The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Updated: 11 March 2012 | 12:00 am in Letters to the Editor
Time for Limbaugh’s radio show to end
thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
With Rush Limbaugh’s biggest gaffe yet, it is time for him to be retired. This is inexcusable and no different from Don Imus’ nappy-headed hos comment a few years ago.
I urge all of you who agree to call or write KXIC and WHO and whatever other Eastern Iowa station that has his show to remove it or remove him.
Joe Page
Iowa City
Rules of Engagement
Time for Limbaugh’s radio show to end
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Joe, while I might agree with your position let’s get practical. As long as Rush commands millions of listeners and makes a lot of money for the radio stations he’s not going away anytime soon. Anyway, he’s almost as much fun to listen to as the mourning TV preachers.
lets be honest, the writer wants Limbaugh removed because of his successful political commentary and not because he called a 30 year old women a slut. a woman who by the way is asking for 1000$/ year for her continued sex life.
both he and Imus are “entertainers” and as such should be given the freedom to entertain and their sponsors and listeners will chose to listen or not.
This has to be your worst comment to date, Jeremy. Glad to see you learned NOTHING from the fuss about Limburger’s slander of Sandra Fluke. For the record, Sandra Fluke was working for Georgetown University to include contraception coverage in its employee health plan. How on Earth you, like Limburger, can claim that Fluke is being paid $1000/year for her “sex life” is reprehensible beyond words.
Jeff, Jeremy’s comment is indicative of the misinformation put out there by partisan pundits. His comment reflects my point that by not listening to opposing viewpoints he leaves himself uninformed.
“a woman who by the way is asking for 1000$/ year for her continued sex life.”
This preceding sentence is a perfect example. There is noting factual about it. I’m sure that if he did his research before he spoke he wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements. Rush isn’t dangerous. It’s the people who fail to question him who are.
What I learned from this incident, Kurt, is how deep the misogyny, as well as sexual jealousy and insecurity, which runs in many conservatives. There is no defense for the public presentation of Sandra Fluke as a transgressor of (Puritan) sexual mores.
I cite one literary, one cinematic, reference. I wonder how many of our upright conservative males, like the Rev. Dimmesdale from Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter,” bear the mark of their own secret shame and hypocrisy?
Part of me wishes the conservatives like Jeremy and Limburger eventually face an accomplished swordsman like Redmond Barry from “Barry Lyndon” and are given the choice of dying with dishonor, or admitting the wrongs they have committed as the price of being spared from Barry’s blade.
In some ways, I’m very “old fashioned…”
Jeff, I don’t need to stand up for Jeremy or Rush but no one claimed Fluke was being paid for her sex life.
Fluke herself claimed in her testimony contraceptives cost 3 thousand dollars over the course of 3 years and she wants that cost covered.
I accept your apology, since you are so clearly wrong on the facts, Joe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfb9f7yFYgw&feature=related
Jeff,
I am not wrong Limbaugh never said she was being paid to have sex as you claim. He said she wanted to have her contraceptives paid for and thus be paid for having sex.
Good gracious, Joe, Limbaugh said, “she wants to be paid to have sex” and called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
It’s all there in the link. You’re wrong. At least have the guts to admit so, instead of resorting to the parsing you are engaged in. Are you going to deny that Limbaugh also said Fluke should post videos of herself having sex so Rush could watch!?
Anyone who finds him objectionable simply turn him off. Except perhaps for those who support his political position advertisers won’t fund a show that isn’t listened to. Frankly if I owned a station I’d take note of the letters but I’d pay much greater attention to the “listenership”. (Not to support him — I’ve probably listened to him 30 minutes in my life. I have no interest in listening to people like him who have a glaring political bias — simply found him boring.)
Typical of the progressive left. Rather than turn off his show or not listen, the letter writer chooses to silence people whom he disagrees with.
So I did the opposite of what the letter writer suggested:
I called “KXIC and WHO and whatever other Eastern Iowa station that has his show” and told them not to let freedom hating progressives dictate their programming…
“…chooses to silence people who he disagrees with.” The writer has the freedom to express his opinion to the radio station regarding what he considers the merit of a particular show, does he not ? Isn’t that part of free speech ? Furthermore the writer as an individual has no power to silence the radio show but rather simply make an effort to influence the manager to remove it.
