Limbaugh: "[Y]ou could say liberals are aborting themselves out of the majority"
On the March 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh commented on a speech by former Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) in which Miller stated that Roe v. Wade has led to "too few people" being "produced" in the United States and therefore fewer people filling jobs or serving in the military by stating: "I would only have one small nitpick with former Senator Zeller [sic] over this: How many of these 45 million children who have been aborted would be Democrats, would be the offspring of Democrats? And as such, how many of them would have jobs? As such, how many of them would even think of joining the military?" He then said, "I know there are some Republican liberal babes in there that [have] gone out and had abortions, too, but the vast majority of them are liberals," adding, "This way, if you look at the demographics of the future, you could say liberals are aborting themselves out of the majority, if current trends hold."
Limbaugh's comments came in response to a March 9 posting on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Political Insider weblog highlighting Miller's speech at a March 6 banquet for the Sav-A-Life Care Center, an anti-abortion counseling center in Macon, Georgia. The blog post noted that Miller said during the speech:
"Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," the former Georgia governor said. "Still, we watch as 3,700 babies are killed every single day in America. It is unbelievable that a nation under God would allow this."
From the March 12 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: This is from an Atlanta Urinal Constipation [sic: Atlanta Journal-Constitution] blog from last Friday. "It hasn't gotten widespread news yet -- or play, but former U.S. Senator Zell Miller made a little news in Macon last week when he declared that abortion has contributed to the military's manpower shortage, the Social Security crisis, and the flow of illegal immigrants to the United States. 'How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years? Here's the brutal truth that no one dares mention: We are too few because too many of our babies have been killed,' "said Zell Miller. " 'Over 45 million since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security. ... Still, we watch as 3,700 babies are killed every single day in America. It's unbelievable that a nation under God would allow this.' " And they say here on the blog, "If you doubt us, check the video" -- they can't believe somebody would actually say it, they can't believe somebody would actually think it. So, if you doubt what we're reporting here, here's the video at the Macon Telegraph's website. "The comments were made at a Tuesday night fundraiser for a local anti-abortion counseling center. State Senator Nancy Schaeffer," a Republican from Turnerville, Georgia, "who has become an ideological ally for Zell Miller on the abortion issue, made a similar statement almost exactly a year ago but backed off upon inquiries by the press. Somehow, we don't think Miller is inclined to throw himself in reverse."
I would only have one small nitpick with former Senator Zeller [sic] over this: How many of these 45 million children who have been aborted would be Democrats, would be the offspring of Democrats? And as such, how many of them would have jobs? As such, how many of them would even think of joining the military? I know they're some Republican liberal babes in there that [have] gone out and had abortions, too, but the vast majority of them are liberals. This way if you look at the demographics of the future, you could say liberals are aborting themselves out of the majority if current trends hold. Everybody knows that's who's having the majority of these things.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
swine
Yeah, but good looking, huh? And so articulate, dontchaknow.
It's a pity we can't go back in time and, you know, give him the old "liberal coathanger treatment"
(just kidding, folks and MMFA).
We're in the majority. So we still beat the cons even after "aborting ourselves".
Check the abortion rates in red states and amongst those inclined to be conservative. Then come back and try to justify Limbaugh's BS. He's not even right on the basic premise.
Always glad to please!
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html is interesting as it is clearly from the conservative side. Statements like this are a big tip off: "While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely."
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp appears to be more interested in facts instead of politics. Look under table 14, it is interesting that there is no real statistical difference in # of abortions by age group between whites and minorities. The only big variation is between married and unmarried by race. It appears that married minorities are less likely than their white counterparts to have an abortion. Hmmm...
And of course, no need to show all the data of "red" states vs "blue" states, you can find it in the links - it's true, btw, more red state abortions...
Which brings me to my final point - what damning news against the right wing came out today to make Limbaugh trot out this ol horse again? Did the illegal aliens in NY not work out?
lolololololololol - He is a ass, but that is funny.
Conservatives are killing their voters by sending them to die in a war.
I am not conservative. I am middle road foolio. It is pretty hard to hurt my feelings, unlike most liberals. SOOOOOO sensitive.
You evaded my point. But thanks for playing!
"I am middle road foolio"
-----
At least you described yourself correctly, except for the "middle road" part.
"lolololololololol"
-----
That's the drooling sound made famous by Homer Simpson, isn't it?
What, you mean "laugh out loud out loud out loud" doesn't make sense to you?
Dude, it was a joke, lighten up.
But please don't tell us that the democrat you voted for was Zel Miller.
Well it's certainly a unique way of looking at it...
If he was truly serious here, I'll have to give Rush my: Grasping At Straws Award
He must be really getting worried....
You're right. There is no logic to the connection he's making, obviously......another patented dig at liberals. It's what makes Rush, Rush. And just further evidence of why he's nothing more than a comedian/entertainer - and much of what he says should be heard in that context, alone.
