• 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!

Why Is "Slut" Fatal For Rush?

Yes, because Rush is known for his honesty. That's the source I would choose in this situation.

If you don't trust what Rush says about sponsors, you should go back to post number 235. I gave a different link and also referred to a comment from a "Scott M" that seems to substantiate Rush's remarks. Scott M appears to know what he's talking about.
 
Evidence??

Are you saying we should now invade Syria?
This is WAAAAAY off topic but what if Obama is reticent to invade Syria because U.S. intelligence knows that once Assad is out Saddam's WMD will be discovered and the Bush administration will be vindicated? imma take this to conspiracy theories so join me there if you think I'm out of my mind...
 
The left would love nothing more than for the right to have no voice, no media, and no votes in politics, because they know what's good for us and rightwingers need to just shutup and sit down.

If you consider me a liberal, you couldn't be more wrong in my case. The very LAST thing this country needs is a monolitic single party dominating us all, regardless of which one it was. I fail to see how this could do anything but devolve into a dictatorship.

Frankly, I think it's a crying shame we can't get a third party off the ground, but please...let's not make matters any worse.
 
$75/yr?

Last I was there - which, true, it's been a while - it was $25.00/month for me *through* planned parenthood. Not everyone can use the cheapest and most generic form. But regardless: I managed - and such things would be free through WIC. (pills and appointments) - at least it was 10 yrs ago.

I have no clue what my kid's sexual health care cost during her college years. Considering all the testing she had to do to be sure she was still safe on Norplant, I'd imagine it was likely near to thousands of dollars, at least.
 
I was married for 37 years to a wonderful woman. We have 2 wonderful daughters who are now in their 30's. One of those has given us a wonderful granddaughter.

I said was married because my wife went home to be with the Lord last August.

I am sorry for your loss, gmeyers1944. I'll remember you in my prayers.
 
It's a complex issue, of course, as all health care is. I assumed -- quite accurately, I think -- that Obama timed this particular "initiative" to garner support from women voters, whom the GOP has so effectively alienated. As such, it's not much more than campaigning, and in that sense, the whole shooting match is irritating to me.

But the general election is only 8 months from now and EVERY sitting president in my lifetime has done similar bull****tery.

The really sad thing is we need a rational, thoughtful discussion about health care desperately and ASAP.....possibly moreso than one on the economic recovery we all also desperately need.

And it's fairly certain now, IMO, no such thing on either subject is going to happen this year.
Here's my issue with the health bill. The true problems of health care are a hard fix, the bill was a government power grab that is actually going to make things worse. When the medical industry was relatively new there were few regulations, so it was cheap......but not necessarily at the highest quality yet. During the 1900s regulations regarding safety were passed and as well the amount of medical enrolees that could attend by law annually. Well, the safety regs are fine but the doctor limits caused what is now a shortage, making both medical school expensive and fees insane. As well, a doctor can be sued too easily, driving up their malpractice insurance requiring them to make more money just if they want to break even.

Now the fun part, physicians used to be able to barter, now all they may do is waive their fees to provide care so they choose between turning away a patient or serving at a loss. All of the examples are government intervention, so how do Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and their lackies address the problem of improper governmnet regulation, with total and improper government regulation.

The hard fixes are this: Deregulate where possible, maintain sanititation and safe practice standards, but get the hell out of everything else. Eliminate the federal cap on medical school enrollment. Allow for alternative medine coverage such as proven holistics and herbals. Limit the power of the FDA on drugs somewhat because the R&D is driving med prices through the roof. Tort reform, only meritorious cases heard and actual provable damages should be allowed. Allow for doctors to barter services at least for the less fortunate, for instance my godfather used to be able to accept a chicken dinner or a portion of his patient's hunt when he was first practicing in lieu of his fee, now he would be in legal trouble.

These are hard fixes because a lot of politicians will lose contributors who make money off of things as they stand and the politicians themselves would no longer be needed in healthcare because the problem would be solved, they would lose some of their leverage and power and they aren't willing to give it up even though doing the right thing would lead to that.
 
