1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rush Limbaugh | Voice of the GOP?

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Trey of Diamonds, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,561
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Buddhism
    And that's what bugs me. Why is Viagra covered? There's no sense in that.
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    201,668
    Ratings:
    +73,995
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It seems roughly equivalent to birth control.
    - Viagra helps cope with a medical malady (limp d*** syndrome).
    - Birth control helps prevent a medical malady (bun in the oven).
    Cover one, cover the other I say.
     
  3. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,561
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Buddhism
    Some people don't realize that contraceptives also help with several other issues that women have, and it's not always about birth control.
     
  4. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    201,668
    Ratings:
    +73,995
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yeah, I know, but I wanted to keep it simple.
     
    #44 Revoltingest, Mar 12, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2012
  5. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,561
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Buddhism
    That's cool. But just remember, no matter how simple, the conservatives will always deem it too hard. :p
     
  6. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    There remains a few failures of comparative degrees here, which are both awkwardly compelling and yet unmistakable. Fox News and it’s willing sycophants wish to purport some moral and ethical equivalency between satirical commentary lent towards PUBLIC figures that consistently seek out attention from “the lamestream media”… and our own humble private citizens that seek to express their own concerns of individual liberties in testimony before a congressional committee.

    Bill Maher is, in fact, a stand-up comic… beyond most any dispute… whom focuses his directed satirical remonstrances squarely at those that have opined in most public fashion, their “publicaly” held views.

    In simplistic example… Sarah Palin has voice and platform afforded to her by Fox News: not just as a “Private citizen”, but also as a former VP candidate of the Republican Party in a national election. She is, beyond question, a public “person”… therefore fair game for satirical derision (absent any personal attacks) in any manner, shape, form, or fashion that cognizant comedians may glean from her most directed public “oral emissions”. Again, let’s be real… Palin seeks attention (and perhaps validation) when she orates aloud…period.

    As Palin remains a former (albeit early quitter) governor of one of our great 50 states, she can not avoid (nor does she seem to discourage) the attentions she brings upon herself in blathering away to emphasize her own punishing ignorance of anything that requires even a glinting hint of either political or intellectual acumen. Bill Maher simply highlights Palin’s own regrettable qualities in a satirical light of pointed hypocrisy and failed logic. And sometimes, the “ C”
    ot “T” words (See:Hannity) are part of that repetoire on HBO,

    Limbaugh, on the other hand, builds his case against a most private citizen, that has never sought pubic office nor national exposure… yet purposes his diatribes to paint the object of his manifest hate towards an unknown college coed with no nationalized agenda other than to speak in defense of women that desire parity and fairness in matters of female and public heath coverage.

    When Maher describes Palin as dumb “C**t”… he does so in the full knowledge that Palin most assuredly invites public scrutiny and satirical derision (and/or rebuttal) of her stated position(s). Agian, let’s be real. Palin has two sponsored shows hosted by Fox. She is is PUBLIC figure in every understanding of the word.

    Efforts to somehow or otherwise establish some moral equivalency between Limbaugh’s most slanderous remarks cast upon a private citizen, and Bill Maher’s comedically satirical observations of a purposed pubilc personna (like Palin)…bear no objectively derived comparisons at all.

    And even if… if even the most rational and forgiving, and reasoning mind might permit and allow some moral equivalency between Limbaugh’s comments re: a private citizen, and a public figure like Palin from the likes of Bill Maher…even, if then… is that the only afforded defense of Limbaugh available?

    Really?

    Well, “He’s no worse that Maher”?

    So…leave Limbaugh alone?

    Really?

    So,…as reprehensible as Maher is made out to be by some that do not appreciate his perspectives as lwnt by a social satirist, and an acknowledged comedian by profession… Limbaugh (the “entertainer”) gets a free pass of equivalency for attacking and impugning the personal character of a private citizen in some higher intellectual argument of moral equality/equivalency?

    Really?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    I guess it is time for me to weigh in here. Rush does not speak for the GOP, he is far right of the GOP in my opinion. Rush speaks for extreme conservatism. He has every right to spew his opinions but his freedom of speech also has responsibilities. His recent slander should require him to do more than apologise, he should write a check to the woman as well. As far as losing sponsers, that is his responsibility as well. The thing is, the local radio stations did not lose sponsers, they just don't air them during his paticular show now. He lost like 40 local sponsers but you have to realise that there are still close to a thousand that stayed with him all over the country. This does not cost Rush anything, the local radio stations make that money not him. He sells his show to the radio station and they in turn sell advertizing. If he is a money maker, they will keep him, and if not, he will lose market share. Rush has hundreds of radio stations broadcasting his show and none of them dropped him.
     
