Republicans War on Women

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You and your ilk keep trying to defend that idiot while the rest of us will be just sitting back and enjoying watching you hurl yourselves off the cliff.

[b]I have not defended what he said even once.
Please stop lying, if that is at all possible.

What you and the rest of the lunatic right are doing, quite unsuccessfully I might add,is desperately trying to mitigate the damage done to your minister of propaganda by playing the old "What about that guy card" and trying to compare a stand-up comedian to a political commentator who is a professional shill for the Republican party.

I guess there is nothing I can do if you choose to continue to lie by claiming that I am defending, or have ever defended, Limbaugh on this issue. Lying apppears to be your default position whenever the facts don't suit your argument.

Lying? Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

Quote :

But the least you could do is answer the question I asked you in a previous post:
Precisely which public stratum did the woman at Applebee’s occupy?

I'll answer as soon as you show me an actual transcript or video of what he allegedly said.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Lying? Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

[b]I have not defended Limbaugh on this issue even once, (no matter how much you might want it to be so) so you may stop lying about it any time now (if, that is, it is even possible for you to stop lying). My point in bringing Maher into the discussion was not to defend Limbaugh, but to point out the disparity in public outrage, dependent upon whether the ox being gored resides on the left side or the right side of the barnyard.

That is what's known as introducing a "mitigating factor". They are commonly used by defense lawyers to lessen the severity of a sentence or to reduce charges..

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Lying? Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

[b]I have not defended Limbaugh on this issue even once, (no matter how much you might want it to be so) so you may stop lying about it any time now (if, that is, it is even possible for you to stop lying). My point in bringing Maher into the discussion was not to defend Limbaugh, but to point out the disparity in public outrage, dependent upon whether the ox being gored resides on the left side or the right side of the barnyard.

That is what's known as introducing a "mitigating factor". They are commonly used by defense lawyers to lessen the severity of a sentence or to reduce charges..

It is most decidedly not a "mitigating factor".
The only reason I would feel the need to introduce a "mitigating factor" is if I were defending the statements of either Maher or Limbaugh, which I am not.
Stop lying, please.
Thanks in advance!!!!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Lying? Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

[b]I have not defended Limbaugh on this issue even once, (no matter how much you might want it to be so) so you may stop lying about it any time now (if, that is, it is even possible for you to stop lying). My point in bringing Maher into the discussion was not to defend Limbaugh, but to point out the disparity in public outrage, dependent upon whether the ox being gored resides on the left side or the right side of the barnyard.

That is what's known as introducing a "mitigating factor". They are commonly used by defense lawyers to lessen the severity of a sentence or to reduce charges..

It is most decidedly not a "mitigating factor".
The only reason I would feel the need to introduce a "mitigating factor" is if I were defending the statements of either Maher or Limbaugh, which I am not.
Stop lying, please.
Thanks in advance!!!!

Gee,look who else used the exact same tactic to defend Limbaugh as you did......
Sarah Palin defends Rush Limbaugh, cites ‘hypocrisy’

Quote :

Sarah Palin said Tuesday the reaction in media and political circles that prompted Rush Limbaugh to apologize for calling a law student a “slut” was “the definition of hypocrisy.”

Quote :

I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless,”

Palin told CNN in an interview from Wasilla, Alaska.

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

[b]No, I'm still going to claim that you are lying.
Mainly, because you are.
And quite blatantly.
Have you yet to figure out that it is entirely possible to not defend Limbaugh while still making note of the hyprocrisy involved between the media reactions to the statements of both Limbaugh and Maher?[

The only thing I can figure out is that you never get tired of making a fool of yourself. Every news report that I've seen on Palin's remarks,which btw are the same as yours,calls it the same way I see it....a blatant attempt to defend Limbaugh by playing the "he did it too" card.
"Little green Footballs" sums it up nicely....

Quote :

Meanwhile, the entire right wing has gone into full-throated “they did it too” deflection mode for Rush Limbaugh today. Infantile schoolyard politics, to defend the indefensible.

Now run along.