We know more truth than people who don't listen to Rush.

That might possibly be, but no one acquires any reliable data about reality from listening to Rush.

It'd be like claiming you are now all up on Earth Science because you regularly watch Pat Robertson.
 
I am sorry for your loss, gmeyers1944. I'll remember you in my prayers.
Im sorry to hear that myself, sorry for your loss as well gmeyers.
 
This is WAAAAAY off topic but what if Obama is reticent to invade Syria because U.S. intelligence knows that once Assad is out Saddam's WMD will be discovered and the Bush administration will be vindicated? imma take this to conspiracy theories so join me there if you think I'm out of my mind...
If the WMD are in Syria, should you be in support of getting them? I'm assuming you supported Bush going into Iraq after them.
 
You are wrong, my friend. Sponsors are not dropping like flies and his show won't feel the effects of the few who have dropped in the slightest.

Perhaps some information will help you:



You might also read the comment on that site from Scott M. He kind of puts it all in perspective.
local advertisers pay a premium to have their commercials air during rush's show, local stations pay rush( or eib) a fee to carry the show, if the locals are losing money, they quit carrying the show, if they quit carrying the show, rush's national advertisers find their investment in advertising losing some of its value(they also pay a premium to have advertisements ran on his show) rush is puting on his game face, and trying to ride this out....
 
local advertisers pay a premium to have their commercials air during rush's show, local stations pay rush( or eib) a fee to carry the show, if the locals are losing money, they quit carrying the show, if they quit carrying the show, rush's national advertisers find their investment in advertising losing some of its value(they also pay a premium to have advertisements ran on his show) rush is puting on his game face, and trying to ride this out....

Okay...

Do you have any evidence that any local stations are pulling his show? I haven't heard about it if it's happened.

And, frankly, I suspect there are a whole bunch of companies who would advertise during the time period that his show comes on and they would gladly take the time slot of the few who've dropped out.

Look, Rush has been around for a long time. He's said stupid stuff before...done stupid stuff. I would think that if he had a problem with getting sponsors, it would have happened by now. It hasn't and I don't see that it'll happen this time.

I do understand your desire for wishful thinking, but I don't see any reality to support it.
 
Okay...

Do you have any evidence that any local stations are pulling his show? I haven't heard about it if it's happened.

And, frankly, I suspect there are a whole bunch of companies who would advertise during the time period that his show comes on and they would gladly take the time slot of the few who've dropped out.

Look, Rush has been around for a long time. He's said stupid stuff before...done stupid stuff. I would think that if he had a problem with getting sponsors, it would have happened by now. It hasn't and I don't see that it'll happen this time.

I do understand your desire for wishful thinking, but I don't see any reality to support it.
no wishful thinking , simple economics...i actually agree with you, i suspect that his show will go on, but their will come a point that his mouth will actually do serious harm to his program, be it with reduced revenues from advertising, or from affiliates, who will cover their own asses, dropping him for less controversial(and less expensive) programming alternatives
 
no wishful thinking , simple economics...i actually agree with you, i suspect that his show will go on, but their will come a point that his mouth will actually do serious harm to his program, be it with reduced revenues from advertising, or from affiliates, who will cover their own asses, dropping him for less controversial(and less expensive) programming alternatives

shrug...

I think it's more likely he'll retire before anything like that happens.
 
shrug...

I think it's more likely he'll retire before anything like that happens.
He's got an audience of 20 Million, advertisers know that and if they let random complaints get to them that easily they are morons. The sheer numbers talk and Rush would have to basically say he supports the reanimated corpse of Hitlerf or global leader with Mussolini in the VP position and Kruschev as the human rights overseer to lose a healthy percentage of that audience.
 
Many years ago, I was an occasional listener of Limbaugh's, but as his rhetoric became ever more foolish, vitriolic and biased, I stopped. (This is likely somewhere in the 1990's.)

