Buftex Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 What the hell does the fact that Maher doesn't have sponsors have to do with it? They both used a demeaning word towards a woman. One was raked over the coals the other wasn't. That's the simplest of terms that I'm looking at this in. So, answer me, why was one raked over the coals and the other wasn't? That would be like you calling my wife a c*** and I call yours a slut and I get banned and you don't. And the argument that Rush would have been happy to call her a c*** doesn't work because that doesn't fit his argument at all. Oh, I agree, I think what both of them said was offensive. I wasn't making an arguement that it wasn't. Your question was, "what is the difference" in the two situations. If Rush didn't have sponsors, he might have been called out by woman's groups or others (as Maher has been), but the slew of advertisers who dropped his show gave the story more and more legs. If Rush was in the same spot as Maher (no commercial sponsors), do you think he would have apologized? Not a chance. More than likely, it would have been just one of those periodic "Rush pisses off the left again" stories, and it would have gone away, like all of the others have. The totality of his comments went far beyond labeling Fluke as a "slut" or a "prostitute". He wasn't applying those words to her in any sort of euphemistic way(like Maher's "c" word), but in a very literal way. Rush had a valid political argument to make, but he just took it way beyond where he needed to...his point was made, but then it got very personal. Fluke was there to serve as a witness in front of this panel, she wasn't a public figure. This wasn't Nancy Pelosi, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who are the ire of most Republicans. And then, there is the 400 pound gorilla in the room: Rush Limbaugh carrys much more influence in the Republican party than Maher does in the Democratic party.
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Oh, I agree, I think what both of them said was offensive. I wasn't making an arguement that it wasn't. Your question was, "what is the difference" in the two situations. If Rush didn't have sponsors, he might have been called out by woman's groups or others (as Maher has been), but the slew of advertisers who dropped his show gave the story more and more legs. If Rush was in the same spot as Maher (no commercial sponsors), do you think he would have apologized? Not a chance. More than likely, it would have been just one of those periodic "Rush pisses off the left again" stories, and it would have gone away, like all of the others have. The totality of his comments went far beyond labeling Fluke as a "slut" or a "prostitute". He wasn't applying those words to her in any sort of euphemistic way(like Maher's "c" word), but in a very literal way. Rush had a valid political argument to make, but he just took it way beyond where he needed to...his point was made, but then it got very personal. Fluke was there to serve as a witness in front of this panel, she wasn't a public figure. This wasn't Nancy Pelosi, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who are the ire of most Republicans. And then, there is the 400 pound gorilla in the room: Rush Limbaugh carrys much more influence in the Republican party than Maher does in the Democratic party. Go back and read my question again. BTW BFBF already gave the correct answer. Edited March 9, 2012 by Chef Jim
GG Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Oh, I agree, I think what both of them said was offensive. I wasn't making an arguement that it wasn't. Your question was, "what is the difference" in the two situations. If Rush didn't have sponsors, he might have been called out by woman's groups or others (as Maher has been), but the slew of advertisers who dropped his show gave the story more and more legs. If Rush was in the same spot as Maher (no commercial sponsors), do you think he would have apologized? Not a chance. More than likely, it would have been just one of those periodic "Rush pisses off the left again" stories, and it would have gone away, like all of the others have. The totality of his comments went far beyond labeling Fluke as a "slut" or a "prostitute". He wasn't applying those words to her in any sort of euphemistic way(like Maher's "c" word), but in a very literal way. Rush had a valid political argument to make, but he just took it way beyond where he needed to...his point was made, but then it got very personal. Fluke was there to serve as a witness in front of this panel, she wasn't a public figure. This wasn't Nancy Pelosi, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who are the ire of most Republicans. And then, there is the 400 pound gorilla in the room: Rush Limbaugh carrys much more influence in the Republican party than Maher does in the Democratic party. Why do you keep missing the main point? There's no argument on whether Rush or Maher should apologize or what they should have done afterward. What people are screaming about are the catcalls from the left for GOP/Romney to publicly disavow Rushbo's comments, yet turning a blind eye to accepting a $1 million check from a guy who's been saying far worse things? And you're absolutely delusional if you don't think that Maher is not influential for the left fringe.
