WatchI've been reading updates on the jihad against Rush Limbaugh's advertisers and it is brutal. Blood is in the water and corporations are fleeing like roaches caught in the open when the lights turn on.
For those who forget, Dr. Laura was very quickly eliminated from television (and eventually radio) through a similar crusade about her homosexual and African American rants.
Here's a good update:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/all-advertisers-who-are-sticking-limbaugh/49499/
Real time tracking of advertisers and cancelled contracts:
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
marcus says
The only hate I see, is liberals once again using Govt and trampling over the fundemental beliefs and rights of religion. No one trying to ban birth control which is cheap and available down the street for many.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,464 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Not according to your boy Rush Limbaugh. He said since he's paying for her birth control, he should have the right to see her having sex on the internet.
Yes folks, Rush Limbaugh, the great neoconservative mind that many of you follow religiously, is too bloody stupid to even comprehend the issues involved.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
Cheeky! love that British Humor!
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,464 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Since you've been defending him, what do you think about the fact that he can't even comprehend the political issues involved? Doesn't that make you question all his other political views? Doesn't that beg the question whether or not everything he espouses is based on blind ignorance?
I think it does. Yet another data point showing that Republicans as a group are not qualified to pick a president.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
"The" Issue is right here! Watch and listen..
"Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" Feb 18, 2012.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=1&extmode=view&extid=378
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,464 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
This is a thread about Rush Limbaugh. Are you going to denounce him as an uninformed idiot or are you going to keep trying to change the subject?
Furthermore what does that say about his millions of listeners if he can't even comprehend a simple birth control debate?
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
You keep ignoring the "issues".. I cant help you with that.
As for Flukes comments regarding access and $3000 a year of Birth Control costs...
He already provided in his show access information and cost analysis for condoms and pills per year. Clearly Fluke inflated the costs and was misinformed regarding availiablity of BC.
She was clearly wrong.. but as a laywer it didnt matter. The ends justify the means.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,464 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Why would you feel the need to help me with the issues in a thread about Rush Limbaugh? Most rational people would say you're running from the topic and desperately trying to change the subject.
Would you mind commenting on THIS point and none other?
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
thomas.wong1986 says
This describes Rush Limbaugh to a T.
"Truthiness" is the base of the talk radio pyramid, everything just has to SOUND good and rile people up.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Vicente says
Like I said, Rush did a great job of building his argument from the begining on the subject, finding the cost of BC, its well under $1000 a year and available. Fluke LIED in her "testimony " in Congress regarding the cost $3000. But for liberals that OK to lie in Congress.
So whats the Booze and Pot bill come out to.. is that also buried in medical insurance costs. Whats that gonna cost the tax payer $6000-9000 extra as anti-stress medication.
So Vicente, Do you believe it costs $3000/year for BC pills finding that many today can find it available for much much less...$15-50 per month ?
Even better, should these people even be screwing around but rather spending their time studing for exams and focusing on their long term career goals which is the real purpose of going to school.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,464 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
No I'm not. I said I was ambivalent and had mixed feelings. You on the other hand are posting like a hysterical teenager on acid.
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Cloud says
Pure poetry!
Follow
Befriend (9)
411 threads
4,109 comments
Baltimore, MD
Hitler rant about Sandra Fluke:
Follow
Befriend (14)
748 threads
2,572 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Cloud is having a breakdown. So are Rush's advertizers. All good.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,064 comments
thomas.wrongsince1986 says
OKay, so you can't see your own hate, but if you are the type that wants to defend Rush, you might also be the type that the more intelligent and moderate part of the GOP would like to distance themselves from.
That would be the toxic part, that turns independent voters off. Us liberals say stick around - we don't mind a dysfunctional republican party.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
The Republican party has gone batshit crazy.
Their foreign policy under Bush was an Epic Fail.
Their fanatical "free market" fundamentalism completely fucked our economy.
Having a black president brought the hard-core racists out of the woodwork.
So the Republicans have nothing to offer but hard core rage.
Is Obama wonderful? My attitude is one of indifference. The Dems are supposed to be the party that stands up to Big Business and Big Money, but it seems Obama hasn't.
Right now, the Dems are the lesser of the two evils, in my view.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Defamation like slander is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. socal2 said that Gloria Allred wanted to prosecute Rush on criminal charges. If that is so, then Gloria Allred is an idiot and a dangerous one. If it is not true, then socal2 is misrepresenting Gloria Allred. I don't know which.
