 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject: Poor Rush ("piece of shit") Limbaugh! |
 |
|
Ha-ha! Too funny!
So, Rush "piece of shit" Limbaugh was joining in on the idiotic pile-on over Anthony Weiner's "sexting" when a caller reminded him about his illegal possession of viagara on his junket to the noted prostitution-industry locale, the Dominican Republic.
Rush "piece of shit" Limbaugh responds by (of course) cutting off the offending caller, after lying that it never happened, and then works himself into a pompous self-righteous, hypocritical tirade about how he's saving the United States by telling jokes about Anthony Weiner and denying global warming and etc.
Ha-ha! Stupid, ugly, disgusting fuck-face!
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hypocrisy from Rush is nothing new. After all this is a man who once called for mandatory jail terms for those convicted of possession of even soft drugs like pot and was then caught attempting to illegally obtain the narcotic opiate Oxycontin. What I can't understand is why this moron still has a following even though conservatives (with the exception of libertarians like Ron Paul) tend to be notoriously anti sex-trade and anti-drug. 
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Student Is Outraged By Rush Limbaugh Calling Her A 'Slut' And 'Prostitute'
| Quote: | Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who has become a "poster child" for Democrats since Republicans wouldn't let her testify at a House hearing about President Obama's policy on contraception, said today she was stunned and outraged Wednesday when conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and "prostitute" on his nationally syndicated show.
...Limbaugh says the "left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit" by his comments and hasn't backed down because he thinks Fluke wants the government to "pay for her to have sex" by requiring that employers offer health insurance that covers women's contraception costs.
One advertiser, Sleep Train Mattress Centers, said today that it's pulling its ads from Limbaugh's show because "we don't condone negative comments directed toward any group."
|
With luck more of Limbaugh's advertisers will see the light.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
CBC had a piece on Limbaugh earlier today, in which the bloated drug addict said contraceptives would be OK as long as those who used them would film their sexual behaviour and make their activities public.
I knew he was a scumbag, but a dirty old pervert to boot?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don'tya remember when he got stopped re-entering the USA from the Caribbean or something, with a bunch of non-prescription Viagra.
Apparently, the flint hard stance doesn't extend to his nether regions...
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive
Last edited by Maestro on Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4003
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ru$h has always been the center of his party of hanger-ons. Years ago, when working here, he trolled with falling-down drunk athletes and the like. My best guess is that Ru$h has learned to supply his floating fun party because it keeps him the center of attention, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 854
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems he's delivered a not-pology, but just doesn't seem to get how wrong and disgusting he really is. Hopefully his fleeing sponsors won't be satisfied with it and continue to run in the opposite direction.
Scumbag doesn't even begin to cover it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One should be able to go back an time an inform the framers of the First Amendment exactly what they will have wrought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Caissa wrote: | | One should be able to go back an time an inform the framers of the First Amendment exactly what they will have wrought. |
Well, in fairness to the framers, I don't know if Limbaugh's comments would be illegal in most non-First Amendment democracies.
Unless maybe saying she was a prostitute is taken as a literal accusation of criminal activity, in which case it might be grounds for an anti-defamation suit. But I'm not exactly crazy about the expansive application of those laws either...
| Quote: | In 1978, a statement by the province's human resources minister inspired what
would become a notorious cartoon. Bill Vander Zalm said young people should be
cut off welfare, adding that aboriginal youth should leave the city and return to their
reserves.
Thinking the statement cruel and dismissive, Mr. Bierman drew a cartoon depicting
the minister leering as he deliberately snaps the wings from five helpless flies. The
cartoon was published in the Victoria Times.
Mr. Vander Zalm sued the newspaper and the cartoonist for libel, complaining he
had unfairly been shown to be a person of a sadistic nature.
The cartoonist testified in B.C. Supreme Court that he drew the minister as a
"feeble-minded person who is thoughtless and cruel." He said he was targeting the
minister's politics, not his person. The defence claimed fair comment.
For his part, Mr. Vander Zalm told court the exaggerations of the Bierman cartoon
were beyond those acceptable in political discourse.
