Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 7th, 2012, 04:09 PM   #1
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,883
Please, please keep self-destructing Rushbo....



Quote:
Here's The Woman Rush Limbaugh Is Attacking Today; 'Totally Bizarre,' She Says



Say you’re a conservative radio host who’s losing advertisers left and right for saying some deeply misinformed and misogynistic things about the lifestyle of a highly-educated single woman, and now you need to change the conversation. How do you do that? If you’re Rush Limbaugh, you do it by attacking a different woman on the basis of her singleness, youth and education.



Limbaugh spent the entire first hour of his program today discussing “The American Way of Eating,” a new book by journalist Tracie McMillan, who logged almost a year working low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart, Applebee’s and other places to learn about the food industry. Despite the backlash he’s faced for branding law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” Limbaugh didn’t shy away from the matter of McMillan’s sex. On the contrary, he referred to her as an “authorette” and attempted to tie her to a broader trend of “all these young single white women” who are threatening Americans’ freedoms.



Here’s the context of that latter quote, according to the show’s official transcript:



What is it with all of these young single white women, overeducated — doesn’t mean intelligent. For example, Tracie McMillan, the author of this book, seems to be just out of college and already she has been showered with awards, including the 2006 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. Social justice journalism. This woman who wrote the book on food inequality, food justice, got an award for social justice journalism.



McMillan was in San Francisco on her book tour when Limbaugh set her in his crosshairs. She had no advance warning that her book was going to be featured on “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” and only became aware, she tells me, when someone tweeted at her to say he was talking about it. “It’s totally bizarre,” she says. “I had no idea that Rush Limbaugh knew that I existed. My grandmother would be thrilled, because she’s a fan of his.”




Less thrilling to her was Limbaugh attacking her for being female, single and educated. “It just didn’t really occur to me that my being single would have any bearing on whether whether my book was valid,” she says. “It seems to be a way to dismiss my intelligence or capacity to do the work.”



McMillan grew up working class in a rural area outside Flint, Michigan. It was Limbaugh country, she says.

“It’s interesting — I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and we actually watched his talk show in my high school [back when it was televised] for a class on current events. So I’m familiar with the politics. I certainly don’t think they’re foreign or alien or weird.




“But this really intense dismissal of women by someone like Rush Limbaugh, who’s considered an authority by a lot of people — that, to me, is distressing. I just wasn’t expecting anybody to say flat out that my work wasn’t valid because I’m a single woman.”



She also takes exception to Limbaugh’s calling her “over-educated.” “I only have a B.A. I don’t have an advanced degree,” she says. “Maybe he thinks women shouldn’t go to college at all?”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffberc...ors_picks=true



Terrible how impotence turns a philandering drug abuser into a woman-hater.
imaginethat is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 7th, 2012, 06:48 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 18
Woman hater? I'm sorry but ANYONE who needs the government to pay for their contraceptives is a slut, there is no way around that. These people should get jobs, instead of begging for condoms from the government and/or insurance company.
Yongwang is offline  
Old March 7th, 2012, 07:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
scrjnki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Posts: 1,274
All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.
scrjnki is offline  
Old March 7th, 2012, 07:41 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings.


It may or may not harm Limbaugh, although he has in fact now lost all of his key advertisers.



More importantly it's revealed a widening gender gap, and very likely increased that gap:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148116...en-in-november
skrekk is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 07:00 AM   #5
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yongwang View Post
Woman hater? I'm sorry but ANYONE who needs the government to pay for their contraceptives is a slut, there is no way around that. These people should get jobs, instead of begging for condoms from the government and/or insurance company.


This is all lies and a deflection from the actual debate. Please stop making the claims you are making without any supporting evidence to back it up. No one is having the contraception paid for by the government and the issue you are chiming in on doesn't even have anything to do with that.
waitingtables is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 07:01 AM   #6
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki View Post
All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.


Please explain to me what is outrageous and absurd about insurance providers and prescription plans having to cover birth control pills without a co-pay. I'll wait.
waitingtables is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 07:37 AM   #7
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,842
Yeah!
Fayt is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:04 AM   #8
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Rush being dropped by advertisers does not seem to faze him, that's for sure. Otherwise he might be crying buckets on the airwaves. He talked about the advertisers in the first half-hour today.
highway80west is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:19 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Here's a flowchart to help you determine if you're a slut:

http://motherjones.c...rt-are-you-slut



skrekk is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:44 AM   #10
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki' timestamp='1331181367' post='388467

All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings.


It may or may not harm Limbaugh, although he has in fact now lost all of his key advertisers.



More importantly it's revealed a widening gender gap, and very likely increased that gap:

http://www.npr.org/2...men-in-november




It's rather demeaning to women to believe that they all vote together as one amorphous mass, like a bunch of sheep.



Many women hold positions of responsibility and earn high incomes, they don't necessarily want to have to support the excessive sexual lifestyles of their impoverished sisters.



It's also grossly unequal and offensive to suggest that men can be verbally attacked and face criticism yet women cannot.
garysher is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:46 AM   #11
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,842
Is calling a dude a man whore hurtful or derogatory?
Fayt is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:47 AM   #12
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrjnki' timestamp='1331181367' post='388467

All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.


Please explain to me what is outrageous and absurd about insurance providers and prescription plans having to cover birth control pills without a co-pay. I'll wait.


It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.



If a woman cannot afford contraception she should not be having unprotected sex.



I never heard any guys whining because they have to pay for their own condoms.
garysher is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 09:48 AM   #13
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Is calling a dude a man whore hurtful or derogatory?


I'm sure most dudes would love it!
garysher is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 10:09 AM   #14
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,842
Feminazies right garyman? I guess you're against paid maternity leave too, right? Garyman you do know that our tax money don't pay for the government contraception mandate and that it's just an government insurance program that is part of women over all healthcare. A matter of fact, It will actually brings insurance rates down.



