Yes, nobody ever accused Rush of not crossing the line into bad taste with some of his illustrations and metaphors.
I certainly have not defended him when he has done that, and, while his metaphor or illustration was spot on, he used really bad judgment in how he applied that to Sandra Fluke's congressional presentation. And as always happens in these cases, that bad judgment then became the story and the point he was making was totally lost so far as the media and message board bigots are concerned. And just as I every once in awhile find myself wishing I had expressed my opinion differently and wishing I could rephrase this or that, I'm sure if Rush had it to do over, he would not have used that particular analogy in that particular case.
At the same time, call me a bigot if you wish, but I personally highly resented Sandra Fluke's testimony as 1) entirely self serving; 2) entirely dishonest; and 3) pushing an entitlement mentality that is slowly but surely helping to destroy our culture. Rush used the analogy that somebody who wants others to pay for her to have sex is a slut. And in so doing he is characterized as calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'.
So does my expressed opinion extrapolate that I am calling Sandra Fluke self serving? Dishonest? Wrong pushing a foolish and even dangerous agenda? Somebody could definitely draw that conclusion. But I didn't do that. I applied those characterizations to her testimony. Does that make me a bigot because I disagree with what she was asking for? Because I would say no?
How does one criticize or object to what others would demand of us without being accused of being intolerant? Of being hateful? Of being a bigot? And if anybody here thinks they are justified, correct, even noble in objecting to what others do that affects them, why is Rush any different?