He said the cartoon did not clearly relate to any particular incident and portrayed
him as a sadistic monster.
Mr. Justice Craig Munroe of the B.C. Supreme Court found the cartoon to be
defamatory.
"That the cartoon would interest a reader is possible; amusing it is not," the judge
wrote in awarding Mr. Vander Zalm $3,500 in damages.
|
The decision was later overturned on appeal, but still. It's bad enough that the Victoria Times had to spend years in court over what amounted to nothing more than an unflattering metaphor.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quite possibly, however, the first amendment creates the climate in which this garbage is spewed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're saying that if people can call each other names with impunity then maybe free speech is too free, and you're saying this in a thread titled "Poor Rush ('piece of shit') Limbaugh!"?? 
Carry on.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah they better repeal it. Imagine, people using freedom of speech to say things we don't like. Wouldn't it just be better if society had some kind of say, "moderator" who could just disappear people when they express unpopular opinions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm suggesting that speech in Canada is far more civil than it is in the US and that the US first amendment has lead to all sorts of ridiculous things that would have never been contemplated by those who framed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| An appeal to the original intent of the founders? And I thought I was on a progressive board here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you think the framers of the first amendment ever envisaged Super Pacs? Do you think Super-pacs are a good idea? Without the first amendment super pacs wouldn't exist? The first amendment protects a hell of a lot more right wing speech than it does left-wing speech. Exactly what is your arguments Sibjyn? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The first amendment protects a hell of a lot more right wing speech than it does left-wing speech. |
Can you give us some examples of "left wing" speech that's not protected?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Caissa wrote: | | Do you think the framers of the first amendment ever envisaged Super Pacs? Do you think Super-pacs are a good idea? Without the first amendment super pacs wouldn't exist? The first amendment protects a hell of a lot more right wing speech than it does left-wing speech. Exactly what is your arguments Sibjyn? |
Do you think the framers of the first amendment envisaged internet message boards? Do you think the framers were concerned with protecting "right vs left wing" speech?
Exactly what are your arguments here Cassia? That because people are using their rights to say and do things that you don't approve of then we should change the laws to prevent that? Maybe you're spending too much time in the babble bubble Cassia. In the real world you cannot legislate speech based on your perceptions of "right wing or left wing".
Can you give us an example of how the first amendment is not protecting left wing speech? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
see you have the freedom to get my name wrong. 
I prefer Canada's laws around speech to the US laws around speech.
Thanks for your lecture,Sibjyn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No problem Caissa, but I don't think the free speech laws in Canada are quite what you might hope them to be.
(edit for correct spelling of name) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The first amendment protects a hell of a lot more right wing speech than it does left-wing speech. |
I dunno. The guy why secured the right to burn the American flag was a Trotskyite. And while Larry Flynt might not be most people's idea of a left-wing hero, his famous SCOTUS victory against Jerry Falwell was probably not the way most right-wingers would've wanted that case to go.
As far PACs, if you're talking about campaign financing, I concede that that might be a problematic application of the First Amendment. But I'm not sure if that's relevant to this case. Limbaugh was acting as an employee of whatever network employs him, and he probably would've been able to say the same things about Ms. Fluke, regardless of whether or not campaign spending was being more tightly controlled.
| Quote: | | I don't think the free speech laws in Canada are quite what you might hope them to be |
Yes. It's not clear to me that Limbaugh's comments would have been disallowed in Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. Looks like disparaging women for promiscuity is A-Okay in Canada. And from the left too...
| Quote: | Why are Liberals defending this woman?
Frankly, they are making people feel sorry for Peter Mackay, jumping on every opportunity to rub in the fact that he was dumped by someone who appears intent upon becoming Canada's National Bike. They are hardly "defending the cause of women".