I do know that Rush did nothing criminal here.
That said, that said, the world would be better off without Rush manipulating hordes of imbeciles into voting corrupt officials who have no respect for civil rights and whose allegiance is to big corporations.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
And classy too!
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Did not know about that. Was Rush in Florida when he made the statement?
In any case, that law is clearly Unconstitutional and I would defend Rush's right to free speech in this case. That law is far more offensive than anything Rush could say.
In addition to violating the First Amendment, it violates the equal protection clause.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
iwog says
Anyone else see the hypocrisy of Cloud calling a woman a "slut cunt twat" while obsessively complaining about a passing joke I made about Catholic girls months ago?
Whereas I was sarcastically pointing out a hypocrisy of the Church, Cloud is serious. Whenever someone expresses fake outrage, they always end up revealing themselves to be a hypocrite.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
What is with the Republican "War On Sluts"?
First of all, sluts are my heroes. Many times I was anxious or irritated, and sluts were there to help me through.
Seriously.
Alabama, Idaho and Virginia are pushing or passed mandatory ultrasound bills, Wisconsin is trying to say that unmarried parents commit child abuse, Repug pundits are trying to portray the Girl Scouts as some kind of arm of Planned Parenthood for sex ed , and of course Rush's use of the world Slut 50+ times in a few days to refer to one law student.
Leave my Sluts alone.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Dan8267 says
Was Janet Jackson flashing her boob also free speech?
See, this whole "free speech" thing gets really complicated when it gets into what a particular time & place considers obscenities and such. Yeah, could be fun to watch.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bgamall4 says
I've never seen Cloud and Rush at the same time. Have you? I'm just saying, if you take off the glasses, Cloud and Rush look a lot alike, Lois.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Dan8267 says
Well, a misdemeanor is a criminal act, and in Florida questioning a woman's chastity is a misdemeanor. I would think that using a national venue to call a woman a slut and a prostitute would be considered calling a woman's chastity into question.
While Gloria Allred may indeed be a dangerous idiot she is basing her calims on an actual Florida criminal law.
A court it required to decide is Rush is indeed in volition of this law and therefore a criminal.
The law its-self may be outmoded and/or unconstitutional.
Without reading it, the law in question sounds like it probably should not be on the books. However, be it criminal or civil I think that there should be a way for "average" people to protect themselves from defamation, slander, and bulling by wealthy elite -- who have access to vast media empires -- that wish to scare the little people into silence.
Dan8267 says
Oh, yes. On this I wholeheartedly agree.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Vicente says
Yes. All laws involving indecent exposure are Unconstitutional and should be removed. At worst, indecent exposure is a social and cultural problem, not a legal problem. Biologically and legally, prohibitions against nudity are unfathomably ridiculous. Clothing is an artificial structure and no other animal on this planet wears clothing (at least not by choice, cats and dogs).
Furthermore, the state's is extremely hypocritical for prohibiting nudity among the consenting while forcing strip searches and rape-scans (the TSA XRay nudie pictures at airports).
Worst still, the criteria for indecent exposure is completely arbitrary and changes on the whim. Why not force women to cover up everything but their eyes? It's the same justification as our existing laws.
There was a case where a female nudist was arrested for protesting anti-nudity laws by removing her bra in public. Two dozen police gather around to arrest her and waited. When she removed her bra, they pounced. The court ruled that since this was a protest, she was within her Constitutional rights to disrobe, but it is only legal if you are disrobing to protest.
Still, she didn't get any compensation for her rights being violated. Nor was there any punishment for the police conspiring to violate her rights and systematically doing so.
Put simply, anti-nudity laws and all so-called "decency laws" are nothing but violations of the First Amendment under both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The are nothing but attempts to force one person's arbitrary religious beliefs onto another person.
What further disgusts me is that those in favor of so-called "decency laws", never voice an objection to the indecency of rape-scanners, torture, sexual humiliation in civil and military prisons, forced abortions in Joe Arpaio's jail, and a plethora of other human rights violations.
If people are so damn afraid that their pre-teen daughter will see a penis --which she probably already has -- when a nude man walks down the street, the solution is quite simple. Whenever you see a nude man in public, just point at his weenier and laugh. He'll be so convinced that his penis is small, he'll never go nude in public again. Social problem, social solution.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bgamall4 says
Honk if you have Cloud on "Ignore."
