Rush Limbaugh Apologizes For His "Slut" Remarks.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And the delicious irony to that Z is that it is a corporation engaging in political speech in a manner of which you approve this time around - which makes it all fine and good in your opinion. When they engage in political speech of which you disapprove, however, you want to enact a constitutional amendment to silence them. On the one hand you object to the exercise of corporate power to advocate for a candidate or party and on the other you celebrate the exercise of corporate power when advertising dollars are pulled or awarded based upon the message that the corporation wishes to be associated with. It's all corporate speech Z; and all of that speech is via the spending of money based upon the perceived best interests of the corporation.

I am glad that you are finding Rush's comments delicious, but you appear to be confusing (or intentionally trying to deflect) the recent decision regarding a corporation's right of political free speech under the 1st amendment with the corporations right of marketplace decisions. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Must you resort to intentional dishonesty in every post Dog? Show me where I indicated I found Rush's comments delicious. What I found delicious was an advocate for a constitutional amendment to chill political speech by corporations celebrating corporations engaging in political speech in pulling their advertisements from a political commentary show. We both know they didn't do this in defense of the Georgetown U activist who spoke at the "committee hearing" - they did it because they didn't want to lose customers over what a political commentator said on his radio program. They didn't want the left's anger at Rush directed instead at them and so for purely political reasons - because we know that the left is incapable of properly focusing their anger where it properly belongs. Harming advertisers isn't going to accomplish anything other than potentially silencing an opponent of the leftist agenda.

Any reasonable individual knows that none of the sponsors are responsible for the content of the show. Any reasonable individual knows that the advertisement is an attempt to recruit customers from the listening base of the program. Any reasonable person would thus not seek to harm the sponsors for what was said on the program - but the left is not reasonable, does not use reason and logic in forming their opinions nor determine their actions and so the corporations felt it was in their best interest, for political reasons alone, to stop advertising on that particular program. This is not the first time the left has targeted advertisers and attempted to do them harm in order to silence one that they disagree with - it is a regular and common tactic that they employ. The left is not interested in free speech, nor in civil discourse. What they are interested in is silencing those who hold a different opinion from their own and bullying them into submitting to their collectivist will - and they have absolutely no qualms about about harming anyone in that pursuit - the ends, in their opinion, justify every means.

You keep confusing the first amendment right prohibition against the government "chilling" or prohibiting speech with the marketplace decision to pull advertising by private entities who no longer desire to be associated with someone who they find reprehensible. These are two separate acts unrelated to one another. Rather than profess to "know" the motivation of others, why not try to listen to them explain instead.
As one of the advertisers have stated (ceo of carbonite):

“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

Since Maher called Palin and her daughters despicable names, should Obama return the million he rreceived from the profane comic? Or at least call the Palin daughters and remind them they aren't the terms Maher used to call them.

Posters are chastised for "Bush did it too" comments but you keep saying "Maher did it too."

Maher didn't attribute a lifestyle to Palin with his comments. Rush did claim Fluke had "so much sex I don't know how she was able to walk to hearings." Maher called Palin an offensive word that is harsher than calling her a b**ch. The word he called her didn't falsely equate her lifestyle choices as to make it appear she's loose or easy in giving out sexual favors.

Rush also didn't explain or correct himself about misstatements he made about how birth control pills work. I guess he doesn't want to admit he thought women took them like Viagra. You'd think after four wives, he'd know by now.

Also, Maher didn't donate a million to Obama, he donated it to Obama's SuperPAC, a big difference. Won't be up to Obama one way or the other. According to Citizens United, there can be no coordination between a SuperPAC that receives ANY kind of donations and a candidate for public office. I agree with JSG - "_________ did it too" goes both ways.

JSG wrote: Posters are chastised for "Bush did it too" comments but you keep saying "Maher did it too."

Maher didn't attribute a lifestyle to Palin with his comments. Rush did claim Fluke had "so much sex I don't know how she was able to walk to hearings." Maher called Palin an offensive word that is harsher than calling her a b**ch. The word he called her didn't falsely equate her lifestyle choices as to make it appear she's loose or easy in giving out sexual favors.

Rush also didn't explain or correct himself about misstatements he made about how birth control pills work. I guess he doesn't want to admit he thought women took them like Viagra. You'd think after four wives, he'd know by now.

Actually also made crude insinuations about more than one Palin daughter, private citizens.

FredHayek wrote:

JSG wrote: Posters are chastised for "Bush did it too" comments but you keep saying "Maher did it too."

Maher didn't attribute a lifestyle to Palin with his comments. Rush did claim Fluke had "so much sex I don't know how she was able to walk to hearings." Maher called Palin an offensive word that is harsher than calling her a b**ch. The word he called her didn't falsely equate her lifestyle choices as to make it appear she's loose or easy in giving out sexual favors.

Rush also didn't explain or correct himself about misstatements he made about how birth control pills work. I guess he doesn't want to admit he thought women took them like Viagra. You'd think after four wives, he'd know by now.

Actually also made crude insinuations about more than one Palin daughter, private citizens.

Maher has no corporate sponsors other than HBO (at least that I am aware of). If you'd like to start a drive to force HBO to remove Maher from their programming, please feel free to do so if you are so inclined. Nobody is stopping you.

ZHawke wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

JSG wrote: Posters are chastised for "Bush did it too" comments but you keep saying "Maher did it too."

Maher didn't attribute a lifestyle to Palin with his comments. Rush did claim Fluke had "so much sex I don't know how she was able to walk to hearings." Maher called Palin an offensive word that is harsher than calling her a b**ch. The word he called her didn't falsely equate her lifestyle choices as to make it appear she's loose or easy in giving out sexual favors.

Rush also didn't explain or correct himself about misstatements he made about how birth control pills work. I guess he doesn't want to admit he thought women took them like Viagra. You'd think after four wives, he'd know by now.

Actually also made crude insinuations about more than one Palin daughter, private citizens.

Maher has no corporate sponsors other than HBO (at least that I am aware of). If you'd like to start a drive to force HBO to remove Maher from their programming, please feel free to do so if you are so inclined. Nobody is stopping you.

Why don't you start a drive to force Maher off the air? I don't suspect you agree with his comments about Palin and family... do you?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Why don't you start a drive to force Maher off the air? I don't suspect you agree with his comments about Palin and family... do you?

Once again a conservative trying to get a liberal to do what they are incapable or unwilling to do themselves. Almost every thread here ends with a conservative whining that liberals did it too.....or liberals did it first.....now we have liberals have to do what we won't. Gotta love it!!!

Maybe Rush should convert to this (instead of using Viagra):

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Why don't you start a drive to force Maher off the air? I don't suspect you agree with his comments about Palin and family... do you?

Once again a conservative trying to get a liberal to do what they are incapable or unwilling to do themselves. Almost every thread here ends with a conservative whining that liberals did it too.....or liberals did it first.....now we have liberals have to do what we won't. Gotta love it!!!

I agree with archer ....