Meanwhile,Limbecile managed to pick up 2 new advertisers

Quote :

SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday, while the CEO of Ashley Madison, an online dating service website, said on CNN Wednesday morning that he is “willing to step into the void left by other advertisers.”

Ashley Madison isn't just any dating service, by the way; it's a service for people who want to cheat on their partners. Here's how Noel Biderman, the CEO of the company, explained his decision to jump on to Limbaugh's sinking ship.

“Listen, blue and red states, people cheat in both of them,” Biderman said. “Republican, democrat, men, women — everybody is prone to having an affair. So the bottom line is, my audience sits with his audience and I’m happy to advertise to them.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/07/1072229/-Rush-Limbaugh-loses-more-advertisers-but-denies-he-s-losing-nbsp-money?detail=hide

Stay classy,Rush! I thought your listeners are the ones always preaching "family values". I wonder how many wingnut politicians are going to want to come on his show now that it's officially sponsored by a website for gold digging prostitutes and another one that actively promotes adultery? I say we start by asking Romney & Santorum what they think before we go on to Repub members of Congress.

Sounds like Rush might be prostituting himself.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

[b]No, I'm still going to claim that you are lying.
Mainly, because you are.
And quite blatantly.
Have you yet to figure out that it is entirely possible to not defend Limbaugh while still making note of the hyprocrisy involved between the media reactions to the statements of both Limbaugh and Maher?[

The only thing I can figure out is that you never get tired of making a fool of yourself. Every news report that I've seen on Palin's remarks,which btw are the same as yours,calls it the same way I see it....a blatant attempt to defend Limbaugh by playing the "he did it too" card.
"Little green Footballs" sums it up nicely....

Quote :

Meanwhile, the entire right wing has gone into full-throated “they did it too” deflection mode for Rush Limbaugh today. Infantile schoolyard politics, to defend the indefensible.

Now run along.

Ah, the trusty Boredom Card .... er, I mean, the Tail Between Your Legs Card .... has finally been played.
Wassamatta?
All that lying got you worn out?
Considering how large of a fool you have been making of yourself in this exchange, I had expected it to be played much earlier.

Quote :

But that is not name-calling - that is what's known as a 'description'.
I was not portraying him falsely or inaccurately, simply describing him.

Well then going by that brilliant conservative logic and reasoning when a comedian like Maher mocks a pulic figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachaman for their utter stupidity, that is not name calling because as you say it's not portraying them falsely or inaccurately, it's simply describing them.
So why all the indignation, anger and outrage....right?

edge540 wrote:

quote]But that is not name-calling - that is what's known as a 'description'.
I was not portraying him falsely or inaccurately, simply describing him.

Well then going by that brilliant conservative logic and reasoning when a comedian like Maher mocks a pulic figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachaman for their utter stupidity, that is not name calling because as you say it's not portraying them falsely or inaccurately, it's simply describing them.
So why all the indignation, anger and outrage....right?[/quote]


When an alleged comedian like Bill Maher mocks a Palin or a Bachmann for what he perceives as her stupidity, I have absolutely no problem with that, and I do not consider that to be name-calling. I believe, under those circumstances, that they are fair game. However, when an alleged comedian like Bill Maher calls one or both of them a "dumb twat" or "cunt", or when 'Special Ed' Schultz refers to Laura Ingraham as a "right-wing slut", or when an alleged comedian such as David Letterman insinuates that Palin's 14 year-old daughter is having sex with a major league baseball player, then I believe that does amount to name-calling, as was also the case in the Limbaugh incident. The thing about people such as you and Artie, as opposed to me, is that I have no problem saying that Limbaugh was wrong, while you two will overlook the vitriol and fiercely defend the likes of Maher and Letterman.

http://michellemalkin.com/

The war on conservative women

I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.
We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.
………
The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.
If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.
Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)
Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-fucked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly fuckable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”
And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.
A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday’s press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He’s leading by example.
So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.






http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/asked-about-distasteful-language-from-liberal-commentators-president-obama-says-he-aims-to-lead-by-example/

Mar 6, 2012 5:18pm

Asked About “Distasteful” Language from Liberal Commentators, President Obama Says He Aims to Lead by Example