What do you want, freedom of expression but not freedom of expression of objection ?
“The writer has the freedom to express his opinion to the radio station regarding what he considers the merit of a particular show, does he not ?”
Correct. I never said he did not have that right. I said he was chosing to silence someone he disagrees with.
“Isn’t that part of free speech ?”
Yes.
“Furthermore the writer as an individual has no power to silence the radio show but rather simply make an effort to influence the manager to remove it.”
Correct.
“What do you want, freedom of expression but not freedom of expression of objection ?”
I don’t want anyone silenced. How about that?
It is ok for the christian taliban to do the same with televisions shows, though, right?
Who is the Christian taliban JRS?
I disagree with much of what Rush says, mostly because it is lacking in fact. That he made the BC controversy about sex and not about female health care is evidence of that. I listen to him semi regularly not because I want my brain to turn to mush – quite the opposite – but because it helps me to understand the opinions of so many on the far right. I listen to pundits from both sides of the political spectrum to gain a better understanding of the overall conversation. I don’t advocate taking him off the air, but do wish those who follow him blindly would open their minds to reviewing the opinions of his opponents as well. It is, after all, in the best interest of all concerned to get to the truth. Rush and those like him (on both sides) seek to divide as that is how they define winning. I think we can win if we unite instead.
I do find it funny that the christian right has used this tactic for years in threatening advertisers on shows they find objectionable. howard stern comes to mind.
its time both sides grow up and turn off the content the find objectionable and leave the rest of us alone.
“Typical of the progressive left. Rather than turn off his show or not listen, the letter writer chooses to silence people whom he disagrees with.”
“I do find it funny that the christian right has used this tactic for years in threatening advertisers on shows they find objectionable.”
Wouldn’t that make them freedom hating conservatives?
The shoe just happens to be on the other foot but the mirror seems to be missing. The folks wanting any show removed are exercising their free speech rights.
The only good to come out of this fuss, Kurt, is to show how misogynist and downright creepy many “conservative” males are at heart.
while I agree with you Mr Page, so long as there are people out there who still find it necessary to rely on AM talk radio for a source of information and entertainment, Rush will survive.
Talk about “too big to fail…:
Could Rush finally be getting his McCarthy moment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk
(For those not familiar with it.) That was Joseph Welch, chief consul for the Army during the Army-McCarthy hearings, taking McCarthy to task for implying that a young man, named Fisher, who was a member of law firm of Welch, was associated with the Communist party. The hearings resulted in McCarthy being largely discredited. Welch knew exactly what McCarthy was, a the-ends-justify-the-means man who was dishonest and really had no sense of decency. (McCarthy was censured by the Senate in Dec. ’54.)
The back story: Welch knew Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s protege, was gay, and threatened to out Cohn.
I did not know that. I learn something new every day!
Cohn, as I recall, gave the appearance of a loathsome character but McCarthy’s mention of Fisher was even too much for him. There is an attorney on “The Simpsons”, often retained by Mr. Burns who is based on Cohn. Mock Paul Harvey broadcast: “…and that little boy that nobody liked grew up to be — Roy Cohn.” Another Simpsons character “… got this suit cheap because Roy Cohn died in it.”
I thought this “lady” had already been debunked, must have missed that part. http://goo.gl/xryNY
HAHAHAHAHA!!! What a joke, Jeremy. Another conspiracy theory…
His link is indeed a joke. There’s no content other than a couple of questions and links to other blogs that would claim to answer the questions but offer little but speculation and ‘SPIRACY theories.
Then get lost. You link is so irrelevant as to be funny. Why did you put “lady” in quotation marks if your intent wasn’t to insult Fluke?
Have you no sense of decency left?
Let me get this straight: Sandra Fluke is politically active and is pressuring Georgetown University to provide contraceptive coverage in its employee health insurance plan. She may have contacts with other women who are also active in promoting reproductive rights.
Those facts are implicit supports for Limburger’s slander. Limburger is justified in slandering Fluke because she has transgressed misogynist standards which demand that women be submissive and subordinate to men. Fluke is a threat to he-men like Rush Limburger because she is an independent woman who rejects misogynist norms.
