I suffered through three hours of his reptilian twaddle to make the list you will find here:
"Scans of 90 students’ brains at University College London uncovered a ‘strong correlation’ between the thickness of two particular areas of grey matter and an individual’s political views."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342239/Brain-study-...
he said she was a prostitute for wanting her insurance to cover access to birth control and to top all of that off, he said that since he, as a tax payer who paid nothing towards her insurance, "paid" for it, she should post sex videos online for him to watch. Tell me that's not perverse, disgusting or crossing the line.
I think people would be equally outraged by someone on the left (or center or any other place on the spectrum) saying something so vile.
Yeah. Mahr called Palin a 'twat" or a "cunt" or both. I don't recall. You could hear crickets in the rafters from all the uproar... Same with whathisname, Shultz, when he called that lady a slut. Barely went noticed.
And I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that we as conservatives can take a few shots, even nasty and hateful ones, without turning it into a hullabalu. Free speech goes both ways.
Krista, there have been at least two documented cases of leftish entertainers using vile words to describe a couple of republican women who were already public figures. The thing you have to pretend is that that somehow equates with and nullifies any criticism of Limbaugh's oft repeated, vile comments about a private citizen testifying in a public forum. It's the equivalence argument. It's nice because it fits on a bumper sticker, you don't have to actually think about it and it's easy to repeat (or cut and paste off some rightwing blog).
Isn't what is deemed offensive, in the eyes of the law anyway, about what a reasonable person would consider offensive? By that standard, I think anyone, without and agenda anyway, would find find either offensive. You argument about which is bad enough to get attention only demonstrates your bias. Yours isn't an equivalence argument, but an impossible to prove and subjective argument about severity...and that is illogical my friend.
Well, first, we're not talking about the law taking any action--which would make me much more frightened than anything Limbaugh said. I never argued that Schultz or Mahr should not have gotten attention for their vile remarks, frankly I've paid no attention to either. We're talking about private entities sponsoring a man who has for years repeatedly denigrated women and my response to his latest 9 hour diatribe against a private citizen. You've never answered the question of why ignoring it in the past negates any action in the future.
He was making a point, which was missed by his use of words. When the government pays for something, there is an accounting for how and where it is used. It goes to the overall idea that the more government we instill into our lives the more the government has a right to dictate how we live those lives.
Roads for instance. I like roads. Its a government tax-paid thing. Good thing for everyone. The government gets to decide how fast I go, whether I wear a seatbelt, or if I can talk on a phone or not because we gave them that ability. Arguably good things.
What's to say, at some point in the future, that the government, who pays for all your stuff, won't want to make sure that everytime you have sex, you are wearing a condem or on the pill? All because we gave them that right when we made them our sexual/health financiers.
Its not that far fetched. That's where Limbaugh was coming from. He just said it in a mean way where the point got over-shadowed by the words.
Wow, that's a stretch. I mean, wow.