Yeah Tommy, this sounds like Limbaugh with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.
At least I hope so ;-)
Listen to this joke ...One of the Mrs. Limbaughs' walk into an abortion clinic. The receptionist ask if she is sure she wants an abortion. This particular Mrs. Limbaugh says " Would you want to be responsible for creating another Rush?". The whole office laughed.
With this type of humor, I can become a Conservative CystJockey and be on Fox or the EIB...(EVEN IDIOTS BELIEVE) Radio Network
Actually Prince I laughed at your joke.
Did you come up with that one yourself? It was honestly funny! ;-)
A little know fact is that Rush Limbaugh's parents sought an abortion. It was too late, the doctor told them... as Rush was fifteen years old at the time.
Don't give up. Given current "settled law" re: unnecessary and/or inconvenient entrants, the law may, logically, be more broadly interpreted and extended to others deemed bothersome, as we progress.
Lemoc,
Nice job getting in your comments while no one is here!
Thanks, SuperDave!
When IS the conference call, so we don't have to use this old-fashioned POSTING stuff?
And just further evidence of why he's nothing more than a comedian/entertainer - and much of what he says should be heard in that context, alone.
Get real, he's obviously a political operative on Karl Rove's speed dial.
Wasn't it he and Hannity and Boortz and a couple other slackjawed, bedwetter conservative AM prostitutes who shared the company of the president in the oval office? Sounds rather like they are considered primary, mainstream conservative thinkers to me.
So you don't think that there's any truth to what he's saying? Do you really think that conservatives get as many abortions as liberals? Don't you think that it's likely that there would be a lot more Democrats around if abortion would have remained illegal? Rush's argument makes perfect sense to me. It might explain why there's so many more conservatives than liberals in this country.
and yet you still lose mid terms and barely get by aorund election time.
SURPRISE!
What you take as a Liberal victory in the last election was something different: conservative Democrats NOT voting Repub (as they often do), as well as swing voters (NOT liberal) voting Dem.
Watch out--there's a big contingent of non-libs (at least as defined here) within your gates.
Trojan Horse. What WILL you do?
It was simply the first steps in a journey of a thousand miles. We realize the way back home from our excursion into the dark neocon wilderness will require years of earnest navigation.
We will renew a sense of the common good. We will awaken the spirit of giving and compassion. We will return America to the people. We will find the leaders who will follow.
Sounds eerily like the Children of Israel, who left a bad situation and then wandered for 40 years...remember, this country's gonna be submerged by then...
Ignore the tide if you choose. It's coming just the same.
That WAS good oratory, however. In fact, I may vote for you just on your inspirational merit.
"What you take as a Liberal victory in the last election was something different: conservative Democrats NOT voting Repub (as they often do), as well as swing voters (NOT liberal) voting Dem."
-----
Thta wasn't true the first several times you advanced it as a theory and were soundly shown to be wrong, and it isn't true now, either.
"Soundly shown to be wrong"...
...guess I missed that Flying Wedge of Progressivism led by Nancy Pelosi. If that ain't a precision offence...
Talking point without merit. Not ONE incumbent Dem including the fire breathing liberals were defeated in the Senate alone McKaskill is an outright liberal, Sherrod Brown an outright liberal, Sanders a socialist allied with Dems and Klobuchur a Wellstone protege. So thats four of the six Senate seats Dems picked up. When will you learn that just because a rightwing screechmonkey said it doesnt mean it has the slightest connection with reality?
Hard Left victory? Where, then, are the Hard Left results to date?
"So you don't think that there's any truth to what he's saying?"
No. There isn't. And since we're the majority anyway, what's his point? We'd have a bigger majority?
"Do you really think that conservatives get as many abortions as liberals?"
Yes. They do. The statistics bear this out. Liberals teach their kids about birth control more effectively.
"Don't you think that it's likely that there would be a lot more Democrats around if abortion would have remained illegal?"
Nope. That's conjecture.
"Rush's argument makes perfect sense to me."
Of course it does. We know you speak stupidity.
"It might explain why there's so many more conservatives than liberals in this country."
There isn't. On issue after issue, Americans side with liberalism.
PL, on some issues a small majority of Americans side with the liberal point of view. If it were overwhelming support for all liberal issues (as you kind of allude to), the House would be 435-0 and the Senate would be 100-0. There is not overwhelming support for a lot of the liberal positions, just as there isn't overwhelming support for many conservative positions. The 30 - 35 percent in the middle will determine the outcome of any debate, action on any issue and those votes will swing from issue to issue. If you were truly pragmatic you would realize that.
If you go issue by issue, most people side more with liberal views than conservative. There are a few exceptions, notably the death penalty. But America is certainly more liberal than conservative socially.