Did I get it right, Jeremy?
Mr. Page, should we all call HBO and ask that Bill Maher be removed for his disgusting comments? Should the super PAC also return the cool 1 million Bill Maher donated for Obama 2012?
You’re being awfully cocky for a guy who’s wrong on the facts about what Rush did, Joe. And, I’m sure you feel somehow a victim that Rush is being pilloried for his wanton attack on Sandra Fluke, while Bill Maher, in your mind, gets a pass.
So, you’re okay with what Rush did, and want to defend him by shifting the focus of the discussion?
Being cocky? I did not defend Rush, I asked a simple question Jeff. Where is the outrage at the comments of the likes of Bill Maher, Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann and the other leftist misogynist?
Joe, I also missed the outrage of the left over Bill Maher’s and others comments regarding Sarah Palin; then I thought maybe nobody saw it. If Maher didn’t make outrageous comments, nobody would even know who he is, much less care. One of those PMSNBC nitwits even complained that Sarah Palin hadn’t yet apologized for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
It’s precisely because of such outrageuos statements that some of us couldn’t care less about the likes of Maher, Rush, Olbermann, etc.
Joe, the entire Maher thing is laughably disingenuous. Nobody really even knew about his comments until the right wing pundits brought to everyone’s attention AFTER the Limbaugh scandal broke. They defend Rush but feign outrage towards Maher. The call for Obama to return Maher’s donation is ridiculous too. Maher donated to a super pac not Obama’s campaign so Obama has no control over it. He would be in violation of the law if he were to discuss it with them. Foster Friess made a blunder about aspirin between the knees but where’s the outrage about Santorum returning the billionaire’s money? What Rush said was out of line, factually incorrect but even worse, he wouldn’t let it go. Like it or not, in this situation, most people viewed Ms. Fluke as representing all women. Women identified with her message. Men who have respect for women did as well.
“What Rush said was out of line, factually incorrect ”
which part was untrue ? she wants health care to include funding her sex life and paid for by the tax payer. $1000 a year when condoms cost less then a dollar a piece seems like a bit extreme.
WHY CAN’T YOU STOP THE REFERENCES TO FLUKE’S SEX LIFE!?
So, you want to turn this into a personal attack on Sandra Fluke!? You deliberately deflect the issue from the HHS regs requiring employer-sponsored health insurance to cover contraceptives!?
Why the fascination with something that is none of your business, unless you, like Rush, are making a misogynist attack on Sandra Fluke!?
“…she wants health care to include funding her sex life and paid for by the tax payer. $1000 a year when condoms cost less then a dollar a piece seems like a bit extreme.”
Jeremy, I can only suggest that instead of taking Rush’s word for it, you pay attention to what Ms. Fluke actually said and then try to defend the above statement.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2
And while you’re at it, link me to a credible source showing how the tax payer is on the hook for the contraceptives.
Like Rush, you’re making this all about sex and not general health care. Undoubtedly you’re unaware of this, but contraceptives are used for many health care reasons other than contraception.
Kurt, I’m sure Jeremy knows that hormonal birth control pills have legitimate uses other than as contraception, but to acknowledge that fact would mean admitting that this argument has become about sex and not womens’ health.
Kurt,
What I find laughable if the disingenuous outrage from the left. If it were genuine outrage over the treatment of women the left would apply the standard equally to Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and the other leftist misogynist and yet they are silent. Evan after releasing a statement about Rush Limbaugh U.S Rep. Jan Schakowsky flat out refused to say Maher comments about women and Sarah Palin in particular were inappropriate.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/07/Jan%20Schakowsky%20Refuses%20To%20Condemn%20Misogynistic%20Obama%20Donor
That’s what Sarah calls a “gotcha” question. What the article doesn’t say is whether Jan Schakowsky even knew what the reporter was referring to when asking her to comment. Considering the source you reference it’s understandable that I find it less that neutral. You can deflect the issue all you want but the bottom line is that none of these pundits made comments that hold a candle to what Rush did. As I said earlier, I listen to Rush and do not advocate taking him off the air. I do, however, hold him to a basic standard of journalistic integrity. If, as you claim, the others made statements equally offensive then why are we just hearing about them now? No doubt Hannity and the others would have made an issue of it if they thought there was the slightest chance of scoring points.