Since then, as some of his comments have been reported, circulated on youtube, etc., I have grown to genuinely loathe this man. I don't think he cares a damn what he says as long as his audience grows, his own revenues grow, etc. To me, he's like the Pat Robertson of politics.

I can't for the life of me get how this guy has stayed on the air as long as he has, given some of the things he has said. But geeze louise, even the lookalike Glenn Beck had to claim God was punishing Haiti with an earthquake because the US is moving further towards civil rights for gay people before he got tossed.

So here's my little, curious question: WTF was the big fat deal about Rush calling a grown woman a "slut"? I just don't understand how this one relatively inoffensive (for him) remark could be resulting in all the blowback he's getting. (Don't misunderstand me; I revel in his downfall; I just don't understand it.)

Did someone demonize the word "slut" while I was sleeping? Who is this woman, that can testify before Congress but bursts into tears and needs therapy because Rush insulted her? God damn, some of you young liberal women (and men) today would never have made it in the Feminist Movement of the 1970's, I can tell you.

Sometimes, I think modern liberals take pride in behaving like a bunch of emo first graders. This kinda reminds me of all the transparently stupid hand-wringing that went on when Obama had Bin Laden killed. I'm sorry...how in the hell could that POSSIBLY have been a bad thing?

Seriously, people? "Slut" is where we liberals have chosen to draw the line in the sand today?

Susan B. Anthony must be rolling over in her grave.

You do realize that of the three things piglips said, slut was the tamest? Let's just start with the word prostitute. That is slanderous in my view. Last time I checked, that is against the law. And then there's his comments about her sex tapes.

And besides, she's a college student. He needs to resort to that? I, for one, love this. Karma is a bitch.
 
He's got an audience of 20 Million, advertisers know that and if they let random complaints get to them that easily they are morons.

I see what you did there. You used 20 millions listeners of Rush's and morons in the same sentence. Seems fair to me.
 
You do realize that of the three things piglips said, slut was the tamest? Let's just start with the word prostitute. That is slanderous in my view. Last time I checked, that is against the law. And then there's his comments about her sex tapes.

And besides, she's a college student. He needs to resort to that? I, for one, love this. Karma is a bitch.

I'm not surprised that you're entertained by negative things, since you generally add so little around here it makes perfect sense.
 
He's got an audience of 20 Million, advertisers know that and if they let random complaints get to them that easily they are morons. The sheer numbers talk and Rush would have to basically say he supports the reanimated corpse of Hitlerf or global leader with Mussolini in the VP position and Kruschev as the human rights overseer to lose a healthy percentage of that audience.

If he did say that, someone here would back him up. Then he'd apologize, then say he was only joking.

The guy has a track record. Saying that this one word is fatal is like blaming that last cigarette for a person's lung cancer, and not the fact that they've smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years. Besides which, the same advertisers who are "pulling out" now will be back when this blows over and nobody's paying attention anymore.
 
I'm not surprised that you're entertained by negative things, since you generally add so little around here it makes perfect sense.

Your post is making my hypocridar beep:roll:
 
Many years ago, I was an occasional listener of Limbaugh's, but as his rhetoric became ever more foolish, vitriolic and biased, I stopped. (This is likely somewhere in the 1990's.)

Since then, as some of his comments have been reported, circulated on youtube, etc., I have grown to genuinely loathe this man. I don't think he cares a damn what he says as long as his audience grows, his own revenues grow, etc. To me, he's like the Pat Robertson of politics.

I can't for the life of me get how this guy has stayed on the air as long as he has, given some of the things he has said. But geeze louise, even the lookalike Glenn Beck had to claim God was punishing Haiti with an earthquake because the US is moving further towards civil rights for gay people before he got tossed.

So here's my little, curious question: WTF was the big fat deal about Rush calling a grown woman a "slut"? I just don't understand how this one relatively inoffensive (for him) remark could be resulting in all the blowback he's getting. (Don't misunderstand me; I revel in his downfall; I just don't understand it.)