You're a joke. The 2006 elections weren't an endorsement of liberalism by any means. The people were simply tired of corruption and a mismanaged war. Those aren't conservative vs. liberal issues. Republicans had the majority for 12 years before that, and there are still many more conservatives than liberals. The polls show that it's about 32% to 16%. The Dems won the last election because the moderates sided with them. The moderates swing back and forth each election. This is still a very traditional center-right country which rejects big government liberalism.
Thats YOUR take not necessarily representative of reality in fact Pew Polls show that Americans consistantly poll liberal on most social issues. We tend to poll about as liberally as Noraway. The rightwing press has done a good marketing job of smearing the word liberal so polls that ask that directly arent very useful.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/07/b873695.html
A Pew Research Center for People and Policy poll conducted in May 2005 throws this misperception into high relief, confirming a trend that has remained unchanged for decades. If the media were genuinely interested in accurately portraying the values of ordinary Americans, some of these numbers might receive some coverage. The poll shows that on most of the most important social issues facing Americans today, the public mind is much further to the left than it is the right.
For example, a staggering 65 percent of those polled favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means increasing taxes, while 86 percent say that they favor raising the minimum wage. While the left can't claim to hold a monopoly on quality of life issues such as health care and the minimum wage, you would be hard pressed – to say the least – to ever find a conservative pundit or politician champion either one of these issues.
On another tax-related issue, the Pew poll finds that by about a two-to-one margin, most of the electorate would give higher priority to reducing the federal budget deficit than to cutting taxes. Speaking of money, Pew notes that "over the past decade or so, the number favoring more aid for needy people has increased from about 50 [percent] to 57 [percent]." You don't need to look any further than the president's and the Republican-led Congress's last few budget proposals, which do indeed cut aid for needy people, to see that this view isn't exactly in step with the current crop of conservative lawmakers.
Finally, while the president, along with a majority of his conservative allies, continues to support drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, the poll finds that a full 77 percent of those polled believe the country "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment," while a large majority of 63 percent subscribe to that view "strongly."
"Rush's argument makes perfect sense to me."
Limbaugh is goofing on liberals to entertian his troops and you think his asinine comments make "perfect sense." Unbelievable...
Except maybe for the ultra-religious types how many pretty young college girls from good Republican families do you think have quietly had abortions performed? ...and probably by friendly doctors who've billed the insurance companies by calling the procedure something else.
Believe it or not, some families actually teach their kids that they should wait until they are married to have sex, and many follow their advice. It's not a radical concept. It's a traditional view that many hold and follow.
"It's a traditional view that many hold and follow."
Traditional? Yes. Many? Arguable. Many kids proclaim that they are adhering to the practice of celibacy until marriage, but statistics show that a vast majority of them are lying.
I like Franken's take on it:
"Abstinence education works, until it doesn't"
Study after study shows that kids taking abstinence pledges have the same rates of STDs and pregnancy.
Agreed, but if we were to apply Limbaugh's joke and Miller's reasoning to the tradition you described, then abstinence is robbing America of potential soldiers and workers, contributing to illegal immigration, weakening the U.S. economically, and decreasing the number of traditionalists. I can't think of any sane person who would arguing that people shouldn't wait to have children until they're in a position to be responsible parents: that's a position held by pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike. What Miller and Limbaugh are talking about is altogether different: blaming abortions (and the women who have them) for totally unrelated problems in America.
Rino,
I don't think that even Limbaugh would seriously suggest this. Don't you think he's joking (albeit badly)? I mean, it's a silly argument for several reasons:
First of all, political party affiliation isn't genetic. Parents' political beliefs certainly influence those of children, but it's by no means an absolute determining factor.
Secondly, if you're going to make a utilitarian argument about how the country (or one party) would be better off if more women had chosen to have children, why focus on abortion? The effects of abortion are infinitesimal compared to the effects of all forms of contraception! If Zell Miller wants to blame women for not producing enough workers and soldiers, he should be complaining about abstinence, condoms, IUDs, the pill, diaphragms, withdrawal, the rhythm method... In other words, Limbaugh might as well have said, "Imagine how many more conservatives would be around today if we stopped promoting abstinence!"
Finally, I'm not an expert on this subject, but I can't imagine why higher abortion rates would correspond to one party or political ideology or another. In fact, a previous poster here pointed out that "red states" seem to have higher rates. I have a feeling that of all the determining factors, political self-identification would be one of the least significant. More influential would be things like, oh, income, marital status, employment, etc...
"he's nothing more than a comedian/entertainer - and much of what he says should be heard in that context, alone."
Much...? How about ALL of what he says? He is nothing more than a right wing entertainer who utilizes a brand of right wing "humor" that is alien to normal people. He is neither funny nor profound... and he's as entertaining as the Saddam Hussein execution video.