Would you care to offer some links to the offenses perpetrated by those you mentioned? You mentioned them so they must be available. Calling an individual woman a derogatory name (offensive to me as well) is far from calling ALL women, including my daughter, my sisters, my friends, my neighbors, etc. sluts simply because they have a need for a particular medication. I’ll say this right now. NOBODY should refer to a woman in a derogatory way. Not Maher, not Olbermann, not Schultz, not Matthews. Not Limbaugh.
The almost humorous part of all this is that as a parent I’ve refereed many disputes between my kids. When one comes to me and says they did something wrong because the other one did it first, I say that still doesn’t make it right. Apparently you have a different parenting style than I do.
Kurt,
here is one link to start
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/07/the-war-on-conservative-women/
So Joe, why do you keep dodging the question? Limburger said, “she wants to be paid to have sex,” called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” and demanded that she post videos of herself having sex online so he could watch.
When are you going to man up and admit you were wrong about what Limburger said, and that you are just trying to deflect discussion?
You come off like a little kid whose only defense is, “well, he did it too” when you keep puking up Maher.
Jeff, you said the following.
“How on Earth you, like Limburger, can claim that Fluke is being paid $1000/year for her “sex life” is reprehensible beyond words.”
I stated correctly the fact that no one said those words.
Please cite where I ever defended Rush for what he said. You cannot because I never defended him, he was wrong and he apologized. I was simply pointing to the hypocrisy from the left on this issue.
I have quoted Limburger, and you keep shifting the discussion.
I read your Michelle Malkin link. It’s ironic: Malkin claims “liberals” want to paint all conservatives as misogynists because of Rush’s indefensible comments. Yet, she does exactly that, trying to tar all “liberals” because of the remarks of some folks. And, she undercuts her own credibility by calling Fluke a “femme-a-logue” and Obama the “Panderer-in-Chief” and “troll.”
You are so eager to avoid any discussion of Limburger’s vile comments, and indulge in the usual conservative conformist groupthink by puking up the old “hypocrisy” charge.
Malkin likes to dish it out. I, for one, had no idea who Malkin was before this imbroglio, have no interest in ever hearing about her again, and find it objectionable that some folks denigrate her for being Filipino.
However, Malkin is as much a victim as Rush Limburger or, for that matter, Joseph McCathy. And YOU enable people like that, Joe.
Wow-Speaking of misogynistic and creepy. Jeff & Kurt always seem to be the biggest defender of the pill and abortion rights for women whenever this subject comes up.
Good for them. It shows they have respect for women.
WHAT!? I’m “misogynist and creepy” because I think abortion is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, and that employer-provided health insurance should include contraceptive coverage!? But you’re OKAY with Rush Limburger calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” who “wants to be paid to have sex,” and you’re OKAY with Jeremy bleating that blather over and over again!?
Julie, I’ve gotta bail for awhile. The toxic fumes in this thread which pretend to be “conservative thinking” are making me dizzy…
As opposed to those who still see women as nothing more than vessels of potential life and think those womens’ primary mission in life is to keep silent and stay pregnant?
That was more thought provoking than I thought.
“As opposed to those who still see women as nothing more than vessels of potential life and think womens’ primary mission in life is to keep silent and not get pregnant.”
Yet you have no answer to my question, Sue?
Lori, I took the liberty to change a word in your quote. That shold give you the answer.
So, telling women they have the reproductive choice to NOT get pregnant oppresses them!?
Changed word or not Sue, you still dodged my question.
What?! Can you expand upon that because I’m not getting the point.
Sue, I was raised with four older sisters. To this day I still put the toilet seat down. Most of my best friends are women. You’d be hard pressed to find many men with more respect for women than I. My hope is that you were trying to be funny instead of insulting. If indeed your intent was to insult me you’ll have to do better than that.
Kurt, My intent was not to insult you or Jeff per se. I just find it curious when men are so concerned about these particular womens issues. You figure it out.
