… So it’s Rush Limbaugh. Is it particularly vile Rush Limbaugh? Of course. That’s like saying this is a particularly pungent bucket of raw sewage mixed with rotting cow guts and typhoid.” Edited March 6, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Don't mind me...I'm nuanced challenged...I have trouble with enlightened thinking.Probably due to my hillbilly roots... MichaelI always mind you, Michael.I am interested in your individualistic take on class. You don't have the mindset to think of women as a "class", quite rightly in my view. Aside from being minds with wombs, as men are minds with testicles, we can all be classified according to whatever socioeconomic group we fall into, or classify ourselves. It's the framework within which we live and think.You also don't have a "class warfare" mindset; yet in the bitter ideological divisions played out on all levels in the US now, are there not "wars or rumours of war", where the ideas and ideals are translated into dollars and cents and bodies and lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Rush is in the corner now, vulnerable. AOL pulled from his show today. The media will not let this go right now, whatever their motivations. It could be that Rush will continue to lose advertisers who feel they must dissociate from his "choice of words" ... the seriousness of his errors are apparent so far in their damage to Republican message control. The message out there now is that Republicans are pandering and some like Rush go haywire on sex/genitals/women parts/contraception/abortion.I say it serves the Republicans right for pandering. Now they must somehow separate themselves from the perception that they are the uptight freakshow Peikoffs in the ring for November. That could make for an Obama cakewalk. If Democrats can win a propaganda war on so-called Women's Issues, 50.1 percent of voters are more likely to be swayed their way.This is a wedge issue now firmly lodged up the manly Republican butt, in my estimation. It does not matter who tars and who is the fiend, the perception war is at the moment lost for Rush. The taint is on.I think this is just a temporary setback for Rush, he will always have his audience. But he might lose some of his Murdoch-like grip on the GOP - mightn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Shall we set up a pool?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less listeners per week than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less radio stations than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less advertising dollars per week than he has now?Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Shall we set up a pool?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less listeners per week than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less radio stations than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less advertising dollars per week than he has now?AdamMy bet is he will have about the same. As I said in post above. I do think he was unwise to boast about having turned down advertisers, however. The ones he turned down might consider replacing the ones he lost..... and they might negotiate a big discount for their previous hurt feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Shall we set up a pool?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less listeners per week than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less radio stations than he has now?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012, Rush Limbaugh will have more or less advertising dollars per week than he has now?AdamMy bet is he will have about the same. As I said in post above.I do think he was unwise to boast about having turned down advertisers, however. The ones he turned down might consider replacing the ones he lost..... and they might negotiate a big discount for their previous hurt feelings.Lol...not happening - audience numbers are what they are buying and the fact that, in most cases, the products he has are top shelf with really good reputations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Shall we set up a pool?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012The next 8 months are going to be good for all political media. A rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe if you switched to a 12 month period, it would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Shall we set up a pool?Eight months from today, March 6, 2012The next 8 months are going to be good for all political media. A rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe if you switched to a 12 month period, it would make sense.Dennis:Lol - well, I have been discovered loading the pool, just like the left loads the polls!OK - then the same three bets for March 6th, 2013.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I just saw Obama's press conference. He was asked about Limbaugh, his call to Fluke and what he thinks about liberals who call conservative women dirty names in public.He was neutral in an insinuatingly negative and disapproving manner with Rush, he spent some quality poetic time talking about his own kids being able to express themselves like Ms. Fluke when they grow up without being called vile names, and he totally blew off commenting about liberals who call conservative women dirty names.I wonder if Maher, being one of the vilest, having recently contributed one million dollars to his reelection campaign had anything to do with his... er... "omission."May his daughters grow up to be conservatives.Then let him see what happens and let him opine and omit.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I just saw Obama's press conference. He was asked about Limbaugh, his call to Fluke and what he thinks about liberals who call conservative women dirty names in public.He was neutral in an insinuatingly negative and disapproving manner with Rush, he spent some quality poetic time talking about his own kids being able to express themselves like Ms. Fluke when they grow up without being called vile names, and he totally blew off commenting about liberals who call conservative women dirty names.I wonder if Maher, being one of the vilest, having recently contributed one million dollars to his reelection campaign had anything to do with his... er... "omission."May his daughters grow up to be conservatives.Then let him see what happens and let him opine and omit.MichaelI doubt that Maher's $1 million, or the relatively small influence he has on voters (he has little to none on the Democratic Party itself from what I can gather) has much to do with omitting that reference. There is a valid point to be made about misogynistic mudslinging. But one-off misogynist comments are not comparable to sustained allegations of prostitution and speculations on the personal sexuality of a private citizen, albeit an activist one who put herself into the public spotlight. Women (and men) who run for public office open themselves to every sort of personal examination and comment. The insults to Palin etal were sexist, but they were based on perceived lack of knowledge and/or intelligence about the jobs they were applying for, couched in sexist language, from the context of political opposition.As I said before, I don't like Bill Maher and I think he is a misogynist and more than a little crazy. Limbaugh is much more powerful and not crazy at all; his statements are politically calculated. This time he miscalculated. He thought he was shooting fish in a barrel and now he is, if not swimming with sharks, being nipped at by piranhas in a fishtank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I doubt that Maher's $1 millionYou remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right? Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil. That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to. Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right?AdamI am so confused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I doubt that Maher's $1 millionYou remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right?Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil.That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to.Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right?AdamI am so confused...All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I doubt that Maher's $1 millionYou remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right?Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil.That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to.Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right?AdamI am so confused...All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes.Good. We agree. I would apply the same standard to the Mittens on the Republican side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I doubt that Maher's $1 millionYou remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right?Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil.That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to.Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right?AdamI am so confused...All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes.Good. We agree. I would apply the same standard to the Mittens on the Republican side.What about the other candidates? I don't know about any of their big-money donors except for Gingrich's Las Vagas high roller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now