Because, I think we have gone beyond that time in history where we point to women who go through men like they're eating from a bunch of grapes as some kind of feminist role models. And, frankly, at least Madonna had the class to nail a two-time winner of the Conn Smythe trophy. Belinda's been giving it up for the resident goon of one of the worst NHL teams of the 20th century.
|
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17636
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that's a) if you think BigCityLib is on the left, and b) if you don't take into account how thoroughly the comments called him on it. I recall we had a discussion about Stronach being called a whore by the Cons here, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently more advertisers have had enough:
Limbaugh Loses Ninth Advertiser
| Quote: | Since we first published this post, there's been word from AOL (via The Huffington Post) that it too is pulling its ads from conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
...ProFlowers on Sunday became the seventh advertiser to pull adds from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated program in the wake of his charge last week that a Georgetown University law student is a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she believes insurers should cover the cost of women's contraception services.
"Mr. Limbaugh's recent comments went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company. As such, ProFlowers has suspended advertising on The Rush Limbaugh radio program," the company announced on its Facebook page.
...(quoted within the story - Maestro)"But the loss of advertisers should be a worrisome sign to Limbaugh, said Holland Cooke, also a talk-radio consultant. 'I think this story is closer to the beginning than the end,' he said Sunday. 'This is in the hands of an angry public now. I can't imagine that he won't be diminished in some way.' "
|
Well, that's a nice thought, although given past events, I doubt Limbaugh will suffer much.
Now, how about a discussion of whether advertisers pulling their ads is a violation of Limbaugh's first amendment rights.
To put it another way, if Limbaugh wrote a letter to the editor in which he said exactly as he said on radio, which paper would print that letter? Would those that refused to print it be violating his rights?
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | | Now, how about a discussion of whether advertisers pulling their ads is a violation of Limbaugh's first amendment rights. |
Nope, advertising is a form of free speech and I can't see how this infringes on Limbaugh's right to spew what he wants to.
| Maestro wrote: | | To put it another way, if Limbaugh wrote a letter to the editor in which he said exactly as he said on radio, which paper would print that letter? Would those that refused to print it be violating his rights. |
I wouldn't think so. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that people are obligated to listen to you. Or provide you with a platform.
But can you imagine the nightmare we'd be living under if newspapers did in fact have an obligation to print his letter, for the sake of some kind of free speech balance between left wing and right wing viewpoints? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tehanu wrote:
| Quote: | | Well, that's a) if you think BigCityLib is on the left, and b) if you don't take into account how thoroughly the comments called him on it. |
Well, he generally attacks from the left, relatively speaking(ie. he's a centrist who usually goes after the right). But regardless, my main point was that the absence of a First Amendment in Canada hasn't protected women from being called sluts(or "the Nation's Bicycle" in this case).
Sibjyn wrote:
| Quote: | I wouldn't think so. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that people are obligated to listen to you. Or provide you with a platform.
|
I'm sure some of Limbaugh's defenders might try whining about his free-speech rights being violated. But that's like the people who show up on message boards, get banned for violating the AUP, and then come back with sock-puppets complaining about censorship. It's a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts involved.
| Quote: | | But can you imagine the nightmare we'd be living under if newspapers did in fact have an obligation to print his letter, for the sake of some kind of free speech balance between left wing and right wing viewpoints? |
Such a law was passed in Alberta, by the Socreds in 1937. I suppose I'd be half-sympathetic, since Aberhart was generally attacking moneyed interests, and the media who criticized him were not likely doing so from the left. Still, not a good law to have on the books(it was denied royal assent, and eventually ruled out-of-bounds by the SCOC). . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | The first amendment protects a hell of a lot more right wing speech than it does left-wing speech. |
Can you give us some examples of "left wing" speech that's not protected? |
The Haymarket Martyrs
Sacco and Vanzetti
Eugene Debs
Those whose lives were ruined by The House Committee on Un-American Activities
The Kent State Four
The Occupy movement
But of course the law treats everone equally. That's obvious. La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randy Weaver and David Koresh were pretty right wing. Didn't protect them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sibjyn wrote: | | Randy Weaver and David Koresh were pretty right wing. Didn't protect them. |
Nor did it protect these right-wing protestors, whose tactics pretty much mirrored those of the Occupy movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are we talking about actions, or speech?