But thanks for putting the toilet seat down.
I have a three teenagers. I would be a pretty poor parent if I didn’t take some interest in this area. More importantly, I feel it’s not my place or the place of any man or woman to make a personal health decision on behalf of another.
YOU figure this out: Currently, due to a workplace injury a friend’s husband is being faced with a decision to amputate at a point below the knee or just past the heel of his foot. At the end of that day, who do you believe is the one to make that decision? You? Me? His Pastor? His Congressman? Please tell me you believe that decision should be his to make. If not, please tell me which one he should choose. Make it quick. He goes in tomorrow for the surgery.
Kurt, this just hit me:
Sue thinks that we, as “liberal” males, support women’s reproductive rights because we are promiscuous. It is in our interests to promote broad availability and acceptance of contraception and abortion, since we think all women should be available to us, and we don’t want the messy, unnecessary consequence of progeny.
Sue, please tell me I’m wrong…
Jeff, I can only speculate what Sue is driving at since her posts are written in a way that makes it necessary to be able to read her mind to understand her. You may be on to something tho. What intrigues me is that she objects to men supporting women in their right to make decisions on their own personal health issues without the interference of others. Here we are supporting her individual rights and she objects to that. It’s difficult to compete with that kind of ‘logic’.
Kurt, that kind of logic to me is just as baffling as the conservative/Republican idea that we should embrace personal responsibility and individual rights but yet we need to oppose a person’s right to marry someone of the same gender if they so choose or a woman’s right to determine what’s in her own best interests with regards to her reproductive rights.
Kurt, Your being silly. I believe the choice should be the patient and doctor, not the government.
OMG!!!! Sue!!! I just fell off my chair!!!
“I believe the choice should be the patient and doctor, not the government.”
Is that not the very thing we are talking about regarding contraceptives and abortions?!?!?!!?
How in the world can you not advocate for women to have the right to decide, between their doctor and themselves, whether to use contraceptives, or for that matter, have an abortion. In the matter of health issues, you have just indicated you believe a liberal stance is the correct one and a conservative stance is not. That is the very heart of this issue.
The government isn’t telling women they have to have an abortion against their will just because the procedure is legal, or that just because insurance companies have to cover contraception that women opposed to its use have to use it, Sue. Those kinds of choices are still between a woman and her doctor, the only thing the government has done is make it easier for women to decide either way. What’s so wrong with that?
Let’s make a deal, Sue. Conservatives stop attacking access to contraceptives, agree contraceptive coverage should be offered as an option in all health insurance policies, drop their opposition to legal abortion and same-sex marriage, and I’ll agree to never mention those issues again.
Deal?
Jeff, I wish I could tell you you were wrong. I doubt it’s only liberal men either.
Conservatives are not trying to take away contraceptive coverage. That is your spin. For me it’s about mandating the catholic church to go against their religious beliefs whether you, me or anybody likes it or not. It should be up to the members and elders of the church to change their doctrine, not Obama. Who does he think he is?
No to your deal, it’s more fun this way but try talking to your own party on abortion and same sex. Do you know for a fact all liberals are for gay marriage? Willing to put it up for a vote?
Sue, why do you think it’s fair to put people’s basic civil rights up for a vote?
Sue, no one is requiring churches or other houses of worship to go against its conscience. They’re exempt no matter what. The issue here is organizations that operate in the public arena but are run by religious groups. Allowing those types of employers to claim “religious conscience” and thus avoid following the same rules and regs as other businesses is tantamount to putting the employer’s rights above the individual employee’s.
must be a full moon out…..
Nope, that was on the 8th. What’s your excuse?
my excuse is not drinking the left wing kool-aid. I make an interesting comment and get nothing but comments on my comment….
“he called a 30 year old women a slut. a woman who by the way is asking for 1000$/ year for her continued sex life.”
That is not an “interesting comment.” It is such a deliberate misrepresentation of what Sandra Fluke is working for at Georgetown as to be a bald-faced lie, told in defense of Rush Limburger, an absolute cad and bounder of a “man.”
Jeremy has to come up with some rationalization for being beaten so thoroughly, while defending odious statements with reprehensible ones of his own.