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
That is no excuse if the law is clearly unjust of Unconstitutional. Still, I'd love to see it go to trial so that this law could be ripped asunder. Anyone who votes in favor of an Unconstitutional law should be banned from public office forever. Then politicians would actually have a motivation not to violate the highest law of our land.
Still, the issue that socal2 brought up is that it is clearly wrong to attempt to have Rush brought up on criminal charges for his insolence, and that point is correct.
leoj707 says
Yep, and that's what civil defamation laws are for. However, since Rush was giving an opinion, I don't think they apply. People are allowed to say things like "I hate you; you disgust me, and you're a bad person". They aren't allowed to say things like "you cheated on your taxes" and other factual assertions that are not true. Rush didn't do that.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
marcus says
I'm pretty far to the right side of what's left, but still consider myself a liberal for some purposes. Have to disagree. Let's set aside, for a moment, the problem of the filibuster and what that means for effecting policy. There's an even more intractable issue buried here:
Unchecked power is inherently stupid. Adversarial systems have been proving less dumb for centuries. Science, law, markets --all are based on assholes bickering with each other in front of an audience. In Science the assholes wear labcoats and the audience is the ever-thanked anonymous reviewer. In law, the assholes wear suits and the audience is getting paid five dollars a day. In markets the assholes have storefronts, and the audience is gawking at price tags.
So it is with politics. The assholes wear suits (they used to be lawyers, you see) and the audience is the minority of us who vote.
The problem, Marcus, is that the meta-system breaks down entirely when one side gives up. The foibles of the other side start winning by default. Unfortunately, for the purpose of this analysis --and for our society-- succumbing to batshit-wallowing intransigent insanity is indistinguishable from giving up. The audience has no choice but to pick the side that's not covered in guano.
As a vested stakeholder in this society, I want to see the Republicans recover from what ails them. We are all in this together.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
msilenus says
That's the smartest thing I've seen in a long time. Well put. +1.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
Thank you. I'm not sure if Brin was the first one to point this out, but he certainly did. I believe I can take credit for couching things in terms of exit sphincters.
http://www.davidbrin.com/disputation.htm
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
There's a variety of ironies here: The left is chuckling over the right of advertisers to pull ads from Rush's show even as Rush was discussing the rights of companies to not have to fund behavior they disagree with via a federal healthcare program. Next, of course, is the total paradox of feminism which is that middle class white women going to law school in the USA are helpless victims who require endless handholding in order to be equal and then compete with men in the workplace.
In the end, believe it or not, Rush will win as the double standards of the left are exposed since they can't help but call right wingers (including conservative women) foul names. Remember the era of sexual harassment legislation during the 90's and then Bill Clinton getting caught lying to the grand jury about it?
Let's put this into perspective: This isn't the first time Rush has had problems with advertisers. Plenty of companies over the years have dropped him but a lot of companies don't. At worst, he'll just earn 10 million a year instead of 20 million. That's not going to get him off the air. Sorry to burst your bubble folks.
Now let's examine the Florida statue. Note that the accusation has to be FALSE and MALICIOUS. Let's start with the false part: Rush's dialogue was based upon a logical analysis of her demanding the taxpayer fund her sex life and that this was a form of prostitution. It's logical and factual. You may find it offensive, but his argument can very well be that he never accused her of literally being a streetwalker. Regarding maliciousness. A jury will need to be convinced that Rush was personally out to ruin this woman's reputation by accusing her of being a slut or streetwalker and that this would have a negative impact on her life. You know, the negative impact of going on Oprah and The View. In other words, rather than negatively impacting her reputation she's getting several minutes of fame. Finally, he can argue that this was a political argument and the SC already decided that in the people against Larry Flynt. Rush could appeal this to a federal court and win and if they want to take it to the SC again, that might just happen and then Rush would be a hero and the left would come across looking like hypocrites (which they are.) So bring it on and don't forget to ride your limo to the suburbs (with $6 dollar Obama gasoline) through the election in November!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
PolishKnight says
Could Obama do a better job? I think so.
But I can't really blame Obama for $6/gal gasoline. I'm thinking that high gasoline prices are mostly due to global oil reserves being rapidly depleted.
Just wait until gasoline is $10/gal, regardless of who is in office.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,674 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
msilenus says
Science got us to the moon and cured smallpox. Not bad for so-called assholes.