I'm more interested in examples of left wing WORDS which are currently sanctioned by law. Not overly interested in last century or centuries before that, and not overly interested in actions.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm more interested in examples of left wing WORDS which are currently sanctioned by law. |
As far as I know, there are no left-wing ideas that are specifically illegal to express in the USA, or any other western democracy for that matter. Even if George Galloway is prevented from entering a country to give a speech(which happened in No-First-Amendment Canada, though I know similar things happend in the US under visa provisions), it doesn't stop anyone who wants to from searching out books at his local bookshop expressing roughly the same ideas as Galloway does.
Three of AQB's examples(Haymarket, Sacco/Vanzetti, and Kent State) involve the use of state violence against protestors, or, in the case of S/V, dubious accusations of criminality. It's hard to see how constitutional provisions about speech, whether of the individualistic American or the more communitarian Canadian variety, would make any difference in those cases. Because they didn't involve prosecution of speech.
The Debs case from World War I, on the other hand, was a clear-cut instance of prosecuting speech, in and of itself. Ironically enough, though, in justifying his decision to toss an old socialist in jail for giving anti-war speeches, Justice Holmes wrote the famous words now beloved by progressives seeking to argue that "hate speech" constitutes an immediate threat to the public good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's hard to see how constitutional provisions about speech, whether of the individualistic American or the more communitarian Canadian variety, would make any difference in those cases. Because they didn't involve prosecution of speech. |
Yabbut, it's hard to say anything when the state has killed you.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| al-Qa'bong wrote: | | Quote: | | It's hard to see how constitutional provisions about speech, whether of the individualistic American or the more communitarian Canadian variety, would make any difference in those cases. Because they didn't involve prosecution of speech. |
Yabbut, it's hard to say anything when the state has killed you. |
Sure, but, even if the US constitution were amended to include limitations on speech such as you think are justified, it still wouldn't stop cops from framing or killing people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey
Non-Threatening Boy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1972
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So against the de facto leader of the Republican Party – a man with massive wealth and influence, and what had seemed for so long like a prohibitive lead at the head of the Republican and conservative movement in the U.S., but a man with a tragic flaw, more or less, in his ability to relating to people – who should move in for the kill, but Mike Huckabee.
New Huckabee Radio Show Offers Safe Harbor To Limbaugh Advertisers, Stations
| Matt Gertz, for Media Matters for America, wrote: | April 2 marks the premiere of The Mike Huckabee Show, which will be broadcast live in the noon to 3 p.m. Eastern time slot and is reportedly being positioned by its syndicator as "as an alternative to Rush Limbaugh's program, which runs at the same time and reigns over the talk-radio landscape."
That syndicator, Cumulus Media Networks, has a built-in asset in its efforts to supplant Limbaugh's decades of dominance: its parent company, Cumulus Media, owns or operates hundreds of radio stations across the country. Notably, 35 stations* that currently air Limbaugh's program are owned by Cumulus, including WABC in New York, WLS in Chicago, WMAL in Washington, DC, and WJR in Detroit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that Corey. And meanwhile, Limbaugh finds some new sponsors...
| Quote: | Companies like Ashley Madison, a website for adulterers and wannabe adulterers, and Seeking Arrangements, a website for men who hire younger "girlfriends" or at least like to imagine they could, have signaled that they want a piece of Limbaugh's audience. While previous advertisers like AOL and Netflix appealed to jerks and non-jerks alike, these businesses have a douche-centered business model that really could benefit from reaching out directly to the angry misogynists that have kept Limbaugh's coffers flowing with illegal Viagra and Cuban cigars.
