Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Racist and Other Observations - Page 4

Wow, that dumpster comment was unreal. He almost impresses me in the worst way, it takes some kind of twisted talent to be able to think of that much hateful bullshit to spew.

Here's an article criticizing some of the response to his comments, basically arguing that the best response is not "We're not sluts and whores" but "Fuck you!"

Let's stop insulting people by comparing them to sex workers (and sluts)

Considering how much viagra Limbaugh takes for his limp dick so he can bang prostitutes overseas it's kind of a moot point anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Yes actually I pointed out that Rush made a heinous personal attack on a private citizen in a post above, thanks for not reading.

 

My only point was that Rush and Maher are in the same business. The fact that the GOP actually listens to Rush while the DNC ignores Maher is irrelevant.

 

 

And that's true, they are in the same business, which is why Maher sprang to Rush's defense. But to clear, this does not equate them. Again, Rush is an evil human being. 

It's interesting Jacob brought up the fact that Maher is a stand-up comedian, as Maher himself made the exact point on his program last night while differentiating himself from Rush. 

Segment on Limbaugh and the false equivalencies from yesterday's Real Time episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

 

And that's true, they are in the same business, which is why Maher sprang to Rush's defense. But to clear, this does not equate them. Again, Rush is an evil human being. 

 

It's interesting Jacob brought up the fact that Maher is a stand-up comedian, as Maher himself made the exact point on his program last night while differentiating himself from Rush. 

 

Yeah, it's not like being in the same business means they share similar views in any way. I may disagree with Maher on some stuff and I wouldn't say I'm a fan but I've never heard him say anything as bad as any of the dozens of choice quotes from Rush I've been hearing lately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainZahn 

Segment on Limbaugh and the false equivalencies from yesterday's Real Time episode:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q

Most critics of Maher I've seen are annoyed because he wants to let Rush off the hook when what he gave was a half arsed not-pology, instead of an actual apology (unless he's expanded on what he said since and  missed it).  That's really the crux of it.  Also people aren't trying to silence him.  Well, they'd like to probably, but this particular move isn't out to bomb the studio or enact restrictive legislation or anything like that (although there'll always be a few...).  Mostly it's not a free speech issue.  He has his audience.  He has no special right to rich sponsors.  If they haven't the backbone to wear his views for their advertising dollars publicly then screw them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainZahn 

Segment on Limbaugh and the false equivalencies from yesterday's Real Time episode:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q

I can kinda see where's Maher's coming from--putting pressure on the sponsors has the potential to be misused quite badly--but in this particular case, as the white-haired dude points out, this was completely valid. Public outcry put pressure on a bully. And this isn't just some lone voice speaking his mind, this is a guy with real power and influence. At a certain point you can legitimately fight back by applying financial pressure and it's not censorship.

Also, I find it amusing that Maher is now being lumped in with the left without qualification, since he was considered somewhat to the right for much of his career.

Maher once said he considers himself a down the middle guy. Its the Republicans have gone  too the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainZahn 

Segment on Limbaugh and the false equivalencies from yesterday's Real Time episode:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q

 

I guess I was wrong; Maher does frame it as a free speech issue.  Which is total bullshit.  Negative public reaction to controversial statements is as much a part of free speech as the ability to make those statements.  No, Bill, society's right to free expression is not threatened if a few assholes aren't guaranteed the right to be paid millions of dollars for expressing theirs on the air.  Entitled dumbass.

I can't fully dismiss his basic point though. We live in an era when most avenues of free speech are governed by huge corporations and other parties who put the emphasis on profits first. In the abstract, the idea that people can have their platforms taken away because it threatens the bottom line is worrisome; it's not technically censorship, since the government isn't involved, but it seriously limits the options for getting your message out. I remember when Michael Moore's book criticizing the Bush administration and the looming Iraq war was pulled by the publisher for fear of making waves. It wasn't censorship, because the publisher wasn't obligated to print anything it didn't want to, but the result was nevertheless that crucial perspectives were denied to the public. And of course there's what Maher himself went through.