Jeremy’s thought process, applied to other aspects of health care: “your policy covers cancer treatment? You want to be paid for having cancer!?”
oh jeff, perhaps being a few day outside of the full moon has caused you to lose some of your senses. go back and read it again, I have once again won the day for freedom and common sense. how many times will you lose these arguments before you just give up and stop commenting on my interesting comment ? you’re and English “teacher” , you should be able to come up with an interesting thought now and again.
“Winning!” That worked really well for Charlie Sheen, didn’t it Jeremy
I come up with “interesting thoughts” all the time, like this one: “libertarian” men are almost unanimously terrible in understanding women’s reproductive rights, perhaps because they see women as property, not human beings who should have the liberty to make their own reproductive decisions.
It’s not MY fault you can’t hit my fastball..
… or my curveball…
…or my sinker…
julie, are you coming to jeffs aid ? awww thats so sweet…..jeff’s down but not out. and by down i don’t mean depressed. you’re gonna need about 9 more of your zoo crew to even come close to beating me.
“…being a few day outside of the full Moon…” Was that meant to be senseless or did you just neglect to proof read the statement ? “…once again won the day for freedom and common sense.” How so and who has made that judgement besides you? “…my interesting comment?” What “interesting comment” and how do you know anyone found it interesting?
And a couple comments back: “I make an interesting comment and get nothing but comments on my comment.” Well, at least you know someone read it!
Oh good grief, Karl, this thread is starting to read like “Jabberwocky…”
jeff , err karl…. relax , you’re not helping.
We’ve seen it before. He just regresses and regresses until it’s just totally childish comments. But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Many people take caution not to make fools of themselves. He shows no such concern and throws such caution to the wind.
Isn’t it special, Karl? We bring out Jeremy’s special talent…
It’s not a “special” talent, Jeff, it’s a “speshul” talent…
Thanks for the belly laugh, Jeremy! I see you just can’t let the medication references go, just as you seem to, like Rush, have a weird, kinda creepy fascination with Sandra Fluke’s sex life.
You are a very typical representative of a “conservative” chatterer…
There you have it Jeff, now he’s back with the same claim as yesterday, that we are one in the same. I challenged him make a wager on it but he doesn’t seem interested.
“Have you no sense of decency left?”
After reading the linked article regarding the war on conservative women, I wondered the same thing.
Ray, the “hypocrisy” charge is one of the oldest chestnuts in the right-wing playbook, and you guys only use it when one of your own has been caught out and you want to deflect the discussion.
And looky here, Michelle Malkin has some skeletons in HER closet. So Ray, do you agree with Malkin that the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII was justified?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/michelle-malkins-white-su_b_20873.html
“Ray, the “hypocrisy” charge is one of the oldest chestnuts in the right-wing playbook, and you guys only use it when one of your own has been caught out and you want to deflect the discussion.”
I’m not deflecting anything. I am pointing out an unpleasant fact for you lefties to digest. Rush can fight his own battles. He took the bait and was spot on until he started ad homming Fluke.
Your silence and indeed, own deflection regarding the leftist tripe out of the mouths pointed out in the the enlightened article by Malkin speaks volumes Jeff. Have the courage, indeed, decency, to realize that ugly discourse emanates from both sides, and should be called out whereever possible.
“And looky here, Michelle Malkin has some skeletons in HER closet. So Ray, do you agree with Malkin that the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII was justified?”
What the h*** does that have to do with anything? Is that a reason to call her a “slant-eye” and worse?
Stay on point Jeff. Have the courage to be one of the few lefties here who denounces awful civil discourse in politics.
Malkin’s link is not enlightened. It is precisely the kind of acidic discourse you want me to denounce, so I will. Malkin is engaging in stereotyping all “liberals” because of the remarks of some, and she is a hypocrite for playing “victim” when she obviously has no concern about using her talents to alienate people from each other to suit her political purposes.
And, Sandra Fluke has courage in her fight to get Georgetown University to include contraceptive coverage in its employees’ health insurance.
I’m on topic, Ray. Michelle Malkin is a perfect example, like Limburger, of someone who is poisoning public discourse in this country.
“Malkin’s link is not enlightened. It is precisely the kind of acidic discourse you want me to denounce, so I will.”