    #47 Reverend Rick, Mar 15, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2012
  8. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    Even though I totally despise Rush now, and I don't have that much of a higher opinion of Bill Maher, who is every bit as much a misogynist (just from a different approach), this issue is not really about them. From my pov, it's really about the difference in social standing between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin. There are reasons why the bar is set much higher for celebrities and public figures to claim slander and defamation of character than a private citizen. For one thing, the ordinary citizen does not have the same access to the media, to make their own case before the public as someone who gets a press conference together any time they wish. And the ordinary citizen does not have the financial resources to afford the security or live in a specially protected community as the celebrity either.

    So, in spite of Palin's reputation for being vengeful and litigious, she doesn't have a serious case for slander or defamation of character against Bill Maher; but Sandra Fluke does, for the week-long tirade of misinformation and character assassination by Limbaugh.

    And, in the eyes of public, the general feeling has always been that it's okay for comedy to attack people with power and/or money, but not okay to attack the weak and powerless.....and going a little off-topic, that's why conservatives are lousy comedians....i.e. Dennis Miller...case closed!
     
  9. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    If we still understand the Republican Party as the "three legged stool" first described by Ronald Reagan over 30 years ago, Rush does speak authoritatively for the money conservatives in the Republican Party. Those who are motivated by how to get richer and pay less taxes, are the Rush fans. I haven't really listened to Limbaugh in at least 10 years, but unless he became some big, flaming evangelical, he's mostly steered away from the social issues and focused on the money. The only time he talks about social issues, is to use them as sticks to attack liberals, or to express his hostility about women, minorities and immigrants in as careful language as possible. But social issues are not his playground, like they are for idiots like Glenn Beck.

    Rush's approach to religious and social conservatives is no different than Karl Rove's. Both see them as useful, but not the people who should be leading the parade. When it comes to social issues, Rush would be a moderate in the present Republican mix....especially down south, where a large segment of southern Republicans want to ban inter-racial marriage:
    Poll: Obama is a Muslim to many GOP voters in Alabama, Mississippi - Los Angeles Times
    The Republicans down south would probably bring back slavery too if they had their way. What do Republicans say on these issues in the rest of the Country?
     
  10. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Yes he does. Should not everyone have a voice and opinion?
    I agree.
    Fair enough.
    Pretty much the same thing most Republican say down south. Painting folks with a broad brush with a sterotype, is wrong minded.

    Why not just say all Republicans are evil just because of a very few wrong minded individuals?

    I find your thinking binary at best.
     
  11. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Reverend Rick said:
    “Rush does not speak for the GOP, he is far right of the GOP in my opinion. Rush speaks for extreme conservatism. He has every right to spew his opinions but his freedom of speech also has responsibilities.”

    I would tend to concur with your assessment if it were not for the very glaring fact that virtually no currently serving publicly elected Republican member of Congress (much less any current candidate for nominee of the GOP as President) stood up and called for others to utterly repudiate the slanderous remarks of Rush Limbaugh…. That silence was deafening… not just to progressives and bleeding-heart liberals, but to everyday “moderates” and “independents” too. Even big fat bigots and idiots with 15 min. of air time have the “right” to express their own opinions, and no one… NO ONE questions that right…but...

    ...to obviously (and irresponsibly) slander and/or characterize any private citizen as a ****, or whore, or prostitute, or prospectively amateur porn maven…simply for exercising that very same right of speech in lent testimony before an assembled congressional committee...goes far beyond any rational excuse for acceptable behavior. Period, end of debate.

    Does Rush “Speak for” the GOP? How would anyone fairly determine if he does or does not…if no appointed/relegated official spokesperson, or currently elected official within the GOP will even exercise their own right to publicly excoriate Limbaugh, and state without any equivocation that Limbaugh's "opinions" and odious tirade… can not, do not, and will not...EVER represent any established or defended aspect of any GOP position or policy?

    “His recent slander should require him to do more than apologise, he should write a check to the woman as well. As far as losing sponsers, that is his responsibility as well. The thing is, the local radio stations did not lose sponsers, they just don't air them during his paticular show now. He lost like 40 local sponsers but you have to realise that there are still close to a thousand that stayed with him all over the country. This does not cost Rush anything, the local radio stations make that money not him. He sells his show to the radio station and they in turn sell advertizing. If he is a money maker, they will keep him, and if not, he will lose market share. Rush has hundreds of radio stations broadcasting his show and none of them dropped him.”

    Your observations are noted, which should cause us all to pause again, and wonder upon the virtues of greed within a civilized society, and the chilling imposed fear that Rush wields as a bludgeon upon any that would dare to challenge him in open and public discourse in any act of defiance or re-probation. But this also misses the point... in that some redeeming validation or exculpatory excuse might be found in any mathematical accounting of advertising sponsors remaining or lending monetary support of his daily "airings". Some matters transcend profit/loss, or at least should do so...