But that's more an issue with the system through which we receive our news and information. Rush was the target of a genuine popular revolt, and he's a guy with power and enormous wealth who's never been denied a voice until now. He absolutely needed something to rein him in. The question is, where exactly do you draw the line?

If there's an audience, there's a sponsor.

Maher didn't seem to know the whole story and seemed to accept the apology at face value. If Limbaugh had made - say - one off color remark and had not spent three days attacking Fluke, had he not given a non-apology apology, and had he not resumed going after women shortly after the apology, I'd get what Bill Maher said. But attacking a provate citizen as ruthlessly as he did, and whoelsale lying about her and her testimony? At the very least there should be a lawsuit. But if he loses his sponsors and goes off the air, I don't see that as a free speech issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I can't fully dismiss his basic point though. We live in an era when most avenues of free speech are governed by huge corporations and other parties who put the emphasis on profits first. In the abstract, the idea that people can have their platforms taken away because it threatens the bottom line is worrisome; it's not technically censorship, since the government isn't involved, but it seriously limits the options for getting your message out. I remember when Michael Moore's book criticizing the Bush administration and the looming Iraq war was pulled by the publisher for fear of making waves. It wasn't censorship, because the publisher wasn't obligated to print anything it didn't want to, but the result was nevertheless that crucial perspectives were denied to the public. And of course there's what Maher himself went through.

 

But that's more an issue with the system through which we receive our news and information. Rush was the target of a genuine popular revolt, and he's a guy with power and enormous wealth who's never been denied a voice until now. He absolutely needed something to rein him in. The question is, where exactly do you draw the line?

I think you're absolutely right and make really good points.  I think Limbaugh is a bad example though since he exists through the provenance of big backers.  He was never elevated and kept alive on air through the strength of his audience.  It was big corporations all along that deferred the natural flow of the "free market."  If he were just as obnoxious but hurt the bottom lines of big industries, he'd be Alex Jones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I can't fully dismiss his basic point though. We live in an era when most avenues of free speech are governed by huge corporations and other parties who put the emphasis on profits first. In the abstract, the idea that people can have their platforms taken away because it threatens the bottom line is worrisome; it's not technically censorship, since the government isn't involved, but it seriously limits the options for getting your message out.

Gotta call bullshit on this too.  We live in an era with unprecedented, increasingly cheap access for almost anyone to get their message out, regardless of credentials or connections.  Maybe huge moneyed interests have taken a tighter grip on traditional media. That is debatable, and I'd leave it to better students of history to argue it, but the fact is that the options for getting your message out have never been wider at any point in human history.  It still helps to have money, of course, because that's what money does, help you get things.

What's so frustrating about it is that Maher is sort of halfway making the principled stand he thinks he is, but it is muddied by his entitled mindset.  Yes, freedom of speech is important and protecting a certain amount of offensive or downright hateful is vital to maintaining it.  But you have to have lived in a bubble where you have your own privately-funded TV/radio show for many years to get to the point where you genuinely believe that losing that show is a blow not just to your pocketbook and ego, but the nation's founding principles.  Maher's argument presumes that he (and perversely, Limbaugh as well) has an inalienable right to private funding to broadcast their opinions around the globe.  That's not a right, Bill, it's a privilege you have come to take for granted.  Because you are an entertainer.  It's great if you legitimately try to educate while you entertain, but you're not an elected or appointed official.  You are not even a journalist.  You're a pundit at best, and a comedian when you want to skirt around a particularly embarrassing statementa

Freedom of speech is not freedom from any negative blowback from the speech.  And hell, when you style yourself as an provocateur like Maher does, you need that blowback to be there.  If saying controversial things is free from negative consequence, how can you pat yourself on the back for having the courage to say them?

Apparently, Santorum said this in Missouri yesterday:

Wonder if any Democratic politician has said that visiting Maher's hometown is like a trip to Mecca?  