Rachel Masch MD, MPH



“contraception should be covered because it can help prevent women from many different medical problems. It can help women not have ovarian cysts, painful periods that prevent them from going to work, or heavy periods that can cause them to have anemia. . . . Contraception is good for everyone, financially, because it helps unburden an already burdened health care system. It can help save patients, insurance companies, and the government many dollars spent unnecessarily.”
Fayt is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 10:22 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.


The correct parallel to your "ex-gay therapy" example would be a mandate for insurance coverage for the "exorcism of demons".



Neither exorcism or "ex-gay therapy" are medically recognized treatments for anything, and such religious rituals generally are not covered by insurance.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 10:30 AM   #16
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1331222507' post='388502

[quote name='scrjnki' timestamp='1331181367' post='388467']

All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.


Please explain to me what is outrageous and absurd about insurance providers and prescription plans having to cover birth control pills without a co-pay. I'll wait.


It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.



If a woman cannot afford contraception she should not be having unprotected sex.



I never heard any guys whining because they have to pay for their own condoms.

[/quote]



Stop lying about this issue. Religious organizations and the church are exempt from the mandate. That issue was resolved and this is not about anyone other than a covered individual and their prescription plan provider covering their prescription for the pill without a co-pay, and how the republicans in Congress want to give ANY employer an exemption from covering things due to a claim of a religious or moral conflict. This is not about anyone paying for anyone else's birth control. Now either wise up and educate yourself on the actual issue or piss off.
waitingtables is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 10:34 AM   #17
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1331232451' post='388529

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1331222507' post='388502']

[quote name='scrjnki' timestamp='1331181367' post='388467']

All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.


Please explain to me what is outrageous and absurd about insurance providers and prescription plans having to cover birth control pills without a co-pay. I'll wait.


It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.



If a woman cannot afford contraception she should not be having unprotected sex.



I never heard any guys whining because they have to pay for their own condoms.

[/quote]



Stop lying about this issue. Religious organizations and the church are exempt from the mandate. That issue was resolved and this is not about anyone other than a covered individual and their prescription plan provider covering their prescription for the pill without a co-pay, and how the republicans in Congress want to give ANY employer an exemption from covering things due to a claim of a religious or moral conflict. This is not about anyone paying for anyone else's birth control. Now either wise up and educate yourself on the actual issue or piss off.

[/quote]



Once again Gary plays the gay-hate in his posts.
highway80west is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 11:06 AM   #18
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Feminazies right garyman? I guess you're against paid maternity leave too, right? Garyman you do know that our tax money don't pay for the government contraception mandate and that it's just an government insurance program that is part of women over all healthcare. A matter of fact, It will actually brings insurance rates down.



Rachel Masch MD, MPH



“contraception should be covered because it can help prevent women from many different medical problems. It can help women not have ovarian cysts, painful periods that prevent them from going to work, or heavy periods that can cause them to have anemia. . . . Contraception is good for everyone, financially, because it helps unburden an already burdened health care system. It can help save patients, insurance companies, and the government many dollars spent unnecessarily.”




Ask anyone trying to run a business in European countries where maternity leave is the law.



In the UK an employer has to keep a woman's job open for nine months whilst she decides if she deigns to return to work.



Meanwhile you have to hire someone on an interim basis and leave their future dangling while Mum makes up her mind.



If women cannot afford to have babies, or have no husband to provide for them, why should the rest of us pick up the tab?
garysher is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 11:08 AM   #19
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1331232451' post='388529

It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.


The correct parallel to your "ex-gay therapy" example would be a mandate for insurance coverage for the "exorcism of demons".



Neither exorcism or "ex-gay therapy" are medically recognized treatments for anything, and such religious rituals generally are not covered by insurance.


The growing number of heartwarming stories about ex gays suggests otherwise.



Why shouldn't health insurance include men's health issues like getting help to recover from drug & alcohol abuse or unwanted, unnatural homosexual yearnings?



No problem we'll make that our next campaign.
garysher is offline  
Old March 8th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #20
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1331232451' post='388529

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1331222507' post='388502']

[quote name='scrjnki' timestamp='1331181367' post='388467']

All this manufactured controversy will have zero effect on Limbaugh. For every sponsor that caves to letter writing campaigns, there are 10 waiting to take their place...especially now that the stir has boosted listenership and ratings. This is like the hue and cry when he was doing the "Feminazi" schtick back in the 90's. He bombastically uses outrageous and absurd explanations and arguments to demonstrate absurdity and outrage.



Careful using the "philandering whatever" as a discreditation device. Some of the most quoted figures in history might suddenly need to be silenced as collateral damage.


Please explain to me what is outrageous and absurd about insurance providers and prescription plans having to cover birth control pills without a co-pay. I'll wait.


It's only outrageous to expect religious organisations to fund behaviours which contravene their doctrinal positions.



Something like asking GLSEN or GLAAD to pay for ex-gay therapy programs.



If a woman cannot afford contraception she should not be having unprotected sex.



I never heard any guys whining because they have to pay for their own condoms.

[/quote]



Stop lying about this issue. Religious organizations and the church are exempt from the mandate.

[/quote]





Do you seriously believe that insurance companies will pay for contraception out of the goodness of their hearts and not pass on the costs to employers via higher premiums?



These are the same insurance companies who pay people to find reasons to decline coverage as patients lie on gurneys about to be wheeled into an operating theatre.
garysher is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
rollin', rush


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rush Vs Maher? Danjb25 Current Events 44 March 9th, 2012 03:45 PM
So what was Rush Limbaugh doing?? highway80west Political Talk 21 May 16th, 2008 04:46 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.