Rush guarantees millions of more votes for Obama

Ed Schultz gave a 4-minute long apology for calling fellow radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" during his program. Schultz says he is indefinitely suspended from his show for the time being.

"On my radio show yesterday, I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ham_this_is_the_lowest_of_the_low_for_me.html

"I am deeply sorry, and I apologize," he said. "It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said."

 

Sure... Then the vacuum could be filled by whom?

Rush isn't typically that much a problem and even this will blow by within a couple of weeks as the major media outlets find a new whipping boy. He is, after all, the holder of the single largest audience in talk radio, and those who listen to him often are not going to turn away just because he said a couple of things that he shouldn't have said.

Additionally, unlike some others in media who either NEVER apologize, or who do so then the issue is over, Rush could never possibly apologize enough. If he cut off his right arm, it would not be enough. In fact, if he, as you suggest, QUIT radio, THAT would not be enough. So, with that fact in mind, why not just continue realizing that this too shall pass and that there are a LOT of bigger issues, such as the real sluts and prostitutes out there draining the life out of America (and I'm not just talking about sexual favors),

 

Are you suggesting that the government should bar Limbaugh and Schultz from being on radio?

 

How often do you listen to rush?

 

from your op:

I'll say one thing for Crabby; he sure knows how to artfully shift gears as he jumps from the main road onto a rabbit trail!!!

He answers a question asked of him in the 1st line of the 1st quote, but from there ad-libs voraciously hi-jacking his own op; main "trail" being "---hold him us(sic) as a model Christian." Nowhere has that been mentioned til now - unless I totally missed it (which ain't impossible :saint


I guess when your original premise is shot full of holes, one does tend to look for an alternate "premise"!!!!:BangHead:

 

How often do you listen to him? He admitted his addiction, repented, and told everyone it was a result of handling back pain. This is a common occurrence for those who suffer severe pain and are prescribed these medications. Why do you use that to demean him seeing it is in his past? It appears you are just looking to add all you can to tear him down rather than give a genuine analysis of him.

Do you make a habit of condemning people for their past? Do you consider that a Christian attitude?

 

He admitted his addiction, repented, and told everyone it was a result of handling back pain. This is a common occurrence for those who suffer severe pain and are prescribed these medications. Why do you use that to demean him seeing it is in his past? It appears you are just looking to add all you can to tear him down rather than give a genuine analysis of him.

Do you make a habit of condemning people for their past? Do you consider that a Christian attitude?

 

I think the thread title should be changed (again!)

 

Sure you did. You mentioned it in relationship to his current character. Ignoring that it takes a lot of good character to admit his problem and deal with it.

That was not all you said and you know it.

 

There is that same condemnation again. Did we not just address the issue of addiction in that he admitted it and repented? Is it not good character to admit when we are wrong and change our behavior? Lumping everything into to one sentence in this vague way is not honest and seems to be more of an attempt to add as many things as possible to condemn him in the worst light as you have. Do you believe doing this is a Christian attitude?

I did not hear it. All I have seen is snipped reports. But this seems similar to the accusations of Rick Warren in that a small portion of the bigger picture was ripped out of context and misrepresent the full intentions. As the left has a long history of doing this with Rush trying on every turn to tear him down I am not willing to just concede based on reports. Did you hear the statement in question made on his show at the time he said it? Did you at any time hear the entirety of the particular broadcast in question?

 

Thanks for making my point!

My approval, or lack thereof, have squat to do with the OP as you wrote it!

Is it remotely possible for you to stick to your own subject, and refrain from playing outside the boundaries of same, when you are confronted with a logical rebuttal?????:BangHead::BangHead:

(Rhetorical question!!):thumbsup:

 

What I cannot understand is why, whether you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, Independent or establishment, would make one key stroke on the subject of Rush Limbaugh. If people would turn off the switch or change the channel, his big mouth would stop. If everyone would do it, then his ratings would go way down. When his ratings go way down, he gets cancelled, a positive development.

He is nothing but an entertainer, and a crude one at that. He has no power, but feeding off the base instincts of humanity. Rush Limbaugh is not worthy of one second of our time or thoughts. He is nothing but a pill popping, immoral, womanising, gluttonous, self indulgent slob. His show is on the same level, if not lower, than shows like Jerry Springer, Maury Povitch, or your regular afternoon soap opera.

 

I finally heard the entire snippet of Rush's conversation. He never actually called THAT WOMAN a slut or a prostitute. He was speaking in general about her efforts in a testimony before Congress where she was asking for the government or insurance funding of birth control pills as an unmarried young lady.

The presumption is that she needs the birth control pills BECAUSE she is having sex. There is no need for them otherwise, except for some women-oriented hormonal deficiency that required the use of the pill to regulate cycles of some such use (at times it happens). She gave no indication of that. The context was protection from pregnancy which can ONLY mean sexual activity.

So, Rush's ACTUAL point was this: This woman wants to be paid to have sex (essentially her argument, she wants someone else to pay for the product that allows her to have sexual relations apart from marriage). "Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes." That is what Rush said. He never said, "YOU ARE A SLUT AND A PROSTITUTE." He said, "Women who ask for pay for sex are sluts and prostitutes."

Of course, as is the case here on the board in virtually every debate, someone picks up on the two objectionable words and runs with them... "YOU called me a heretic..." etc. Response, "No, your DOCTRINE is heretical..." With Rush, the outcry was, "YOU called that woman a slut and a prostitute..." No, he actually said, "Women who expect pay for sex are called sluts and prostitutes."

Different argument entirely, and for the record, Rush is precisely correct. Women who ask for pay for sex are indeed sluts and prostitutes. You can find that referenced in the Bible, albeit not the "slut" word, which is modern slang, but certainly the prostitute word.