Apparently Sanatorum is working over-time to make sure he has enough sound-bites for Obama to crush him with during debate season in the snowball-in-hell chance he gets a GOP nomination.  It's not so much the content of the statement ... it's the timing.  This is EXACTLY the type of thing Rick Perry was doing a week or two before dropping out - basically a what-the-hell dog-and-pony show to re-play in smaller elections and the speaker circuit since he's already terminally  blown a national election with his stupid mouth.  After the freak show that was Palin, Sanatorum and Perry will not be getting VP or SOS mentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

Gotta call bullshit on this too.  We live in an era with unprecedented, increasingly cheap access for almost anyone to get their message out, regardless of credentials or connections.  Maybe huge moneyed interests have taken a tighter grip on traditional media. That is debatable, and I'd leave it to better students of history to argue it, but the fact is that the options for getting your message out have never been wider at any point in human history.  It still helps to have money, of course, because that's what money does, help you get things.

Moneyed interests can let you buy an audience for a viewpoint that would be quickly discarded in a true "marketplace of opinions". Climate change being discredited, the idea that Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya, the evils of ACORN...these are all things that five minutes of Googling could dispel, but it doesn't seem to matter when you have the money to keep the idea out there. I think this is honestly something new, because the gatekeepers of journalism don't see their job as a public trust anymore, they see it as another way to make money. As a result, most of them want to back away from anything controversial and therefore muddy the waters with equivocation and "some say, others say" bullshit. Then the small but loud minority, who all seem to be right-wingers for some reason, have an agenda that they're actively pushing. As has been touched on by YT, there's some question of whether Rush was actually that profitable, especially in the early days; there seems to be a strong suggestion that he was subsidized by people with money, because they needed him to get his views out.

The truth can always get out, but you can't get people to pay attention to it. Without honesty and responsibility in the media, which I'd argue there's less of than ever, the conventional wisdom can be bought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

Moneyed interests can let you buy an audience for a viewpoint that would be quickly discarded in a true "marketplace of opinions". Climate change being discredited, the idea that Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya, the evils of ACORN...these are all things that five minutes of Googling could dispel, but it doesn't seem to matter when you have the money to keep the idea out there. I think this is honestly something new, because the gatekeepers of journalism don't see their job as a public trust anymore, they see it as another way to make money. As a result, most of them want to back away from anything controversial and therefore muddy the waters with equivocation and "some say, others say" bullshit. Then the small but loud minority, who all seem to be right-wingers for some reason, have an agenda that they're actively pushing. As has been touched on by YT, there's some question of whether Rush was actually that profitable, especially in the early days; there seems to be a strong suggestion that he was subsidized by people with money, because they needed him to get his views out.

+1

IMO, CNN and the concept of a 24 hr "news" channel just might be one of the worst things to happen to our modern society.

unfortunately, and this isn't new but, if you have enough money, you can make the "truth" whatever you want it to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

Moneyed interests can let you buy an audience for a viewpoint that would be quickly discarded in a true "marketplace of opinions". Climate change being discredited, the idea that Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya, the evils of ACORN...these are all things that five minutes of Googling could dispel, but it doesn't seem to matter when you have the money to keep the idea out there. I think this is honestly something new, because the gatekeepers of journalism don't see their job as a public trust anymore, they see it as another way to make money. As a result, most of them want to back away from anything controversial and therefore muddy the waters with equivocation and "some say, others say" bullshit. Then the small but loud minority, who all seem to be right-wingers for some reason, have an agenda that they're actively pushing. As has been touched on by YT, there's some question of whether Rush was actually that profitable, especially in the early days; there seems to be a strong suggestion that he was subsidized by people with money, because they needed him to get his views out.

I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.  If Rush's real sponsors are under the table, he's even less susceptible to "bullying" by the official ones (the idea of which is stupid, was my point).

I'd really like some evidence for this idea that Limbaugh is a puppet of the Koch brothers or whoever. If that were the case, did they also buy up all copies of Rush's books, both of which were best sellers? Did they do this for Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly etc as well? Because all these cats had best selling books.

