Rush guarantees millions of more votes for Obama

[InTheLight]

I do not remember any liberals using these terms about a conservative woman. Perhaps they have. If they have they are just as evil as Rush.

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."

 

[Crabtownboy]

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."

The use of such words by liberals, conservatives or anyone of any other persuasion is totally uncalled for IMHO. It should not be allowed! It has been said many time by many people that the art of conversation has been lost in our society. Sadly Limbaugh and Schultz are examples that show this is true.

IMHO Schultz, Limbaugh, etc. should be barred from radio and TV for their profanity and the slander they engage in.

Schultz has been suspended. Limbaugh should also be suspended IMHO.

I am glad to see people like McCain condemn Limbaugh's words. I am glad to see advertisers pulling out of sponsoring his program. That IMHO is why he apologized. Have you noted that even when he talks about how sincere his apology was he still attempts to interject humor into it?

 

[glfredrick]

The use of such words by liberals, conservatives or anyone of any other persuasion is totally uncalled for IMHO. It should not be allowed! It has been said many time by many people that the art of conversation has been lost in our society. Sadly Limbaugh and Schultz are examples that show this is true.

IMHO Schultz, Limbaugh, etc. should be barred from radio and TV for their profanity and the slander they engage in.

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),

 

[InTheLight]

IMHO Schultz, Limbaugh, etc. should be barred from radio and TV for their profanity and the slander they engage in.

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

Why would such a profane vacuum be filled by anyone?

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.

Are you saying that as a Christian you do not find such language offensive? I do not know if you listen to Rush or not, but I do not see how any Christian can approve of his rhetoric. Political beliefs and positions can be discussed without the use of profane and slanderous words IMHO.

That he has the largest following on talk radio is to me a condemnation of our society as at large and of talk radio.

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),

So, as profanity and slander will just blow over in a short time we as Christians should just accept it as normal. No thanks. My Christian beliefs will not allow me to accept such down and dirty language from either side of the political spectrum.

 

[mandym]

Why would such a profane vacuum be filled by anyone?



Are you saying that as a Christian you do not find such language offensive? I do not know if you listen to Rush or not, but I do not see how any Christian can approve of his rhetoric. Political beliefs and positions can be discussed without the use of profane and slanderous words IMHO.

That he has the largest following on talk radio is to me a condemnation of our society as at large and of talk radio.



So, as profanity and slander will just blow over in a short time we as Christians should just accept it as normal. No thanks. My Christian beliefs will not allow me to accept such down and dirty language from either side of the political spectrum.

How often do you listen to rush?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How often do you listen to rush?

Only when I am visiting relatives in the Shenandoah Valley. There is not much choice there. In addition to his, to me, objectionable language, is his love of himself ... what an ego. I never listen to talk radio of any stripe when I am at home. I find it all too biased, too untruthful to be taken seriously. It makes money, that is about the only thing I can say about it that is not completely negative.

I do not see how Christians can support anyone, regardless of politics, who engages in profanity and slander.

With Rush's background, i.e. drug abuse and multiple marriages, four at last count, I hope you are not going to hold him us as a model Christian.

I agree with your Patrick Henry quote:

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolators should be a nation of free men. It is when a people forget their God that tyrants forget their chains. ~ Patrick henry
Reply With Quote

I see nothing good, wholesome or intelligent in talk shows such as Rush's. I do see offensive language, complete lack of respect and arrogance. I see nothing of Christ in them.

 

[just-want-peace]

Only when I am visiting relatives in the Shenandoah Valley. There is not much choice there. In addition to his, to me, objectionable language, is his love of himself ... what an ego. I never listen to talk radio of any stripe when I am at home. I find it all too biased, too untruthful to be taken seriously. It makes money, that is about the only thing I can say about it that is not completely negative.

I do not see how Christians can support anyone, regardless of politics, who engages in profanity and slander.

With Rush's background, i.e. drug abuse and multiple marriages, four at last count, I hope you are not going to hold him us as a model Christian.

I agree with your Patrick Henry quote:



I see nothing good, wholesome or intelligent in talk shows such as Rush's. I do see offensive language, complete lack of respect and arrogance. I see nothing of Christ in them.

from your op:

I wonder how many million women will vote for Obama because of Rush trashing women. Rush is probably the best vote raiser for Obama.

Now he has less than half hearted apologized will probably drive more women into voting for Obama.

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:

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

Are you defending such language?

 

[mandym]

Only when I am visiting relatives in the Shenandoah Valley. There is not much choice there. In addition to his, to me, objectionable language, is his love of himself ... what an ego. I never listen to talk radio of any stripe when I am at home. I find it all too biased, too untruthful to be taken seriously. It makes money, that is about the only thing I can say about it that is not completely negative.

I do not see how Christians can support anyone, regardless of politics, who engages in profanity and slander.

With Rush's background, i.e. drug abuse and multiple marriages, four at last count, I hope you are not going to hold him us as a model Christian.

I agree with your Patrick Henry quote:



I see nothing good, wholesome or intelligent in talk shows such as Rush's. I do see offensive language, complete lack of respect and arrogance. I see nothing of Christ in them.

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?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How often do you listen to him?

I just answer this question less than an hour ago.

And when was he convicted of drug abuse?

His attorneys were able to work out a plea bargain.



He has been in rehab three times. Fortunately for him he was able to plea bargain when he was arrested. He got off easy.

Rush Limbaugh and prosecutors in the long-running prescription fraud case against him have reached a deal calling for the only charge against the conservative commentator to be dropped without a guilty plea if he continues treatment, his attorney said Friday
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1561324.html

People like Limbaugh should go to jail, says Limbaugh

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159

 

[mandym]

I just answer this question less than an hour ago.


And when was he convicted of drug abuse?

He has been in rehab three times. Fortunately for him he was able to plea bargain when he was arrested. He got off easy.

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?

 

[InTheLight]

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

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

[/FONT][/SIZE]



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.

Yes it is a common occurrence and it is also common for such people to fall off the wagon. I hope he can stay clean.

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

[/QUOTE]

I don't believe I have condemned him. I have said that I find such language very offensive. Do you?

 

[mandym]

I don't believe I have condemned him.

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.

I have said that I find such language very offensive. Do you?

That was not all you said and you know it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

Four marriages and three rehabs are indicators of character.

Do you find his language offensive?

 

[mandym]

Four marriages and three rehabs are indicators of character.

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?

Do you find his language offensive?

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?

 

[just-want-peace]

Are you defending such language?

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:

 

[saturneptune]

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

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.