- Thread starter
- Banned
- #101
BTW grampa, we get beyond it by posting other topics until there are no Rush threads on the top page.
LOL. I've tried that. They get ignored.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BTW grampa, we get beyond it by posting other topics until there are no Rush threads on the top page.
Well believe it or not I don't listen to him. I hear soundbites but that's about it. I work in my clients homes and I don't allow talk radio on the job. And the only music allowed is catered to what I think the client will tolerate if they hear it.
Having said that I simply don't care. I heard the replays that night and I think he took the absurd request from the woman to its logically absurd extreme. I do respect your contacting your congress person.
What absurd request?
And...what the fuck does "logically absurd" mean?
Requesting that congress FORCE private insurance companies to provide an elective procedure or product. Can we force congress to make my provider pay for a face lift when I turn 60?
Absurd
It's his opinion, who cares?
And as a result, it's the opinion of everybody who listens to him.
Dittoheads.
remember imus?
And the republicans fell for it hook, line and sinker. On Feb 13th Andrew Sullivan wrote that Obama would sucker the right into screwing up their initial win on this issue and he was spot on.
But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise. They have declared it to be just as inimical to religious freedom as church organizations being forced to pay for their employees contraception. Before the compromise, the spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went even further, arguing that entirely secular corporations, if owned or run by faithful Catholics, should be able to exclude contraception from their employees health-insurance coverage. If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, he declared, Id be covered by the mandate. And even that would be unacceptable.
So Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops spokesman, also apply to non-Catholicseven if they are merely selling burritos.
This kind of rhetoric is not about protecting religious freedom. It is about imposing a particular religious doctrine on those who dont share it as a condition for general employment utterly unrelated to religion at all. And if that is the hill the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical right want to fight and die on, they will loseand lose badly.
^^^^^^^^^^
That's from the article in question. I recommend certain people who will go nameless [*cough*CaliGirl*cough*] go read the whole thing. Sullivan was pretty much spot on.
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama Set a Contraception Trap for the Right - The Daily Beast
Well believe it or not I don't listen to him. I hear soundbites but that's about it. I work in my clients homes and I don't allow talk radio on the job. And the only music allowed is catered to what I think the client will tolerate if they hear it.
Having said that I simply don't care. I heard the replays that night and I think he took the absurd request from the woman to its logically absurd extreme. I do respect your contacting your congress person.
What absurd request?
And...what the fuck does "logically absurd" mean?
Requesting that congress FORCE private insurance companies to provide an elective procedure or product. Can we force congress to make my provider pay for a face lift when I turn 60?
Absurd
What absurd request?
And...what the fuck does "logically absurd" mean?
Requesting that congress FORCE private insurance companies to provide an elective procedure or product. Can we force congress to make my provider pay for a face lift when I turn 60?
Absurd
It's an equal protection issue. There's no harm to anyone to offer an insurance product, especially when it can save lives. It's no different from Viagra.
Seriously people, can we get beyond Rush?
The man makes 50+ million a year. A few advertisers lost is a drop in the bucket. It won't slow him down. In fact I bet his ratings will go up.
It's his opinion, who cares?
And as a result, it's the opinion of everybody who listens to him.
Dittoheads.
Uhhmm. Not yet.
He needs to learn to keep his big fat mouth shut.
Rush stoked the fire with yesterday's SECOND apology. All Rush, all the time. It is be hoped the PRIMARIES today shift the focus.The man makes 50+ million a year. A few advertisers lost is a drop in the bucket. It won't slow him down. In fact I bet his ratings will go up. And even if it was the beginning of the end for him it wouldn't matter as the void would be filled by someone else.
Point is he has no power. He doesn't make policy. He is a damn pundit. Like him or hate him it really makes no difference overall. This controversy will be long forgotten by election day. But gas may still be high. We may be involved in another military action. UE is still to high. The economy is still slugging along.
This story is a pimple on a 15 year old. Get over it. If you're on the left and this is all you got you're in big trouble come November. If you're on the right and you're obsessed with this you need a fucking hobby. It's his opinion, who cares?