    Again, I'll say that the evident GOP silence is building to a roar, and some can hear that “rush”, and may choose instead to quiet that brusque wind with a much quieter, albeit more profound rebuttal :)
     
  12. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Work in progress offered:

    "Even though I totally despise Rush now, and I don't have that much of a higher opinion of Bill Maher, who is every bit as much a misogynist (just from a different approach), this issue is not really about them"


    Just so we both understand the rhetoric employed here…a “misogynist” is defined as “a man who hates women”. Bill Maher is famously quotable about saying uncomplimentary things about some women (most of which he qualifies as either patently stupid, or hypocritical, extremely self-serving). But I would submit that anyone that has actually been exposed to Maher’s commentaries for more than 15 min knows very well that he certainly does NOT hate women, and in fact has many female friends that span the collective spectrum of ideological perspectives (even crazy-eyed, fell off the cliff a decade ago, Ann Coulter). He may in fact be the most public, straight, horn dog in America today.

    "From my pov, it's really about the difference in social standing between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin. There are reasons why the bar is set much higher for celebrities and public figures to claim slander and defamation of character than a private citizen. For one thing, the ordinary citizen does not have the same access to the media, to make their own case before the public as someone who gets a press conference together any time they wish. And the ordinary citizen does not have the financial resources to afford the security or live in a specially protected community as the celebrity either."

    No, it’s not about “social standing”. Not at all. It’s about power and influence, and the willingness to exploit those traits in the public square with intent to flex those muscular traits in both drawing attention to oneself for personal gain, and in influencing the otherwise uninformed/disengaged to be either fearful or submissive in their own ignorance. Anyone could forgive Palin’s stunning lacking capacities ignorance of current events or world affairs 4 years ago, for neither to requisite as qualification as governor of Alaska…popularity, a pretty face, and a license to hunt moose was enough in that little corner of America (whose entire counted population is roughly twice the count of the metro region of the modest city I reside within here in East TN). Big city mayors have more responsibilities and accountabilities and major issues to solve that she EVER even need contemplate to address or solve… but that’s another matter for another thread…about elected officials that resigned while in office because they couldn’t handle the pressure of circumspect evaluation. What's almost unbelievable is that 4 years hence, Palin still believes that any "book learnin'" is just not important enough to inculcate into her own understanding of most anything of relevant importance.

    “So, in spite of Palin's reputation for being vengeful and litigious, she doesn't have a serious case for slander or defamation of character against Bill Maher; but Sandra Fluke does, for the week-long tirade of misinformation and character assassination by Limbaugh.”

    No, she does not. In point of fact, there is no comparison whatsoever.

    “And, in the eyes of public, the general feeling has always been that it's okay for comedy to attack people with power and/or money, but not okay to attack the weak and powerless.....and going a little off-topic, that's why conservatives are lousy comedians....i.e. Dennis Miller...case closed

    Your point is worthy, but deserves further clarification.

    Comedy has many forms (slapstick, skat, buffoonery, one-liners, and knock-knock jokes), and that resultant laughter, like any taste…is subjective in acceptance as being “funny”, or at least palatable. But Bill Maher is not a “low-brow” comedian doing fart and breast jokes, he’s an accomplished and incisive satirist…satire by definition is:
    “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”

    Well… that’s what Bill Maher does.. and the targets of his satire don’t particularly like it very much. But, you will note (and this is key), his “victims” never effectively nor logically rebut his satirical remonstrances… they only attack his personal character and affiliations with rumor and innuendo. Or simply dismiss him as an atheist, and we all know what that means…right?

    As Maher (the egotist that he is) likes to reiterate and remind his critics, he says “but I’m not wrong”…and for good or ill, when challenge is transformed into test… evidence to the contrary is always elusive, and never supported.
     
  13. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    To put it bluntly, back in the 90's Bill Maher and Ann Coulter were ****-buddies, not friends! Did you ever see any pictures of them together...except her as the frequent conservative guest of his show Politically Incorrect? They never dated, rarely attended the same parties ....they just hooked up on occasion....is that what you think qualifies as friendship? And who are the other women that he's friends with?

    And a lot of womanizing, promiscuous guys are misogynists btw! Just wanting sex with women does not necessarily mean liking, loving, or having any appreciation for women.

    And power and influence is a measure of social status. In a capitalist society, power = money. And besides having cashed in from her 15 minutes of fame, Sarah Palin also had to expect a higher degree of public scrutiny than a private citizen who does not have the same access to the media.
     
