Apparently misleading thread titles are OK again. Imagine that. 
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a good question, which doesn’t change the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a complete fucking tool.
Oh, ditto. Sooooo ditto.
Don’t forget - liberals think conservatives are bad people. Conservatives just think liberals have bad ideas.
I thought it was the other way around. Ah well. I can’t tell which one’s supposed to be more insulting anymore anyway. I’ve heard it stated both ways.
So it sounds like they object to seeing horrific, culturally bound oppression and murder of women being minimized as “domestic disputes,” and Limbaugh, being the the fat, stupid, drug-addled, woman-hating putz that he is, breaks out in hives at the use of the word “cultural” and thinks it’s a defense.
He’s one of those guys who buys into that complete myth that liberals believe in something called “cultural relativism,” isn’t he?
Love to see Rush with the equal time provision. He would weasel around it.
Do repubs have a school of conservative ideology that teaches them yelling and bad manners is a winning debate technique?
I’ve always heard it expressed this way, and always be conservatives. You don’t have to hear more than 10 minutes of talk radio to know that conservatives think liberals are evil. They give you hints when they say things like “liberals are evil people.”
I think the truth is that conservatives think liberals are actually evil, while liberals just think conservatives are stupid.
As Euphonius points out, that’s irrelevant. By saying it, at least five million people now believe it’s true.
Lying to frame a debate is a fundamental argumentative tactic, because **once that’s the point under scrutiny it attains a level of legitimacy by virtue of being argued over. ** I hate to use another baseball analogy, but… a few years back Bill James wrote a story about how he was in an arbitration hearing for Denny Walling, a long time player with the Houston Astros. Walling was a decent player but nothing special, and spent most of his career as a backup or a part-timer. (In baseball arbitration is used to determine salaries for players of a certain level of experience.) Anyway, Walling’s agent just came out and said “Denny has the best arm of any infielder in the National League.” This being utter bullshit, the team’s representatives argued against it, and James couldn’t understand why the agent had said that… but later realized that they’d just spent fifteen minutes arguing over whether of not Denny Walling was the best throwing infielder in the league. By virtue of framing the debate, the arbitrator was at least made to think that maybe Walling MIGHT have had the best arm in the league, or was pretty close. Had to at least be really good, right? Otherwise, why are we arguing over it? James realized the agent had done a brilliant job. Rather than talking about how Walling was comparable to any one of three dozen utility players you’ve also never heard of by saying “well, he’s pretty useful as a platoon player or a guy who can come off the bench” they were implicitly comparing him to people like Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith because they were arguing whether his defensive skills were comparable to them.
The same tactic, to bring this back into the realm of politics, is why religious nuts want intelligent design to be presented as an “alternative” to evolution in schools. You would think that, given an honest examination of the two, it’d be harmless because there is lots of evidence for evolution and none for intelligent design. But the very act of arguing over it gives intelligent design credibility. Students will think “well, if there’s nothing to it, we wouldn’t be talking about it.”
If nobody challenges Limbaugh on this bullshit, he wins; millions of people will think NOW supported the decapitation of an innocent woman. That’s why he didn’t make a big deal about it, just threw it in as if he’d just happened to remember it. But if people DO challenge him, he can prevaricate and argue in circles, saying “well, here is evidence NOW supports multiculturalism, and here is evidence they supported some completely different things that are a bit offensive, ergo, they have contributed to an atmosphere that makes this sort of thing seems permissible.” He can tie up the debate indefinitely, and make his claim seem vaguely legitimate.
He can’t lose, at least not with regards to keeping his audience. Believe me, he knows what he’s doing.
Good point, which is why misleading thread titles are a bad idea.
Or at least they were at one point.
Regards,
Shodan
Is the Oxycotin doing all the talking now?
I still remember Michael Medved stating when he was a guest host for Rush that “conservatives love their childern more than liberals do.” I swear to God he actually said that.
You…do realize that your second paragraph completely negates the first, right? You are in fact arguing that he is putting liberals on the same level as murderers and rapists. He isn’t saying that liberals are murderers and rapists, but he is saying that what they do is just as bad. And that’s what equivalent means.
There’s no getting around this one. There’s no way to spin his words to mean anything other than what they could possibly mean. The only way he could be more explicit is if he said that liberals should be thrown in jail.
I hope NOW sues him. Really. No, it’s beyond “taking a quote out of context” he completely twisted the words until it was something they did not say.
Grounds for slander. I hope they take his fat, drug-addled ass to court.
Mind you, he’ll milk it for all its worth.
On second thought, maybe they should start boycotting every one of his sponsors. That would hit him where he lives.
He really is off the deep end.
Yesterday I twirled past his radio show for a minute or two and I heard him claim that Obama was scheduling his announcement regarding his mortgage plan so that it would pre-empt his show and damn it … Rush wasn’t going to put up with those kinds of shenanigans.
Actual quote (or close to it): “When he’s on the air, that means that I’m not on air. And I’m not going to fall for that.”
Drat. Obama’s evil plan – foiled again.
He drank the water straight out of the Mon when he was known as Jeff Christie, living in McKeesport and working at KQV.
Sure there is. You have done it yourself.
This is like trying to talk someone into understanding that a joke that they find offensive is, in fact, funny. It can’t be done. If one is determined enough not to understand something, then you will not listen to the explanations.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink unless you waterboard him.
Deliberate ignorance is invincible.
Regards,
Shodan
Care to explain how I’m wrong, then? Or do you just want to assert I am and be done with it?
You’re quite wrong here. He could just as easily have said, “I don’t care why my food processor gets jammed when I put carrots in it,” and he wouldn’t have been drawing a moral equivalency between liberals and food processors.
Is he deliberately using murderers/rapists in close proximity to make people conflate the two? Sure. He’s not comparing them, though.
I do see what you’re getting at (and it’s more than Shodan bothered to do), but I don’t see that it makes it any less vile. He wants liberals to be associated with murderers and rapists, to make his listeners put them in the same moral category. If he didn’t, then he would have picked food processors or something equally innocuous.
ETA: I just now noticed how Rand and Shodan have tried to reframe this thread from “Look at the vile connection Rush tried to draw” to “The OP’s title is misleading.” Let’s put aside the actual content and just fight instead over whether or not Rush really was trying to draw an equivalency. RickJay’s post once more applies.