|
| Quote: | | Which is why jerk-oriented businesses like Ashley Madison and Seeking Arrangements want a piece of the action. When they see the homing signal of the all-American narcissistic jackass, they know that they are in the prime hunting ground for separating a fool from his money with baseless promises of magical sexual encounters with women who know better than to open their mouths for expressing opinions, and who know better than to bore you with stupid lady nonsense like contraception. |
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure Ashley Madison and Seeking Arrangements are big supporters of Christian moralist Newt Gingrich too. Wow, what great role models these Repugs are....but hey....at least they aren't women seeking contraception or same sex couples seeking to marry. Now that stuff is against Biblical moral codes and must be opposed by every true American conservative. But Rush and Newt? (and one could throw in Vic Toews in Canada here) Totally understandable. Just a couple of white, straight rich men having a little fun. Boys will be boys.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey
Non-Threatening Boy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1972
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| voice of the damned wrote: | | al-Qa'bong wrote: | | Quote: | | It's hard to see how constitutional provisions about speech, whether of the individualistic American or the more communitarian Canadian variety, would make any difference in those cases. Because they didn't involve prosecution of speech. |
Yabbut, it's hard to say anything when the state has killed you. |
Sure, but, even if the US constitution were amended to include limitations on speech such as you think are justified, it still wouldn't stop cops from framing or killing people. |
That sounds good, but these people were framed or killed because they were leftists.
And where have I ever said there should be limitations on free speech?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey
Non-Threatening Boy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1972
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:24 am Post subject: With Friends Like These |
|
|
| Tom Head, About.com Guide to Civil Liberties, wrote: | You've probably been following the Rush Limbaugh misogyny scandal, and you've probably also seen at least a link to the viral video calling for the capture of Ugandan terrorist and child-killer Joseph Kony. But did you know these two stories are connected?
Limbaugh is Kony's most vocal supporter in the United States, describing Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) as "Christian, fighting Muslims in Sudan" and has accused Obama of complicity in anti-Christian genocide for attempting to use U.S. forces in an effort to assist with Kony's capture.
This is the guy from whom none of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates want to distance themselves--and that's a problem for U.S. human rights policy. |
Links at the original: Not Kidding: Rush Limbaugh Supports Joseph Kony (Tom Head, civilliberty.about.com, March 9, 2012) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
F.
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 2578
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Can you give us some examples of "left wing" speech that's not protected? |
If I understand correctly, the list of undesirables that was begun under Reagan still prohibits radical left wingers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Isabelle Allende and the Pet Shop Boys from bringing their subversive message to the US in person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Evil Twin wrote: | | I'm sure Ashley Madison and Seeking Arrangements are big supporters of Christian moralist Newt Gingrich too. .. |
I think the story naming these businesses as new Limbaugh advertisers was wrong:
Rush Limbaugh, media victim
| Quote: | A Washington Post writer apologizes to Rush for an error. Because Limbaugh takes nothing more seriously than truth!
...No wonder poor, misunderstood Rush Limbaugh is upset. No wonder he had no recourse but to take to what’s left of his airwaves Thursday to clear his name after Washington Post writer Alexandra Petri erroneously stated that his show “targets jerks.” And did you see how the guy with a bit of an image problem with the ladies was forced to bust out the “B word”?
...So horrified was Limbaugh at this besmirching of his character that he addressed it at length on his show Thursday, explaining, “We do not sponsor companies that help people cheat on their spouses.” He then added, “It’s an out and out lie complete with your b-i-itchy opinion in it and it is untrue.”
...On Friday, Petri did not, in fact, accuse Limbaugh of making things up. Instead, she penned a mea culpa to the noted Viagra aficionado, saying, “In the age of instant deadlines, when the correct time to have written about something is yesterday at 3 a.m., it’s easy to make mistakes, and the thing to do is admit them, fix them and do better.” She even offered to buy Limbaugh a conciliatory sandwich, which proves she may just have the strongest stomach in the Beltway.
What a harrowing ordeal it must have been for Limbaugh — a man who prides himself on being “huge on personal responsibility and accountability” — to have his reputation so falsely tainted. What an awful thing for a human being to endure.
It’d be like, oh I don’t know, being called a slut and a whore and prostitute from some whimsical blowhard’s personal sniper tower for three days in a row. It’d be like having someone declare that you’d testified before Congress that you were “having so much sex” that you were “going broke buying birth control,” that you “must be paid to have sex,” and that you “want to be paid to have sex,” even when, of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Isn’t it disgusting when people use their platform to spread misinformation? Isn’t it vile when they brag about their blatant character assassination, and then try to act like it never happened?