What have politicians done?
Yes, unchecked power is bad. But since when is the scientific method based on oligopolies? Science is the most equalizing of all of mankind's endeavors. It favors no one based on income, race, nationality, gender, or any criteria other than correctness.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
iwog says
For real dude?
And people wonder why we accuse Liberals of double standards.......or having no standards at all. Really man, that is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read on the interwebs. "Palin can be called a dumb c#nt, because she is a dumb c#nt!" Bravo man!
Also hilarious how Fluke is portrayed as a "poor student speaking truth to power". When in fact, Fluke is a 30 year old activist who went back to a very expensive and prestigious Law School making counterfactual claims about the need for Jesuits to provide her birth control.
I really don't care about what happens to Rush, but it doesn't seem like this ginned up "war on women" this past month is helping Obama and the Democrats based on his drop in the polls during the same period. If anything, its energizing Conservatives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_031012.html
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
Dan8267 says
The United States of America.
If you haven't read The Federalist Papers, I recommend giving them a reading. They show how a seed of well-reasoned political argument can become manifest, and change the face of the world.
The United States had something to do with the moon shot, through the creation and direction of NASA. The U.N. had something to do with the eradication of smallpox, through the creation and direction of the WHO. Both are political institutions. Created by politicians.
"What have politicians done?"
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
msilenus says
Also politicians, scientists and environmentalists assisted in the needless deaths of millions of sub-Saharan Africans to Malaria due to the ban of DDT by WHO.
They have since reversed the DDT ban for Malaria control, but it goes to show that any group of people (including scientists) can get things wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622855/
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
I think if you want an example of something bad that a politician has done, the best one to pick is the holocaust. It's worth noting that that happened after the relevant political system stopped being adversarial. The cessation of the adversarial property of that political system was a bad decision that was made adversarially. So be it. Recall that the bar I set for adversarial systems is "less dumb." Imperfection seems intrinsic in human endeavor, but more perfect is always worth striving for.
Note that I'm not trying to equate a hypothetical world in which the Democrats (or Republicans) control all three branches with filibuster-proof majorities with inevitable atrocity. Not by a long shot. The essential element isn't the power. It's the voice. The voice speaking clearly and persuasively and sanely to an audience which is critical of both voices, and which is, itself, sane.
The Limbaugh response is not that. The man said indefensible things. The grotesque contortions trotted out to support his sick ad hominem assault can only serve to make the defender a party to his misogynistic shame. That's not to say that there isn't a good debate to be had around contraception and religious liberty. There is. But there is no good debate to be had about Limbaugh's conduct in it.
This thread can be viewed, I think, as a trap. Cloud and others stepped deep in it. Mr. Wong did better by trying to shift the debate away from whether or not Fluke is a trollop and towards the broader question, but iwog just had to insist on staying on-topic. Limbaugh's conduct is a no-win topic for the conservative side.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"But I can't really blame Obama for $6/gal gasoline. I'm thinking that high gasoline prices are mostly due to global oil reserves being rapidly depleted."
Actually, the global oil reserves are 'growing' so to speak. Obama just doesn't want to drill for them.
"Just wait until gasoline is $10/gal, regardless of who is in office."
Indeed. At that point, voters or even just the plain mobacracy won't be satisified with fear stories of global warming or promises of failed solyndra-style solar power schemes. They'll want to drill ASAP.
Regarding what Rush Limbaugh said. As I pointed out, this wasn't a 19th century Victorian era woman who stays at home all day crocheting sweaters for the local orphanage. She's supposedly an attorney capable of handling of handling harsh political debate. It may seem like a loser for Rush but for the average voter who doesn't have a bay area condo in a suburban neighborhood it must seem rather silly to fret over the plight of upper middle class white women's contraceptives costs.
I could handle the hypocrisy of the left if it made any sense but they're not making Sweden II here. More like Detroit. And even they don't want to live in it...
Follow
Befriend (14)
748 threads
2,572 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
PolishKnight says
I quit listening to Rush Limpaw when he said that the housing bubble was a figment of the imagination of the drive by liberal media. I was in Reno watching an enormous housing bubble form and knew the SOB was lying or stupid.
He cost his listeners a pretty penny.
Follow
Befriend (14)
748 threads
2,572 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
socal2 says
I would not call Palin that. She is, however, a well connected insider who is about as Maverick as James Garner.