  14. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    s2a, where is you contempt for the attacks on Conservative women? The left even attacked their children. David Letterman come to mind. While I see outrage for racist and sexist comments made on the right, the left seems to get a free pass as long as they focus on Conservative women. I on the other hand don't like any attacks period by either side. It is wrong and an apology should not be enough.
     
  15. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    It depends on what sort of "conservative women" you are talking about. Are you referring to average women...who may have only acquired a level of celebrity for being denied to speak before an all-male forum on an issue affecting women, and then had their names and reputations smeared with lies and absurd condemnations on a national radio show? Or, are you referring to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? Who are two equally overly promoted and equally unqualified women; who are or have been in positions of leadership, where their decisions and dumb ideas affect the lives of others? Most people don't consider celebrities, who earn their living, or seek to earn a living through their name recognition, to be guaranteed the same consideration as average citizens, regardless of whether they are politicians, athletes or entertainers; so the attempt to categorize nasty comments against them as equivalent to attempts of ****-shaming average women falls flat.
     
  16. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    How about Jerry Thompson or Sarah Palin's children? Sarah or Michelle, great point, but what of their families? Was David Letterman out of line?
     
  17. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    Do you have a link for the David Letterman reference? I never watch his show, and I don't see a lot of buzz about whatever is said on his show about any subject! It's certainly not like Colbert and the Daily Show, which are constantly discussed by bloggers and the news pundits.

    I'm surprised that the conservative counter-attack against Limbaugh critics are trying to focus on bad words said about their celebrity spokesmodels by Bill Maher and Ed Shultz; even ignoring context and likely intent of the offenders.

    Even I can think of a more fitting comparison with the present situation -- go back to the "bimbo eruptions," as Clinton chief hatchet man - James Carville called them, when Jane Doe's were coming forward with allegations of sexual impropriety against President Clinton. Remember what the Human Skull had to say when we first heard of Paula Jones:" “Ah, you never know what you’re gonna get when you take a dollar and drag it through a trailer park. That’s what you’re gonna come up with: Paula Jones.”

    So, from what little I remember of that old series of scandals, which started getting pointless and tiresome, Paula Jones may have very well have been a grifter, looking for a chance to get rich...she did try other schemes. But, at the time, she was just someone who made an allegation against the President, and Carville and the rest of the Whitehouse staff went on an aggressive campaign to smear the reputations of any women who came forward with allegations. They even tried the same thing against Monica Lewinsky, although she did not come forward voluntarily, but had a conversation about her affair with the President secretly taped by someone who thought she was a friend. Carville & Co. went after her and said her confession was all lies, and had Billy get up on stage and declare:"I did not have sex with that woman,"....and the whole image of a leader being smeared by social-climbing, gold-digging bimbos went poof...once that little blue dress turned up as a source of physical evidence.
     
  18. work in progress

    work in progress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,685
    Ratings:
    +151
    Here's a video compilation of clips, mostly from Maher's ABC show during the 90's, which illustrates his basic philosophy about women and marriage:
    [youtube]CmRDUcbx9tw[/youtube]
    Bill Maher on "making women nod" - YouTube

    Notice how many times he generalizes from his own personal beliefs about what women think, and presents it as unsubstantiated fact? His general theme is that any real or imagined example he can think of where men seem to be disadvantaged, is evidence that men are the oppressed gender today....pure BS. He could use the same argument to make a case that white guys who've missed an opportunity to get on the fire department means that whites are now the disadvantaged race....well there are others who will go there, but Maher doesn't have the guts to move from gender to race issues with that sort of analysis! I would guess, after watching this guy talk for more than 25 years, that he really sees himself as a player, or a playboy....he loves going to those parties at Hef's mansion whenever he gets a chance. So, any women who are not into one-night stands, and want some commitment from a guy, are objects of scorn and derision.

    Many times I agree with things that Bill Maher says, but that's just because I happen to be on the same side on a lot of issues. I don't consider him to be any sort of authority on any subject, because he is intellectually lazy, and hates nuance and complicated subjects that don't have easy yes/no answers. He certainly doesn't research his subjects as carefully as other comic commentators on the news like Colbert and John Stewart.
     
  19. bigbadgirl

    bigbadgirl Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    280
    Ratings:
    +17
    Rush describes himself as Gods gift to conservatives. If I were a conservative, I would disown God simply because of this gift. It is hard to believe that God would saddle conservatives with such a idiot.
     
  20. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,561
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Buddhism
    I had a thought: conservatives started to jump Bill Maher only after Limbaugh's episode, and Maher donated a million dollars to Obama, asking why does the left seem to think that it was ok for Maher to attack Palin and such. But, he said those things over a year ago, so, where was the outrage then? That seems somewhat, odd, to me. I wonder if it didn't have anything to do with Maher donating that money to Obama.
     
Loading...