A quick Google search brings up some an interesting point: the methods used to calculate radio ratings is inexact at best:

http://www.dailynews.com/lalife/ci_20132300/radio-who-knows-how-rush-limbaughs-real-ratings

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324993/

Bottom line is, Advertisers were willing to buy airtime on the Rush Limbaugh show. Now it appears they are not, at least short term. That indicates business people think Rush has an audience sizable enough to matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

I guess I was wrong; Maher does frame it as a free speech issue.  Which is total bullshit.  Negative public reaction to controversial statements is as much a part of free speech as the ability to make those statements.  No, Bill, society's right to free expression is not threatened if a few assholes aren't guaranteed the right to be paid millions of dollars for expressing theirs on the air.  Entitled dumbass.

The CEO of Carbonite and the owner of the radio station in Hawaii that cancelled the Rush show both stated they refused to support a man who made such revolting comnents about a woman, especially since both are fathers with young daughters. Free speech doesn't include a mandate that people fund your program through advertising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

The film and the play were based on Alan Berg, who was killed for being a left-wing (and Jewish) shock jock. 

I thought Stone's movie painted him as a right-wing whacko. And that would make it a lie since, in fact, he was a liberal in real life.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but what are you basing that off of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Writhing Walt 

I thought Stone's movie painted him as a right-wing whacko. And that would make it a lie since, in fact, he was a liberal in real life.

 

the term "based on" can be defined quite broadly....for example, "O Brother, Where art Thou?" is loosely based on Homer's "Odyssey"

What I love is how Newt and others reject the notion that Rush represents or has some type of symbolic leadership role in the GOP, when they often recognize him like that (as Reagan did) ...

http://justquoting.com/cartoons/gingrich-says-its-silly-to-claim-limbaugh-speaks-for-gop/

Jon Stewart dealt with this topic on tonight's (3/13) Daily Show

http://gawker.com/5893108/jon-stewart-slams-fox-news-free-speech-hypocrisy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Writhing Walt 

I thought Stone's movie painted him as a right-wing whacko. And that would make it a lie since, in fact, he was a liberal in real life.

 

He's definitely a US-brand lefty in the movie, ranting against prejudice, the war on drugs, anti semitism etc.  I think it's just more common to associate rude ranting with right wingers these days.
 

It has been awhile since I've seen the movie. And you may be right, Muzman...but I thought the protagonist in the movie went on about the evils of welfare and immigrants. Will have to watch it again.

Anyhow, in real life, the dj was a liberal who was murdered by a right-wing nut. Not saying that some leftie wako wouldn't kill Limbaugh (I'm not endorsing it, but it really wouldn't bother me), but I just don't see it happening.

To kinda get back on topic (haha): How is Limbaugh still on radio? GRRRRR!

there needs to be an internet capaign to get sex workers who have been hired by Rush to come forward and talk about his morality.

We all know what Limbaugh looks like and he looks like a guy who bangs lots and lots of hookers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Writhing Walt 

I thought Stone's movie painted him as a right-wing whacko. And that would make it a lie since, in fact, he was a liberal in real life.

 

Making him conservative makes the person(s) who killed him (Bad Guys in movie logic) less identifiably conservative themselves, i.e., it makes liberals the bad guys.

It's like that terrible movie with Tim Robbins where anti-capital punishment activists manipulate the media to deliberately, wrongfully have someone executed so they can prove the immorality of the death sentence.

Rush may have The West Baptist Church as an advertiser.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/westboro-releases-you-might-be-slut-ad-limba

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr.cyclops 

Making him conservative makes the person(s) who killed him (Bad Guys in movie logic) less identifiably conservative themselves, i.e., it makes liberals the bad guys.

 

It's like that terrible movie with Tim Robbins where anti-capital punishment activists manipulate the media to deliberately, wrongfully have someone executed so they can prove the immorality of the death sentence.