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Why do you keep missing the main point? There's no argument on whether Rush or Maher should apologize or what they should have done afterward. What people are screaming about are the catcalls from the left for GOP/Romney to publicly disavow Rushbo's comments, yet turning a blind eye to accepting a $1 million check from a guy who's been saying far worse things? And you're absolutely delusional if you don't think that Maher is not influential for the left fringe. This is right. My liberal friends on FB worship Maher.
Buftex Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) This is right. My liberal friends on FB worship Maher. You have liberal friends? How can you stand them? People like Maher, no doubt...but he doesn't have near the influence over the left, as Rush does the right...people normally pre-clude stating their opinions of him with "I used to watch him on "Politically Incorrect"...10 years ago? He doesn't reach near as many folks as Limbaugh does. His views on religion have made him pretty unpopular with many Democrats as well. He is hardly the mainstream of the Democratic party. Not surprisingnly, I suppose, I would disagree that what Maher said about Palin was "far worse" than what Rush said. When you carry the influence that Limbaugh carries, and you take controversial things, you might get your hand slapped. Republcans/conservatives can slap at Maher all they want...they have their chance... Edited March 9, 2012 by Buftex
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) You have liberal friends? How can you stand them? People like Maher, no doubt...but he doesn't have near the influence over the left, as Rush does the right... Really? I must have missed the time Rush gave a $1M to a sitting president's re-election campaign. A donation that size to Obama gets you a cabinet post, or czar position at least. Edited March 9, 2012 by LABillzFan
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) You have liberal friends? How can you stand them? People like Maher, no doubt...but he doesn't have near the influence over the left, as Rush does the right...people normally pre-clude stating their opinions of him with "I used to watch him on "Politically Incorrect"...10 years ago? He doesn't reach near as many folks as Limbaugh does. His views on religion have made him pretty unpopular with many Democrats as well. He is hardly the mainstream of the Democratic party. Not surprisingnly, I suppose, I would disagree that what Maher said about Palin was "far worse" than what Rush said. When you carry the influence that Limbaugh carries, and you take controversial things, you might get your hand slapped. Republcans/conservatives can slap at Maher all they want...they have their chance... Tell ya what. The next woman you see on the street call her a slut. Then call the next one after that a !@#$. Report back to us...if you're still alive. We don't slap the hands when people say stupid ****. We just consider the source and move on. Edited March 9, 2012 by Chef Jim
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 You have liberal friends? How can you stand them? People like Maher, no doubt...but he doesn't have near the influence over the left, as Rush does the right...people normally pre-clude stating their opinions of him with "I used to watch him on "Politically Incorrect"...10 years ago? He doesn't reach near as many folks as Limbaugh does. His views on religion have made him pretty unpopular with many Democrats as well. He is hardly the mainstream of the Democratic party. Not surprisingnly, I suppose, I would disagree that what Maher said about Palin was "far worse" than what Rush said. When you carry the influence that Limbaugh carries, and you take controversial things, you might get your hand slapped. Republcans/conservatives can slap at Maher all they want...they have their chance... In other words, who they are matters more than what they say.
Buftex Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Really? I must have missed the time Rush gave a $1M to a sitting president's re-election campaign. A donation that size to Obama gets you a cabinet post, or czar position at least. Having influence and donating are not necessarily the same thing. If we start analyzing where every donation is coming from, there would be a lot of cancelled checks. In other words, who they are matters more than what they say. In some ways, that is very true...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Having influence and donating are not necessarily the same thing. Oh, please. They're EXACTLY the same thing. Especially with Obama. Who the hell do you honestly think you're fooling? Look. Rush is Maher. Maher is Rush. Superpac should denounce Maher and give the money back. Either that or everyone on the left should STFU about Rush. The hypocrisy is incredibly embarrassing.
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Author Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I looked up Sandra Fluke again to see if any new information had come out and I noticed on her Linkedin profile that any mention of her Rainbow Service Scholarship was removed. Gee, I wonder what's has them so worried From another board: "Gotcha - just caught this on O'Reilly's show Sandra Fluke has been shopped around to news shows all over the country spouting her "free contraception" talking point. Now we find out she has an agent of sorts, a PR company by the name of SKOKnickerbocker who is headed by none other than President Obama's first communications director, Anita Dunn. Anita Dunn was the one at the high school graduation who said her favorite philosophers were Chairman Mao and Sister Theresa. Of course that was at a Catholic High School, so I think that she only threw Sister Theresa in to make it easier for the kiddies to swallow Mao." Edited March 9, 2012 by 3rdnlng
Rob's House Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Oh, I agree, I think what both of them said was offensive. I wasn't making an arguement that it wasn't. Your question was, "what is the difference" in the two situations. If Rush didn't have sponsors, he might have been called out by woman's groups or others (as Maher has been), but the slew of advertisers who dropped his show gave the story more and more legs. If Rush was in the same spot as Maher (no commercial sponsors), do you think he would have apologized? Not a chance. More than likely, it would have been just one of those periodic "Rush pisses off the left again" stories, and it would have gone away, like all of the others have. Other way around. Most of the "sponsors" aren't even real sponsors. That story was trumped up too. The totality of his comments went far beyond labeling Fluke as a "slut" or a "prostitute". He wasn't applying those words to her in any sort of euphemistic way(like Maher's "c" word), but in a very literal way. Rush had a valid political argument to make, but he just took it way beyond where he needed to...his point was made, but then it got very personal.Fluke was there to serve as a witness in front of this panel, she wasn't a public figure. This wasn't Nancy Pelosi, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz who are the ire of most Republicans. And then, there is the 400 pound gorilla in the room: Rush Limbaugh carrys much more influence in the Republican party than Maher does in the Democratic party. That doesn't wash either. It's not like she's just some girl who asked a question at a town hall meeting or someone who just happened across a politician on his block and stopped to ask a question. This is a professional political activist who sought out the spotlight, in front of congress no less, to try to have her will imposed on others. If she's not fair game I don't know who is.
Buftex Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Other way around. Most of the "sponsors" aren't even real sponsors. That story was trumped up too. Yeah, I saw that. Limbaugh is trying to spin this into something else. Bottom line is, when companies (local or national) don't want to advertise during your radio show, it hurts the profits of the show, whether for Limbaugh, or the local affiliates that carry his show. If it stays that way (and I doubt it will), it would have a ripple affect on Limbaugh, his show, and his salary. Other way around. Most of the "sponsors" aren't even real sponsors. That story was trumped up too. That doesn't wash either. It's not like she's just some girl who asked a question at a town hall meeting or someone who just happened across a politician on his block and stopped to ask a question. This is a professional political activist who sought out the spotlight, in front of congress no less, to try to have her will imposed on others. If she's not fair game I don't know who is. I never heard of her, until last week. I suspect if she had been allowed to voice her concerns, most of us wouldn't have heard of her. Oh, please. They're EXACTLY the same thing. Especially with Obama. Who the hell do you honestly think you're fooling? Look. Rush is Maher. Maher is Rush. Superpac should denounce Maher and give the money back. Either that or everyone on the left should STFU about Rush. The hypocrisy is incredibly embarrassing. So why are they being treated different? We don't slap the hands when people say stupid ****. We just consider the source and move on. Yeah, I can see that. "Gotcha - just caught this on O'Reilly's show Sandra Fluke has been shopped around to news shows all over the country spouting her "free contraception" talking point. Now we find out she has an agent of sorts, a PR company by the name of SKOKnickerbocker who is headed by none other than President Obama's first communications director, Anita Dunn. Anita Dunn was the one at the high school graduation who said her favorite philosophers were Chairman Mao and Sister Theresa. Of course that was at a Catholic High School, so I think that she only threw Sister Theresa in to make it easier for the kiddies to swallow Mao." Did the "other board" mention if Fluke had hired Dunn's company, before, or after this whole silly thing?
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Yeah, I can see that. Find the Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*** thread. Were any of us talking about this then? I knew nothing about it until the Rush thing came out. And if I was aware of it I'd consider the source and not really give a ****.
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2012 Author Posted March 10, 2012 Yeah, I saw that. Limbaugh is trying to spin this into something else. Bottom line is, when companies (local or national) don't want to advertise during your radio show, it hurts the profits of the show, whether for Limbaugh, or the local affiliates that carry his show. If it stays that way (and I doubt it will), it would have a ripple affect on Limbaugh, his show, and his salary. I never heard of her, until last week. I suspect if she had been allowed to voice her concerns, most of us wouldn't have heard of her. So why are they being treated different? Yeah, I can see that. Did the "other board" mention if Fluke had hired Dunn's company, before, or after this whole silly thing? I clearly identified it as just something off another board at this point in time. If I get a chance I'll try to verify it. Now, I responded to you in Post #458 in this thread but you continue to say that this would never be a big deal if she was allowed to "testify" befor Daryl Issa's committee. Her "testimony" was going to be about something other than what the committee hearing was about. She couldn't bring anything to the table, so she wasn't allowed to speak. Nancy and friends put on that dog and pony show to talk about free contraception, framing it as women's health. They tried to call her just a co-ed concerned about having to pay $3000 for her contraception when she was just an activist who's also a lesbian. You continue to try to confuse the issue.
Buftex Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 I clearly identified it as just something off another board at this point in time. If I get a chance I'll try to verify it. Now, I responded to you in Post #458 in this thread but you continue to say that this would never be a big deal if she was allowed to "testify" befor Daryl Issa's committee. Her "testimony" was going to be about something other than what the committee hearing was about. She couldn't bring anything to the table, so she wasn't allowed to speak. Nancy and friends put on that dog and pony show to talk about free contraception, framing it as women's health. They tried to call her just a co-ed concerned about having to pay $3000 for her contraception when she was just an activist who's also a lesbian. You continue to try to confuse the issue. By definition, anyone who participates in anything political is an activist to some degree. I will take your word that she is a lesbian, but I am not sure that is really even relevant to what she was planning to say. I apologize, I am really not trying to confuse the issue, I just think everyone has different things that they consider relevant.
3rdnlng Posted March 10, 2012 Author Posted March 10, 2012 By definition, anyone who participates in anything political is an activist to some degree. I will take your word that she is a lesbian, but I am not sure that is really even relevant to what she was planning to say. I apologize, I am really not trying to confuse the issue, I just think everyone has different things that they consider relevant. Here is the O'Reilly deal: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/09/oreilly-investigates-sandra-flukes-ties-to-wh-charges-that-obama-admin-made-up-controversy-to-divert-attention-from-birth-control-uproar/
RkFast Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 I was the same way with Maher. When I was 19 I thought he was the greatest. I thumbed through a book of monologues he put out in the 90s not long ago & realized that even though they weren't as insightful as I thought they were back then, he still used to be a lot more sensible. I think you hit the nail on the head with these guys latching onto a profitable niche and pandering to the crowd. It seems a lot of them start to buy into the bull **** they're peddling and jump on board full fledge with the whole package. It's human nature I guess , in a tribal way, but it's disheartening to see people with so much talent but so little self-awareness. +1. Maher used to be great. Would dish it out evenly to both sides....skewed a bit left,....but you knew he would be fair.
LeviF Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing. No one's killin' any folk today, on account o' we got a very tight schedule (I'd add some of the Chinese insults but I'm not 100% sure what they mean and would butcher the speelling anyways) For those of you who want to watch Firefly again, it's all on Netflix instant streaming, in the correct order.
Recommended Posts