Ps. I do see the irony but it needed to be said.
There's harm if it's against their religious belief.
Uhhmm. Not yet.
He needs to learn to keep his big fat mouth shut.
So the first amendment means nothing to you?
So the first amendment means nothing to you?
Wrong on #2
Our politicians are elected to represent us as Americans. Not police the free market and media.
It's not a matter of "policing" anything. It's a matter of doing the right thing.
When I was in the Army, my CO had this sign on his desk. It read, "If you see something wrong and don't do anything about it, you've set a new standard."
Most sensible people (those who aren't coming on here trying to rationalize it) know what Limbaugh did was wrong. Mitt Romney knows it was wrong. Newt Knows it was Wrong. Santorum knows it was wrong. Ron Paul might know it's wrong if the medications are kicking in.
Not a one of them came out and openly said, "What Rush Limbaugh said was vile, disgusting, horrible. and has no place in our public discourse".
Don Imus was taken off the air for referring to Rutger's players as "nappy headed ho's." Laura Schlsesinger, after years of homophobic remarks, took herself off the air after the uproar over her used of the dreaded N-Word. My opinion, neither of those are as egregious as what Limbaugh did.
And I like Limbaugh. Really, I do. I enjoy his show, I enjoy his little parodies. He is one of the great satirists of our age.
But he crossed a line.
The line he did or did not cross is for the listening public and his advertisers to determine. Not our elected officials. This is how free markets function. Had Rush done something illegal, then officials should have chimed in.
The man makes 50+ million a year. A few advertisers lost is a drop in the bucket. It won't slow him down. In fact I bet his ratings will go up. And even if it was the beginning of the end for him it wouldn't matter as the void would be filled by someone else.
Point is he has no power. He doesn't make policy. He is a damn pundit. Like him or hate him it really makes no difference overall. This controversy will be long forgotten by election day. But gas may still be high. We may be involved in another military action. UE is still to high. The economy is still slugging along.
This story is a pimple on a 15 year old. Get over it. If you're on the left and this is all you got you're in big trouble come November.
Bahahahaaa......You must be a man. Women of reproductive age and the parents of women of reproductive age are going to the polls in November and it's the GOP that's in trouble. Rush drove home what Santorum started....a big black rabbit hole for Republicans. Obama was smart enough to see the opportunity of publicly consoling Fluke. Too bad you've got idiots running for Prez on the right.
Your sig and your post contradict each other.
Santorum said Rush was "absurd", but as an "entertainer" he has the right. Stronger?It's not a matter of "policing" anything. It's a matter of doing the right thing.
When I was in the Army, my CO had this sign on his desk. It read, "If you see something wrong and don't do anything about it, you've set a new standard."
Most sensible people (those who aren't coming on here trying to rationalize it) know what Limbaugh did was wrong. Mitt Romney knows it was wrong. Newt Knows it was Wrong. Santorum knows it was wrong. Ron Paul might know it's wrong if the medications are kicking in.
Not a one of them came out and openly said, "What Rush Limbaugh said was vile, disgusting, horrible. and has no place in our public discourse".
Don Imus was taken off the air for referring to Rutger's players as "nappy headed ho's." Laura Schlsesinger, after years of homophobic remarks, took herself off the air after the uproar over her used of the dreaded N-Word. My opinion, neither of those are as egregious as what Limbaugh did.
And I like Limbaugh. Really, I do. I enjoy his show, I enjoy his little parodies. He is one of the great satirists of our age.
But he crossed a line.
The line he did or did not cross is for the listening public and his advertisers to determine. Not our elected officials. This is how free markets function. Had Rush done something illegal, then officials should have chimed in.
I'm not asking Romney as a public official to determine anything.
I'm saying as a man, as a decent human being, he should condemn what Rush said.
But he can't.
Because he's cowering in fear of Rush, at least until he secures the nomination.
Which is reason #827 why I won't vote for him.