I once heard about a very popular young lady with a glass eye.
or maybe :smack: or possibly :dubious:, but I’d prefer :o
I doubt we’d get it even then. I’d see it, somehow, as a smug smiley where you’re just patting yourself on the back instead of being ironic, and then I’d tell you you’re sanctimonious.
I like the word sanctimonious, and I don’t get to use it much.
Of course it would be defended on the basis of being a truism in a defamation suit. And the other side would (presuming representation by a competent attorney) would attack that defense and try to show that the speaker was intending his remarks to be interpreted in a defamatory way, rather than as the repetition of a truism.
Seriously, attorneys don’t get to just treat arguments and counterarguments as “assumed to have taken place.”
I’ll happily accept instruction from an attorney who has courtroom experience that refutes the above (I suppose there exist judges who prefer that such semantic game-playing not take place in their courtrooms).
Fair enough. Though if we’re arguing that it’s literally true 100% of the time for 100% of the population, it becomes meaningless to attribute it towards Sandra Fluke in particular. So you can parse it a) in context as a smear or b) as a general truism that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Either way, Rush shouldn’t have said it and we are allowed to chastise him for doing so.
So there, Bricker. Hope you learned your lesson.
Likewise, you could argue that 19 is a truism:
- “we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”
There’s just no way to refute this is there? I mean, I think we can all agree Rush was 100% truthful when he stated he wanted Fluke to post sex tapes online. So there you go. Truth as a defense! No slander there! Case dismissed!
Limbaugh’s statements keep it in perspective when some of these old blowhards talk about the decline of America’s values. The want to return to a time when fat white racists with shocking ingorance of women’s bodies ruled the world.
And you really think that’s what Rush was saying and how he intended it, do you?
Really?
No… really?
Really?
And if the answer is anything other than “No, I don’t think that”, you’re stupid, deluded, or a liar. I’ve never thought of you as stupid.
Plus, what if Fluke doesn’t want to have any sex, but she takes birth control as a preventative to pregnancy in case she’s raped? While I seriously doubt this is the case, it’s no less ridiculous and strained than trying to twist Rush’s words into something innocuous, and could disprove the statement.
Not to mention, how’s that not sexual harassment? If I told a cute guy in front of many witnesses that “I want you to post videos of yourself having sex online for my amusement” I guarantee you that if he didn’t respond with violence he’d probably respond with sexual harassment charges.
Ah well.
For what it’s worth, Bricker, it made me smile.
. . . but maybe I shouldn’t have. I haven’t been keeping up the past few years. Are you really so inclined to defend people like Lush that no one can see anything else? That is to say, have you established such a reputation for knee-jerkery that even dry humor comes across as partisan apology?
There are more. There is the hole in the divider of rest room stalls, typically known as “glory holes”.
Then there are the ears. And does your nose count one hole or two?
Mine? Two. I don’t know how much coke you’ve done, but yours should too.
Yeah, but they connect up somewhere inside, don’t they? I was thinking of the little flesh thingy as more of a divider one what really is one big hole.
I don’t think Bricker believes that to have been Rush’s intent. I do believe that he’s going for the joke here. It’s unfortunate for his (Bricker’s) intent that his posting history does so much to obscure that.
Then the amount of sex that she wants is no sex. And the integrity of the truism is preserved. Seriously, I’m sure Bricker isn’t trying to twist Rush’s words into anything innocuous.
Plus, unless I’m not recalling the text of her testimony correctly, Ms. Fluke didn’t mention wanting any hormonal BC for herself at all. She seemed to be advocating the position on behalf of other women of her acquaintance (and in her representative capacity as a spokeswoman for the LSRJ organization).
Yeah, but she was blinking a lot, and hesitating every time she said “my … friend…” and said her name was Schmusan Schluke.
It presumes that Ms. Fluke is the type of girl who routinely videos her sexual encounters. Perhaps that says more about Rush than about Ms. Fluke; he assumes everybody videos their love-making, raising the spectre that somewhere out there, are videos of Rush en flagrante delicto, just waiting to be posted on PornTube.
Those videos might well be useful in the promotion of celibacy.
I am reminded of Erica Jong, author of Fear of Flying, speaking about porno. She said for the first ten minutes of porn, all she wants to do is fuck. After ten more minutes, she never wants to fuck again as long as she lives. Rushporn could accomplish that in ten seconds flat.
Have you no shame! Do you have any idea that some of us are visually minded, and the suggestion of such has just made an image pop into our heads that basically precludes us from any amourous imaginations for hours if not days afterwards?
Truly you are Fear Itself!
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: Also, hella form of birth control right there!
Centers for Poison Control should know about that–a cheap, easily-available emetic like that might be very useful.
I’m thinking at that point that cyanide would be kinder.