Yea, good point. The vitriolic attacks by the left are certainly not enlightening at all. My bad, and bad choice of words.
“Malkin is engaging in stereotyping all “liberals” because of the remarks of some, and she is a hypocrite for playing “victim” when she obviously has no concern about using her talents to alienate people from each other to suit her political purposes.”
So, because you disagree with her politics, its OK to call her a “slant eye” because she is wrong to play the victim?
“And, Sandra Fluke has courage in her fight to get Georgetown University to include contraceptive coverage in its employees’ health insurance.”
I couldn’t care less about an obvious dem plant, Jeff.
“I’m on topic, Ray. Michelle Malkin is a perfect example, like Limburger, of someone who is poisoning public discourse in this country.”
I see…like I said, because you disagree with someone, it is apparently OK to disparage them, or at least cast an apalling sense of apathy over other women who don’t feel as Fluke does…
Gotcha. Pretty disgusting, Jeff. Say it with me…it was awful what Malkin was called….it was awful what Malkin was called. And hundreds of other conservative women as well, of course.
Two other things…Maher and Scultz, Olbermann and Malloy, etc, etc, are people who are also poisoning the discourse…
CORRECT JEFF?
Secondly:
“The left” is engaging in stereotyping all “conservatives” because of the remarks of some.
Correct observation?
So, it was okay for Limburger to call Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” and claim “she wants to be paid to have sex” because she is, in your words, a “Dem plant?” It’s okay to insult a woman who works with others to defend reproductive rights?
Ray, I could not care less about Michelle Malkin. I had heard her name, but never read her stuff, before today. She is hardly a victim, given her acid keyboard. I find her claim to be a victim because of her race pathetic, since she defended FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans.
No where did I mention it was OK for Rush to say what he said regarding his ad hom of F luke. Your own bitterness ad outrage about this subject apparently is affecting your comprehension skills.
And to makE sure everyone knows where you are
are coming from…because she attacks progressives with the same vigor you atetack the GOP Are
Dang these smart phones…it is OK for you because Malkin users a similar style you do to criticize your political opponents, it doesn’t matter what leftist losers call her, even if the slime they vomit makes what Rush said ok like childs play? That about right? Forget the fact that she referenced many purge conservative
Other conservative women like Palin whom Maher insulted her family regarding downs syndrome. I would simply stop Jeff. This is not going well for you. What the he** are you defending anyway?
Wow, Ray.
I am the restrained voice of moderation compared to you. And, Malkin is just as shrill and hateful as Ann Coulter. Let’s not forget what’s-her-name from Alaska, who likened herself to a pit bull in lipstick and said it’s time to reload. None of those women is a weepy victim.
They’re all strident harridans…
Gee, and here I thought everybody would be SO happy to see the free market working exactly as it should!
I’m beginning to think his Obama Derangement Syndrome supercedes everything else. That’s sad.
Interesting article on why Limbaugh’s empire may be crashing around him:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/david-frum-mike-huckabee-brings-on-rush-limbaugh-s-decline.html
“Yes, Limbaugh’s tirade against law student Sandra Fluke has been a problem, inspiring more than 30 advertisers to flee his radio program in the past two weeks. But on April 2, Limbaugh will face a more-serious challenge. That’s when the new Mike Huckabee show launches on 100 stations in Limbaugh’s very own noon-to-3 time slot.
Huckabee’s competition threatens Limbaugh not only because Huckabee has already proven himself an attractive and popular TV broadcaster, but also because Huckabee is arriving on the scene at a time when Limbaugh’s business model is crashing around him.”
And my personal favorite from from the article:
“Few things boost TSL like getting the old folks agitated over how much sexy sex these shameless young hussies are having nowadays. (And make no mistake: Limbaugh’s audience is very old. One station manager quipped to me, “The median age of Limbaugh’s audience? Deceased.”)”
It’ll certainly be interesting to see how that pans out, Julie.
SuperSEDES.
Funny, I thought BDS did for nearly 8 years.
Supersedes is the original spelling. Supercedes has been a spelling variant of supersedes since the 17th century, and is now common in published writing.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supercedes