 

 

That's Kevin Spacey, not Robbins.
 

I have no guilt, shame or reservations for thinking it was Robbins instead of Spacey. They are both talented whores ( Robbins in Arlington Road).

The movie was The Life of David Gale.

Michelle Malkin has been running a column called The War on Conservative Women.  It was brought to my attention by Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/mar/29/michelle-malkin/gloria-steinem-once-called-kay-bailey-hutchison-fe/

Gloria Steinem, who Malkin argues is the "godmother" of American feminism, called Kay Bailey Hutchinson a "female impersonator" and has popularized the term over the years.  Malkin also points to comments from MSNBC and even an Al Gore adviser to point out that mainstream liberals have degraded women who self-identity as conservative.

Michelle Malkin also thinks Rachael Ray is a terrorist sympathizer because she once wore a blue and white scarf, just like Yassier Arafat!

Well, to be fair, she sort of is a terrorist.

The less said about Filipino Ann Coulter, the better.

What's with Jon Stewart's Fox/O'Reilly pander fest tonight?  DNW.

Yeah, they have this goofy, symbiotic thing. I  think they both realize that 'crossovers' expose them to a market share that would otherwise be unaware of their existence. Has O'Reilly ever been on Maddow? I would like to see that.

not like there needs to be proof that Sean Hannity is a serious partisan fucktard, but...here ya go

of note, this was done by the same idiot artist that supplied us with this...

I'm torn between hating that some objectively terrible artist -- that is some awful craft work there -- with equally stupid ideas can demand that much money purely on the basis of his hateful political stance, and loving that Hannity just flushed 6 figures of his own wealth down the toilet.

"Oy vey...again with these schmucks! Whatta shonda..."

5 years from now, after Obama's out of office and we somehow, gosh, beyond all reason, actually still have a Constitution, I hope Hannity tries to sell that thing on Ebay and gets offered six bucks and a carton of Lucky Strikes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

 

of note, this was done by the same idiot artist that supplied us with this...

 

 

Should we read something in to the fact that Lincoln appears to be doing an Al Jolson impersonation?

When exactly did right wing world become the Amityville horror?  These paintings show a psychotic disconnection from reality. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr.cyclops 

Yeah, they have this goofy, symbiotic thing. I  think they both realize that 'crossovers' expose them to a market share that would otherwise be unaware of their existence. Has O'Reilly ever been on Maddow? I would like to see that.

It just rubbed me the wrong way and seemed forced.  I don't think O'Reilly's been on Maddow but I'd like to see that as well. 

Ugh, this guy hits one of my all-time pet peeves: people who use 'literally' incorrectly. It's not that hard! Is the constitution really on fire somewhere? I mean, is it literally on fire? No? Just metaphorically? Than don't use that word!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi 

 

 

Ugh, this guy hits one of my all-time pet peeves: people who use 'literally' incorrectly. It's not that hard! Is the constitution really on fire somewhere? I mean, is it literally on fire? No? Just metaphorically? Than don't use that word!

almost everything is looked at 'literally' when it comes to the right-wing authoritarian thought process....and, if you happen to be a fundamentalist xtian....well, things get REALLY 'literal' when that's thrown in the mix.

Man, some of you people are sensitive.  It's a piece of art and art gets to be as silly or insane as it wants to be, and rich folks get to pay whatever stupid amount of money they want for it because that's how shit works. 

This actually got me wondering.  You walk through the Louvre or whatever and its not unusual to learn that some Renaissance masterwork has the likeness of such and such patron inserted into a famous mythological scene, or that the one depicting Charlemagne at the right hand of Jesus was, shock of shocks, commissioned by Holy Roman Emperor Rufus VI in a heavy-handed reinforcement of the righteousness of his rule.  Did people at the time look at that stuff and shake their head at Boticelli for being a nutjob shoehorning his fringe political views into his stupid paintings? 

"One Nation Under Socialism" is clearly on its way to the Smithsonian, is what I'm getting at here.