Keep calling it like you see it, Rush, and don’t let the b-i-itches get you down. We’d hate for anybody to get the idea that you’re some kind of whiny, dish-it-out-but-can’t-take-it d-i-irtbag. |
Goodbye, Rush...
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey
Non-Threatening Boy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1972
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: |
Goodbye, Rush... |
I wouldn't be so sure he's going anywhere.
| Quote: | It’s disappointing to hear people (liberals, progressives, Democrats) dismiss Rush Limbaugh as simply a “clown,” or a “blowhard,” or “an idiot,” or, more thoughtfully, as “a political entertainer and not a political pundit,” as if his 14-15 million reported regular listeners didn’t count for anything—as if they didn’t vote or make political contributions. Let’s not kid ourselves. Limbaugh’s audience doesn’t regard him as a joke. They regard him as a modern day prophet.
As shamelessly full of smears, half-truths, bogus statistics, and outright lies as his radio show is, his listeners pay closer attention and give more credence to what Limbaugh says on the air than to what they read or hear in the so-called “liberal media,” and, sad to say, to what they see printed in textbooks and encyclopedias. The man has enormous influence.
|
Rush Limbaugh Is No Joke
Limbaugh reaches 14-15 million people. When I voted in the EnMasse moderator election, the computer told me I was the 15th voter. Who has the bigger battalions?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As we know, Limbaugh doesn't have a platform if he doesn't have advertisers. All those devoted listeners are nothing if he can't sell advertising.
From the advertisers point of view, if advertising with Limbaugh alienates more people than it wins, the money spent is for is for naught.
Therefore, Limbaugh has a choice. He can tone it down, lose some of those devoted listeners and placate the advertisers, move to smaller air space, or disappear altogether.
In the end, what Limbaugh says on the radio is determined by the advertisers, not the listeners. Up to a point the advertisers will accept 'controversial'. Beyond that point they disappear.
Here's an interesting take on the figures for Limbaugh listeners (from 2009):
Why don't we just pretend Rush Limbaugh has 50 million listeners?
| Quote: | ...a Paul Farhi article about the dubious nature of trying to measure the size of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience. Farhi stressed that trying to determine the total number of weekly listeners represented an exercise "in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data."
The article detailed how there aren't any hard ratings numbers within the radio industry regarding Limbaugh's audience size -- a topic of increased interest since the AM talker had emerged as the public face of the Republican Party under the Obama administration.
...Kurtz's sloppy reporting highlighted the media's perpetual soft spot for Limbaugh's ratings. As Farhi noted, nobody has specific numbers about what the talker's audience is and "Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure."
Yet, for years, news consumers have been told 20 million people listen each week. It's a statistic that has become absolutely synonymous with Limbaugh.
...According to Limbaugh's right-hand person, the talker had 20 million listeners. Was there any way to confirm that? Not really, but no matter: The media loved the nice round number, and soon it began to appear everywhere -- but often without the acknowledgement that the stat came from Limbaugh's camp. The following month, in August 1993, U.S. News & World Report announced: "Welcome, one and all, to Rush World, the one-man media theme park of the '90s. Over here, the Radio Show, reaching 20 million listeners a week on 616 stations."
And the month after that, conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote that Limbaugh "is heard on more than 600 mostly AM radio stations with an audience estimated at 20 million listeners per week, is a phenomenon unseen in modern times."
A check of Nexis today finds more than 800 news references to that mythical Limbaugh number throughout the years. Despite the fact nobody knows if it's accurate, the figure has been codified: Limbaugh attracts 20 million listeners each week. Wow.
...And how amazing is this: Limbaugh in 1993 claimed he had 20 million listeners, and in 2009 the press is still mouthing the same statistic. Meaning that, until recently, Limbaugh's audience hadn't budged -- not up, not down -- in 16 years.. Obviously that doesn't pass any kind of smell test.
... As a radio trade reporter confirmed to MSNBC last week, common industry shorthand to determine the actual size of a radio audience at any given moment is to cut the cume figure down by a factor of 10, which would mean Limbaugh's 20 million becomes 2 million. Or, if you take the more modest cume number of 14 million, which some inside the industry have used to judge the talker's audience, Limbaugh's rating becomes 1.4 million, which is roughly the same size audience that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann get each night on cable TV. So why doesn't the press treat them as the ultimate kingmakers?