Did someone demonize the word "slut" while I was sleeping? Who is this woman, that can testify before Congress but bursts into tears and needs therapy because Rush insulted her? God damn, some of you young liberal women (and men) today would never have made it in the Feminist Movement of the 1970's, I can tell you.

Sometimes, I think modern liberals take pride in behaving like a bunch of emo first graders. This kinda reminds me of all the transparently stupid hand-wringing that went on when Obama had Bin Laden killed. I'm sorry...how in the hell could that POSSIBLY have been a bad thing?

Seriously, people? "Slut" is where we liberals have chosen to draw the line in the sand today?

Susan B. Anthony must be rolling over in her grave.
Wasn't nearly this much controversy when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingram a slut on live TV.

Many years ago, I was an occasional listener of Limbaugh's, but as his rhetoric became ever more foolish, vitriolic and biased, I stopped. (This is likely somewhere in the 1990's.)

Since then, as some of his comments have been reported, circulated on youtube, etc., I have grown to genuinely loathe this man. I don't think he cares a damn what he says as long as his audience grows, his own revenues grow, etc.

Bingo - because you listen to 30 second soundbites cherry picked by Media Matters, etc - uploaded to Youtube with a provocative headline. You can make anyone look bad by cherry picking their comments, and by also ignoring the rest of the hour long show. Or ignoring the equally or far more offensive comments made by liberal pundits for that matter (aka selective outrage).

To me, he's like the Pat Robertson of politics.
The same deal applies with Pat Robertson, if your only exposure to him are the cherry-picked, out of context comments, then he might not look so good - but if you actually do independent research or watch a full episode of his show instead of just a 30 second soundbite on Media Matters, etc - then there's not much to be offended about at all.

For example, there was an associated press video on Youtube with the headline "Pat Robertson calls Haiti Earthquake blessing in disguise" - but if you actually watch the video, Pat was saying that the earthquake destroyed a large amount of condemned city infrastructure which had needed to be demolished for sometime, and therefore will make rebuilding easier - so in that sense, the earthquake was a blessing in disguise.

IMO that amounts to slander, if I was Pat I would have sued AP for all their worth - I feel sorry for the poor guy, and what the liberal media does to guys like him really makes me think that "public figures" shouldn't be exempt from slander/libel just because they're "famous".
 
Last edited:
Wasn't nearly this much controversy when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingram as slut on live TV.

The only difference I can see between the two is that Laura Ingraham is a pundit and a political personality. With that being said, I would have fired him (though after looking it appears he was suspended).
 
Last edited:
The only difference I can see between the two is that Laura Ingraham is a pundit and a political personality. With that being said, I would have fired him (though after looking it appears he was suspended).
Point taken. Though where's all the liberal outrage over the comments made by Bill Maher and his guests over Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, etc? Ex, calling them a "Milf", joking on live TV about wanting to rape Michelle Bachmann? No outrage there, looks like the outrage isn't a matter of what's being said, just a matter of whether or not the one saying it is a conservative.
 
If he did say that, someone here would back him up. Then he'd apologize, then say he was only joking.

The guy has a track record. Saying that this one word is fatal is like blaming that last cigarette for a person's lung cancer, and not the fact that they've smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years. Besides which, the same advertisers who are "pulling out" now will be back when this blows over and nobody's paying attention anymore.
No one would back him up, but then again I don't think he would say something of that level anyway. My point was that he has a rock solid audience that advertisers need to pay attention to before pulling ad dollars. Knee jerk reactions are fine in regional and mid-sized markets, even smaller syndication contracts. Rush owns EIB and the only way he would lose his gig is if he couldn't get a syndication deal or lost the bulk of his markets, of course that was before satellite and streaming so even that isn't a given.

The man IMO hasn't said anything close to as nasty as some of the left, doesn't make it right but Janine Garafolo, Maher, etc. have said more undeserved and lower raunch.
 
Back
Top Bottom