Yes, logic is most certainly missing here, but that is normal for the minds of the state.

Originally Posted by Auntie B

Yes, logic is most certainly missing here, but that is normal for the minds of the state.

I am not sure what this post means, but anyone who can defend limbaugh and the language he used in this case is seriously lacking moral fortitude. I do not care a bit about your stance on the case in question, or the young lady, the description he used is morally bankrupt.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I am not sure what this post means, but anyone who can defend limbaugh and the language he used in this case is seriously lacking moral fortitude. I do not care a bit about your stance on the case in question, or the young lady, the description he used is morally bankrupt.

Eweissenbach - You have to realize that post you replied to is one by a new handle from an old "friend" and (s)he put it there to elicit a strongly worded reply in order to get under our skins.

Everyone knows now that Limbaugh is morally bankrupt and is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Do not fall for such attempts as above to have "them" get the pleasure of irritating the good guys.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Eweissenbach - You have to realize that post you replied to is one by a new handle from an old "friend" and (s)he put it there to elicit a strongly worded reply in order to get under our skins.

Everyone knows now that Limbaugh is morally bankrupt and is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Do not fall for such attempts as above to have "them" get the pleasure of irritating the good guys.

Is that our old friend villagegolfer? Seems far to coherent to be him.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Eweissenbach - You have to realize that post you replied to is one by a new handle from an old "friend" and (s)he put it there to elicit a strongly worded reply in order to get under our skins.

Everyone knows now that Limbaugh is morally bankrupt and is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Do not fall for such attempts as above to have "them" get the pleasure of irritating the good guys.

Is this one of those Stupidski tactics they rely on?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Eweissenbach - You have to realize that post you replied to is one by a new handle from an old "friend" and (s)he put it there to elicit a strongly worded reply in order to get under our skins.

Everyone knows now that Limbaugh is morally bankrupt and is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Do not fall for such attempts as above to have "them" get the pleasure of irritating the good guys.

I hope you are right and that they don't really like him. It is confusing when people like Limbaugh, and Beck can muster support from anyone at all. I see them as full time haters, but they all do have supporters, so I will try my best not to use negative name calling on any of the three. God bless them all as only in our afterlife will we be informed on whether they are/were right or wrong.

Gratuitous sex has become so common place in our society that we have forgotten the moral, biological and physical consequences. This is another fine example of the detoriation of the integrity and ethics of this secular and descending society. Perhaps Limbaugh was wrong in his approach but it is even sadder that our society was quick again to shoot the messenger over and over again rather than utilizing this issue as a teachable moment.

But then too many of my liberal friends believe they have a monopoly on intellect and again we find that they have intellectualize themselves into stupidity.

I have too much respect for most people and so I do not use stupidity in the sense of calling someone stupid but rather in their "unquestionable" belief that they are smarter than most they fail to recognize the bigger issue.

I am not qualified to debate the issue of contraceptives but I am qualified to
know that with rights come responsibilities. And so if you desire to engage
in activities then you should pay your own way. I mean I love golf but I haven't ask the government to pay for my sticks

Originally Posted by rubicon

Gratuitous sex has become so common place in our society that we have forgotten the moral, biological and physical consequences. This is another fine example of the detoriation of the integrity and ethics of this secular and descending society. Perhaps Limbaugh was wrong in his approach but it is even sadder that our society was quick again to shoot the messenger over and over again rather than utilizing this issue as a teachable moment.

But then too many of my liberal friends believe they have a monopoly on intellect and again we find that they have intellectualize themselves into stupidity.

I have too much respect for most people and so I do not use stupidity in the sense of calling someone stupid but rather in their "unquestionable" belief that they are smarter than most they fail to recognize the bigger issue.

I am not qualified to debate the issue of contraceptives but I am qualified to
know that with rights come responsibilities. And so if you desire to engage
in activities then you should pay your own way. I mean I love golf but I haven't ask the government to pay for my sticks

All I can say is WOW. If I and others that fall into negative comments on this forum would use the above post as a reference,we all could be in a better position to GET THE POINT ACROSS. Well done Rubicon and I am going to go back and modify my recent post to reflect what I feel you are telling us. Thank you for showing me a better way to disagree.

Not condoning what Rush may have said. Just wonder where the outrage was when Sarah Palin was refered to as a pig, her daughter as a slut, public comments were made that it would be good if she had cancer or was shot....

Katz: What nationally syndicated personality said that? Yeah, I heard a lot of "ordinary" people slinging mud at her in ways that were beneath contempt - but can you name someone in a position similar to Limbaugh who did?

Originally Posted by djplong

Katz: What nationally syndicated personality said that? Yeah, I heard a lot of "ordinary" people slinging mud at her in ways that were beneath contempt - but can you name someone in a position similar to Limbaugh who did?

Why does it have to be someone in a similar position? What's the difference what the job status of the commentator is?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Why does it have to be someone in a similar position? What's the difference what the job status of the commentator is?

I think it matters a lot. No one pays any attention to what you and I say on this forum, but millions do care what is broadcast nation wide. If it is said on SNL, No big deal as they are clearly comedy, off color at times but comedy. Rush Limbaugh is thought of by many conservatives and a accurate source of news. As ridiculous as that sounds, their are many that actually respect that &^%^%@#&^%^^$&^(.

Because the outrage over Limbaugh's comments were the topic. Any yahoo in the street certainly doesn't carry the same weight.

Having had some time to think about it, some of Bill Maher's comments about Palin were, IMO, over the line. There were far more polite ways to express his revulsion at her policies but he took the low road a few times.

Originally Posted by djplong

Because the outrage over Limbaugh's comments were the topic. Any yahoo in the street certainly doesn't carry the same weight.

Having had some time to think about it, some of Bill Maher's comments about Palin were, IMO, over the line. There were far more polite ways to express his revulsion at her policies but he took the low road a few times.

I didn't mention "yahoo's"; I said liberal commentators.

I don't appreciate my meanings twisted.

(wait a minute, maybe you're right. Most all liberal commentators are "yahoos" I guess)

Sandra Fluke v. Joe the Plumber

Sandra Fluke v. Joe the Plumber - By Jonah Goldberg - The Corner - National Review Online