...The truth is journalists only have a faint idea of how many people listen to Limbaugh's program each week. And until reporters can get some independently verifiable information, they shouldn't pretend hunches represent facts. |
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And where have I ever said there should be limitations on free speech?
|
No, on this thread you haven't. And possible nowhere else. I think I might have erroneously interpreted your previous criticism of the Charter, as a document supposedly rooted in American jurisprudence, as including a rejection of a laissez-faire approach to free speech.
If so, I apologize for misstating your views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6031
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks. My biggest complaint about how the Charter has yankified us is that we've become a more litigious culture since 1981.
I think you should be able to say whatever you want without having to worry that some self-sanctified precious individual will sue you because you've blasphemed against the image of God that is his person.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 6135
Location: slandered, libeled
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, though I think as far as speech goes, the UK is the more litigigious jurisdiction.
| Quote: | A critic of English defamation law, journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft, attributes the practice to the introduction of no win no fee agreements, the presumption that derogatory statements are false, the difficulty of establishing fair comment and "the caprice of juries and the malice of judges."[3] Wheatcroft contrasts this with United States law since the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. "Any American public figure bringing an action now has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly."[3]
Two other critics of English defamation law, the US lawyers Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate, have cited the example of Irish–Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz, who by the time of his death in 2009, had threatened suit more than 40 times in England against those who accused him of funding terrorism.[4] Mahfouz also took legal action in Belgium, France and Switzerland against those repeating the accusations. George W. Bush advisor Richard Perle threatened to sue investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in London, because of a series of critical articles Hersh had written about him.[5] In 2006 American actress Kate Hudson won a libel action in England against the British edition of the National Enquirer magazine after it published an article suggesting she had an eating disorder
|
And in those realms where the American courts are more willing to entertain frivilous lawsuits, I don't know if it's the Bill Of Rights per se that is the culprit. Since I don't think it mandates that private entities or idividuals have to protect the health and safety of those who have dealings with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 169
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where was the self righteous indignation when Sarah Palin was called a cunt and other disgusting things by Howard Stern??
Just asking
_________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill[/size] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think your talking points memo is a bit messed up Hondo. It was Louis CK who was waxing about Sarah's lady parts, not sure that it was Howard Stern.
As for the righteous indignation it was left in the same place as all the righteous indignation from right wingers when Sarah was calling Obama a terrorist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2352
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hondo wrote: | Where was the self righteous indignation when Sarah Palin was called a cunt and other disgusting things by Howard Stern??
Just asking |
I hadn't heard of the Louis CK thing, so I couldn't be indignant about it.
However, it's hardly righteous indignation about Rush Limbaugh. He used his bully pulpit to mount a vicious personal attack on an individual who wanted to present an opinion to the US Congress.
It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion. It's another thing entirely to engage in vicious rants and name calling knowing full well the object of your hysterical rant doesn't have the platform to respond.
Limbaugh is a person who's more than willing to dish it out, but incapable of taking it without whining and crying.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3746
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
To add to Maestro and Sibjyn's points, it's also important to point out that even if Howard Stern had made those comments about Sarracuda (I don't know if he did, but given some of Stern's past rants and outbursts, I wouldn't be surprised if he had), Howard Stern is hardly any type of "leftist" or even a "liberal" (in the modern sense). Yeah he's pissed off a lot of conservatives, Christians and others on the right, but that doesn't automatically make him a "leftist". In fact, he's often pissed off progressives over the years (particularly feminists) as well.
Howard Stern has more struck me as a Jessie Ventura style "freethinker" who pisses off everyone (how do you define a guy who's pro-porn, pro-drugs, anti-political correctness, anti-religious fundamentalism, hangs out with people as diverse as Lady Gaga, Jay-Z and Hugh Hefner) than either a mainstream "rightwinger" or "leftwinger".
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics