Apparently the people who pay the Maximum Leader of All Conservatives enormous amounts of money to pander to bigots and imbeciles on the radio decided that, after 25 straight years of pandering to bigots and imbeciles on the radio, if he wanted them to continue giving him enormous amounts of money the Maximum Leader of All Conservatives was going to have to to issue a statement expressing regret if anyone was bothered by the order in which he strung together several English language words, several days in a row.
Reluctantly, Maximum Leader of All Conservatives did so.
If this is your first exposure to American Conservatism, what you must understand is that ever since they got bent over the barrel at Appomattox Courthouse
and forced to surrender on terms set by the Union devils, Southern White bigots have made it a point of honor never to apologize for any of the loathsome, depraved, anti-American things they say and do, but to instead stand proudly up for their heritage as inbred, rage-drunk, racist shitbags.
On the upside, they pay really, really well.
17 comments:
Good morning, Mr. Glass.
Because I don't like demonizing my political opponents, I prefer to photoshop Mr. Limbaugh as Jabba the Hutt. Jabba's weight, drug use, and tendency to view women as half-naked dancer-slaves seem rather appropriate.
I should also note, for future reference, that there's a site called Morphthing.com that allows you to take facial pictures and fuse them...though with varying degrees of efficiency. Though with your photoshopping skills, I'm not sure you'd ever need it.
Shorter Rush Limbaugh: "When I called you a slut and a whore and demanded that you release sex tapes, I didn't mean it as a personal attack. Geeze, some people ain't got no sense of humor."
So that's alright then.
The way it is!
If I had a dollar for every time I signed an on line petition to remove this spewing gas bag from the publicly owned air waves....I could buy Clear Channel.
A larger than average blip this is, but a blip none the less on the horrible arc that constitutes his tragically long and lucrative career.
Because, unfortunately, there remains in our midst, a hateful, tiny minded percentage of true imbeciles, who would gladly follow this giant walrus shaped sack of puss off a cliff at his mere belch of the suggestion, and if his many past litanies of horror hasn't swayed them, this most recent atrocity isn't likely to either.
It's hard to define the worse tragedy: The fact that he continues, or the fact that somewhere out there is a mother of a college aged daughter proudly quoting him to someone.
Both shows did it, BTW. abc and the gregory (I didn't watch the others) both said 'both sides do it'.
(but without mentioning the times they were thinking of when the liberals said that thing that was just as disgusting, but I'm sure everyone knew the times they meant. both of them.)
There seems to have been a rash of public backlash, esp. since OWS got going. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of OWS itself, of course, but also Komen vs. Planned Parenthood, BofA (and F* the Banks generally), and good 'ol rushbag. The last 3 have had impact on a specific cash flow, the one language those in power understand.
Could it be that even a few Americans are beginning to wake up to what shitbags the republicans have become? Have repugs finally discovered the limits of America's gag reflex?
you make me laugh, thanks :)
While I'm delighted that Limbaugh is getting his due, there is something that does bother me about boycotting sponsors of political speech on radio. The way the buys are set up, Thom Hartman and Stephanie Miller are also going to be adversely affected.
I also don't like what I perceive to be internet fueled backlashes against on air personalities in order to stifle free speech or what could easily be an attempt to steal advertising dollars away from radio and television. The problem with the internet is that a single person can run a program (thanks to our defense dept.)that makes him appear to be hundreds and thousands of different users, posting from different locations.
When push comes to shove, I'll generally side with an individual over an anonymous mob of indeterminable size, even if those individuals are people like Limbaugh or Santorum.
Bongo, I see where you're coming from with respect to first amendment rights, but freedom of speech does not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, simply for the reaction factor.
And I support boycotts wholeheartedly because the only way these folks will pay attention is if you hit them where they live, in their pockets. And although I know that these guys won't miss my little amount of pay thrown their way, I do know that my money won't being going to folks who support causes that I'm morally opposed to. I may not be able to do much, but that I can do and if enough of us do the same, it will make a difference. That also goes back to free speech. They have the right to say what they wish and I have the right to refuse to support it.
So far as social media goes, I think it's one of the best ways for us to organize. We share our views and others agree and the word gets out. If outrage is perceived to be a backlash, that's probably because it's a natural response to behavior that stands outside the bounds of common decency. OWS brought the public discussion away from the deficit, which was only a sleight of hand to distract from the real issue, income inequality, and it was done mainly through social media. The abuses of the police, in their efforts to silence the message, caused a well deserved backlash, and again, it was through social media that these abuses were brought to light. We need to use whatever weapons we have to hand. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. And make no mistake, we are in a fight, one of the most important ones we can be in.
Ohh Mr. Waters.. prescient master of archetypes: deserving of mash up:
"Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are
And when your hand is on your heart
You're nearly a good laugh
Almost a joker
With your head down in the pig bin
Saying "keep on digging"
Pig stain on your fat chin
What do you hope to find?
When you're down in the pig mine
You're nearly a laugh
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry."
-Pink Floyd: Three Pigs
"but freedom of speech does not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater"
Yeah but he didn't do that, he called her a slut. If anything, Dan Ackroyd should sue him for stealing his act.
I'm really ambivalent about this, even my own comment. On one hand you have free speech issues, plus the fact Limbaugh is damaging the Republicans' chances in November, but I've got to admit it's satisfying to see a bully being knocked down.
I'm also ambivalent about the pyramid that Limbaugh, advertisers, and would be boycotters are a part of. Everyone should be gainfully employed, but not as slave labor to a false god who is building a tomb for himself and his minions. I prefer to serve the living God who led his people out of the Land of the Pharohs and promised to demolish the pyramids, leaving no stone upon another.
For all practical purposes, Rush did scream "fire" in a crowded theater. That's what he does to keep himself gainfully employed. Would that the rest of us should be so lucky. But Rush makes his living by throwing gasoline on a fire that the Republicans started and by doing so, inflames the hate and bigotry that is the Republican's base. Now that the fire is under his own feet, he's pleading for forgiveness. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Rush sold his soul a long time ago. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
And although I can understand your ambivalence to a point, I don't understand exactly which pyramid you're referring to. There's only one pyramid here. The 1%, who are on the top of the pyramid and the rest of us, who are pulling the load. You put Rush, his sponsors and as you said the "would be boycotters" all in the same boat, which is a false equivalence. How can that be the same? Rush has been carrying water for the owners who are responsible for the hateful way our political discourse has become and has been paid very well for doing so. Now that he's losing money, he supposedly sees the error of his ways. Again, I don't buy it. The only reason he says he's sorry is because he's losing money. The fact that he's damaging the Republicans is only the icing on the cake that they've been baking for the last thirty years. The Republicans had anointed him as their spokesman, so now they own him and whatever he says.
moRush has the freedom to speak whatever hateful thing that pops into his narrow, little mind. We also have the right to refuse to accept it. And yes, boycotting is one of the best ways to say that we refuse, because that's the only thing these guys will understand.
"There's only one pyramid here. The 1%, who are on the top of the pyramid and the rest of us, who are pulling the load. You put Rush, his sponsors and as you said the "would be boycotters" all in the same boat, which is a false equivalence. How can that be the same?"
You answered your own question. There IS only one pyramid. I never said being on the bottom is equivalent to being on the top. Limbaugh isn't at the top either.
This isn't a "free speech" issue. At all. Even if Rush were to get fired it still would not be a free speech issue. He would still be able to call whomever a slut, whenever, on any street corner he chooses. He just wouldn't be getting paid for it.
If the government were stifling his speech, then it would be a free speech issue. Its not. Its pressure on advertisers, who have to make a choice affecting their bottom line, and whether they want their bottom line attached to CCs bottom line.
This is pure free market at work. :)
Sorry, Bongo, but anyone who makes in excess of $50 million a year is on the top, in my book.
And Tom, this is a free speech issue. The very fact that the government is not stifling Rush's speech proves that point. Rush is exercising his right to free speech and we are exercising our same right. But I have to agree with you on this point: Sometimes free-market capitalism DOES work. Rush's sponsors are leaving him in droves, which is the direct result of the pressure that comes to bear when their bottom line is endangered. :)
Sorry, Bongo, but anyone who makes in excess of $50 million a year is on the top, in my book.
And Tom, this is a free speech issue. The very fact that the government is not stifling Rush's speech proves that point. Rush is exercising his right to free speech and we are exercising our same right. But I have to agree with you on this point: Sometimes free-market capitalism DOES work. Rush's sponsors are leaving him in droves, which is the direct result of the pressure that comes to bear when their bottom line is endangered. :)
As this poster at Dailykos.com suggests, we should also sweep our own front doorstep as well. With regard to Bill Maher, I'm pretty sure it was Driftglass himself who said, in reference to a comment-kerfuffle on the late Steve Gilliard's blog many years ago, that a grown man who stands up on his hind legs and calls a woman [the "C" word] needs to be immediately ostracized from polite society. Or something pretty close to that. I'm too tired right now to go poking around for it in the archives.
Post a Comment