It’s fair to say, then, that you are a man who wishes to have wild, hot gay sex with Pope Benedict any time, as many times, in as many positions, and via as many orifices as you want?
I presume Rush was alluding to self control of one’s desires, in that virtuous conservatives are capable of resisting carnal temptation, no matter how much they want it.
The statement is leading and dishonest. It would be more accurate to say they want to choose when they have sex, as often or infrequently as they want, with as many or as few partners as they want.
It leads the dimwitted, using words to dishonestly imply promiscuity.
I actually have read that on the internets.
Bricker, you don’t get to make a joke at Rush’s expense because you’re Bricker. We’ll assume you’re grasping at some tiny shred and trying to claim it’s a valid defense of Rush, rather than just laughing with your ironic observation.
Will somebody please explain to me Patricia Heaton’s ‘joke’ about ‘turn your panties inside out so you can wear them for two weeks’?
What does being a slut have to do with not changing your underwear? Or is the joke she hardly ever has underwear on, so it lasts a week? Or does slut=also unhygienic? Or is it typical right-wing ‘this has many elements of a joke and is insulting so it’s a joke I think I don’t really get this humor thing the humans speak of’? Or what?
It wasn’t a joke. She was just passing on an energy saving tip she uses.
I think it’s that. Tee hee, she’s a slut! That means, tee hee, any comment I make about her being gross is funneeee.
Interesting Point! That certainly raises a few other questions:
- Is that really Ms Fluke’s position?
- Is that really what her testimony concerned?
- Do you “content” that your interpretation of the statement at all matches the actual meaning as Rush stated it?
- Have you advanced the discussion?
- In what way have you affected ignorance?
- Are you pleased with the point and value of your contribution?
How many orifices could be involved??
Yes, inasmuch as it’s also anyone else’s position.
No. But I didn’t say it was.
No, and I made that clear by pointing out that of the vast numbers of statements quoted by RTFirefly, I agreed with exactly one.
This is the Pit. The purpose of the forum, as I understand it, is not so much to have a reasonable discussion that one “advances.” But by raising a minor point, technically accurate but irrelevant to the original thrust of the discussion, I have upheld a common practice in the Pit. So by Pit standards, I would say yes – I have advanced the discussion.
I’ve apparently dealt out a valuable lesson concerning truisms.
So far, yes.
Oh.
Is there some ironic smiley I should have added?
At least 4, by my count. I don’t always have the greatest imagination when it comes to these things, though.
The elderly tend to have fragile skin, so—as with the Lord—all things are possible.
Telling
Please. A big flashing sign as well. Perhaps a sandwich board of some sort. Skywriting? (Or just accept that not everyone is all that great at reading comprehension, I guess.)
I, for one, want precisely as much sex with El Rushbo as I want, no more, no less.
I thought it was kind of funny. Rush only manages to say something true when what he says doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
(I also find it rather strange to be defending Bricker. If Rush has gone so far out that Bricker and I appear to be on common ground, he must be orbiting another star by now. Maybe Epsilon Reticuli–I hear it has a gas giant.)
FWIW, I coach high school debate and I can safely say that the majority of my 40 person squad reads those sites daily- BBC News, too. I realize that doesn’t make them the “average” 14-18 year olds, but there ya go. There are definitely kids that do read political stuff for all kinds of reasons.
Has he had a colostomy?
I think it’s telling that in the face of Rush saying just vile, hateful thing about a woman, most of the people on the right can’t seem to rise above “tee hee hee, sex is nawty!”
No wonder you guys have already lost the 2012 presidential election. Please, by all means keep talking about women’s health.
I suppose that statement is literally true if you want to play those kinds of games, but we all know that language doesn’t work that way in the real world.
You’re a lawyer. If we were discussing a defamation suit, do you think that this kind of statement could be defended in court?
If a lawyer said “but you’re honor, diagram the sentence, it’s true, it can’t not be true”. Would that lawyer get much respect from a judge?
Hey, maybe he would. You’re the lawyer, not me. But I suspect that a judge would not be too happy about it.