Twice at his press conference today President Obama was asked about “provocative or distasteful statements” from Democrats and liberal commentators, and twice he opted not to weigh in.
In the wake of the firestorm of media coverage and criticism of conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh’s crass insults of an activist from Georgetown Law School, many conservatives have argued that there is seldom, if ever, a similar outcry when liberal commentators say similarly crude things about conservative women.
………
The first time the president was asked about a “double standard,” he didn’t answer the question (It came as part 3 of a three-part question about Limbaugh). When CNN’s Jessica Yellin asked about Democrats referring to the Republican party’s “war on women,” the president begged off, saying, “if I start being in the business of arbitrating that the – ”
“You talk about civility,” Yellin interrupted.
“Right, and what I do is, I practice it,” said the president. “And so I’m going to try to lead by example in this situation, as opposed to commenting on every single comment that’s made by either politicians or pundits. I would be very busy. I would not have time to do my job. That’s your job — to comment on what’s said by politicians and pundits.”




Well, Mr. President, you certainly found the time in your busy schedule to comment on the Limbaugh issue, did you not?
LSOS

Quote :

"Refresh my memory - what names have I called the president?"

Quote :

"LSOS"

Oh my, I think we have a winner.
mr jack, did you just call the president a "Lying Sack Of Shit"?

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

"Refresh my memory - what names have I called the president?"

Quote :

"LSOS"

Oh my, I think we have a winner.
mr jack, did you just call the president a "Lying Sack Of Shit"?

Of course not.
Heaven forbid.
I called him ‘local shared object(s)’, because he is the president of Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites, men and women, etc..
He is our president, edge, mine and yours, so he is ‘shared’ by us all.
Get it?
(But sometimes, when I’m in a particularly playful mood, I refer to him as 'my little flash cookie'.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

Local shared objects (LSOs), commonly called flash cookies (due to their similarities with HTTP cookies), are pieces of data that websites which use Adobe Flash may store on a user's computer. Local shared objects are used by all versions of Adobe Flash Player and version 6 and above of Macromedia's now-obsolete Flash Player.[1]

You betcha, I really_really_really_ believe that bullshit.

happy jack wrote:

http://michellemalkin.com/

The war on conservative women

Wow! An op-ed by none other than Michelle Malkintent. Folks,Notice that nowhere in the article does she condemn the Limbecile for his remarks other than to meekly say she's sorry he said it. Instead she just confirms what I posted yesterday...

Quote :

Meanwhile, the entire right wing has gone into full-throated “they did it too” deflection mode for Rush Limbaugh today. Infantile schoolyard politics, to defend the indefensible.

Thanks for stepping in it again and reinforcing my proof of just how wrong you are. You never disappoint.

happy jack wrote:

Well, Mr. President, you certainly found the time in your busy schedule to comment on the Limbaugh issue, did you not?

Actually, no. He didn't. He was answering a question during his press conference. Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Unless I missed something, Barack made no other comments regarding what you call "the Limbaugh issue."

So what's your point?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

Yeah. Well IIRC, Schultz was suspended for a week for his comments, and he flat out apologized to Ingraham on his show.

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well IIRC, Schultz was suspended for a week for his comments, and he flat out apologized to Ingraham on his show.

Limbaugh apologized too. What's your point?

Yeah... After he blasted Fluke for 3 days, he apologized for his "choice of words." IMHO, he really should have been suspended for his comments, but that's up to the station.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

Why is it "quite different"?
And why is it the business of the president?

When any private citizen gives testimony to Congress, she should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination. It really looks like Limbaugh was attempting to intimidate anybody else (that he disagrees with) who might be thinking of testifying before Congress in the future.

The phone call from Barack was simply a nice gesture to Fluke after she was attacked. I'm sure that it meant a lot to her. Are you saying that he shouldn't have called her?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

[b]Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

You're kidding,right? Never mind. Knowing the way your thought process works you probably aren't
Laura Ingraham: Right wing hate radio bomb thrower and frequent attack dog on Fox News
vs
Sandra Fluke: Law student,private citizen,whose only crime was that she wanted to share her views with Congress on the importance of women's access to contraception.