• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh selection in children’s book competition causes a stir

Not one word you said changes the reality and truth of my analysis. Not one single word.

You did not even attempt to begin to refute one word I said. All you did was hunker down in True Believer mode. Why is that? Is the kool-aid that strong with you?

Well I thought I did. Sorry I didn't meet your standards. :)
 
I see no reason to lower myself with that sort of grade school bravado. Although I can see how it fits in with Limbaugh and the tactics of the far right that appeal to you.

You lower yourself with grade school logic responses all the time, so I don't see where you're changing that. Limbaugh is an asskicker on the radio whether you want to admit it or not. Not a single liberal can touch him, I'm really sorry but the truth is the truth. And he make $millions in the process.
 
You lower yourself with grade school logic responses all the time, so I don't see where you're changing that. Limbaugh is an asskicker on the radio whether you want to admit it or not. Not a single liberal can touch him, I'm really sorry but the truth is the truth. And he make $millions in the process.

You failed to substantiate any claim you made against me with an example and support for that charge. You also failed to speak to the reality that Limbaugh reaches perhaps four to 5 % of Americans with his show and while he may be king of a niche market in a minor medium - it is still a niche market in a minor medium.
 
Yes, when you have the narrator dressed in clothes (with his horse) referenced from another historical time period, it is confusing to children that may not be knowledgable enough to know that the two times periods are very distinct.

This isn't grasping at straws, it's grasping as a straw.
 
I don't have kids. To answer your question, though, no, probably not but neither would I say how horrible the book is without having read it.

I never said the book is horrible. My point is I would not expose any of my kids to this clown, nor will he get any richer off my dime.
 
I don't give a damn. There is no way I will give this hatemonger a dime. Nor will I even present anything written by him to my children. The man is a disgusting human being. At the end of the day honest or not, you are making this bastard richer.

Lets flip the script....

Suppose Al Sharpton did the same thing and wrote a children's book that is completely honest. Would you give his book the time of day?

Well, if Sharpton writes a book, he better write better than he speaks or no one will be able to understand what he is trying to say.
 
Well, if Sharpton writes a book, he better write better than he speaks or no one will be able to understand what he is trying to say.

Two words: "Ghost Writer". :wink3:
 
Or even worse - Nancy Pelosi? The right really hates her. :lol: I seem to remember a few people being butthurt over Hillary Clinton's new children's book, too.

If she writes like she legislates, we would have to buy her book to see what's in it.
 
I would never choose a book by a drug addict for my children to read.

I guess you wouldn't buy a book by Edgar Allen Poe, Steven King, William Faulkner or Charles Dickens then.

Of course this only names a few of the myriads of authors who suffered with substance abuse.
 
Wouldn't Sharpton naturally be afraid of ghosts?

He's a shiester and race huckster - they never let fear get in the way of making a buck.
 
I guess you wouldn't buy a book by Edgar Allen Poe, Steven King, William Faulkner or Charles Dickens then.

Of course this only names a few of the myriads of authors who suffered with substance abuse.

None of those authors write children's books. Try again.
 
Sandra Fluke isn't a slut; that is true. She's an attention whore.

Are all political activists attention whores, or just young females?
 
Sandra Fluke isn't a slut; that is true. She's an attention whore.
I once did the math on how much money she wanted for 'free' condoms and it came out to getting laid over 300 times per day, every day. Yeah that meets the criteria "slut" imo.
 
The sentiment of Rush's comments were spot on, I dont think I should have to subsidize anyone's contraception (or abortion for that matter), especially not an Ivy league college student. His choice to make it a personal attack was not.

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?
 
None of those authors write children's books. Try again.

Steven King's Eyes of a Dragon is a children's book. He wrote it specifically for his kids to have something to read that he wrote. Many of Edgar Allen Poe's works have been combined with illustrations for kids. Faulkner's The Wishing Tree is considered a children's book as well. Sooooooo....try again! :mrgreen:
 
I never said the book is horrible. My point is I would not expose any of my kids to this clown, nor will he get any richer off my dime.

I wasn't going to buy the book, but I think I will now in your honor. Rush thanks you. :lol:
 
I wasn't going to buy the book, but I think I will now in your honor. Rush thanks you. :lol:

Hey man its your dime

I would buy this before spending money on this jerk

00729863-125824_700.jpg
 
Last edited:
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?

I agree with you fully except for one thing-this was not congressional testimony. She was speaking at a conference that was made to LOOK like an official congressional hearing. Its always spin from them, isnt it?
 
I agree with you fully except for one thing-this was not congressional testimony. She was speaking at a conference that was made to LOOK like an official congressional hearing. Its always spin from them, isnt it?

Well it was a Democratic House steering committee so technically it did technically qualify as testimony before Congress, and of course the media covered it as a major event. But yes, the spin is never ending.
 
Back
Top Bottom