"And just further evidence of why he's nothing more than a comedian/entertainer"
I don't think so. Rush is the leader of the conservative movement, and he's done more for conservatism and the Republican Party than anyone except Ronald Reagan. He's the real deal. He's converted millions over to the conservative side, and he's at least partly responsible for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. If you and Jeter are both truly conservatives, you should respect the man for all that he has done for conservatism and the Republican Party.
Rush is the leader of the Planet Wingnut contingent. Those who hate reality and LOVE to be lied to. Rush lies to them. Rush gives them someone to feel superior to in order to feed their insecurities. Rush gives them their koolaid and protects them from those nasty facts and reality things they so fear.
Before you continue your purge of your beloved rethuglican party, keep in mind that the actual Republican Party has been described by it's leadership as a "big tent" party.
For years we've been told that they are the party of "inclusion" not exclusion. And here you are thinning the ranks of traitors, RINOs and girly men.
And isn't it strange that this week, Limbaugh is the leader of the conservative movement, but not too long ago, he was a comedian, not to be taken seriously.
If ever a group was in need of therapy, it's yours, RINO.
"Limbaugh is the leader of the conservative movement, but not too long ago, he was a comedian, not to be taken seriously"
I never said he was a comedian. That was Tommy and Jeter. I was basically challenging their assertion that Limbaugh is only a comedian and entertainer. I believe that most conservatives are probably closer to my view of Limbaugh than the view of Tommy and Jeter.
Ok, so in your opinion, when he makes his insensitive, racist, homophobic statements, he isn't kidding but is very serious and you stand behind those statements.
I've never heard him make racist or homophobic statements, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
You obviously don't listen to him then, or as a racist and homophobe yourself, you can't recognize it.
Limbaugh told a listener to take that bone out of his nose and call him back, he regularly talks about feminazis. He is a racist sexist hatemonger. The fact you dont accept it says a lot more about YOU than it does about him. His comment about Donovan McNabb was racist. The man is wasting precious oxygen that could be used by decent human beings
"Rush is the leader of the conservative movement,"
No, Rush is a voicebox for Neo-Cons. I realize you like to think you're conservative, but you're not. Please stop pretending to speak for all of the reasonable people who actually are conservatives and have been for decades and are disgusted with what the Neo-Cons and their big-government, big-spending, big-wars, big-brother policies have done to this nation.
The Clue Bus Says: Being anti-liberal and anti-abortion does not make a man a Conservative.
Wrong. I'm a small government, libertarian leaning conservative. I supported the War in Iraq because all of our intelligence said that Suddam had WMD's. There was no way that we could not believe our own intelligence and also the intelligence of many around the world. If I would've known for an absolute fact before the war that there were no WMD's, then I wouldn't have supported the invasion. I don't support the big government policies that the Republicans have engaged in in the past few years either. Examples: Increased spending, corporate welfare. But even though the Republicans screwed up, they're still 100 times better than the Democrats. At least we got two great justices on the Supreme Court.
Yeah. Those justices replaced other conservatives, thank goodness. Here's hoping there are a lot of conservative vacancies after 2008 for Obama/Clinton/Edwards
"There was no way that we could not believe our own intelligence and also the intelligence of many around the world."
You mean the intelligence from our top two bureaus that said that Saddam was not a threat, and that didn't support the trumped up war cry? It's well known that the Bush administration cherry picked the intelligence that led up to the invasion, and presented to Congress only as much information as would make them give the administration the benefit of the doubt in this matter.
And please don't use quotes from lifetime politicians to support your suggestion that we had real intel saying Iraq was a threat -- you know just as well as I do that a politician will say anything at any time to give themselves a short term boost in polls. I'm talking about evidence from the FBI, from the CIA that says that Iraq was an immediate threat -- it doesn't exist. How is it that so many thousands of American citizens knew that this was nothing but deceit and lies, and you missed it? Excuse-making after the fact that "if you had known" you wouldn't have supported it is absolutely worthless when you spend your time targeting your political opposition as some sort of enemy within even to this day and automatically mock, ridicule and reactively oppose them, no matter what's being said. It's this kind of BS political division that leads to the fox rampaging through the henhouse like the Bush administration has done the past six years.
Let's be brutally honest here: Today's Conservatives (INO) and true Conservatives have been making excuse after excuse for why they have elected this sadistic psychopath into the Oval Office, but it all boils down to the fact that they've allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the right wing talk machine to hate anything that the talking heads label as "liberal." Conservatives were told that Bush was incompetent. They were shown that he was heartless and callous when he openly mocked a woman on death row. It was proven that he was a child in man's clothing when he flipped off the TV camera down in TX and giggled like a schoolgirl afterwards. Forget what the "liberals" had to say about any of this - anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear could see that it was obvious that he was not Presidential material.
So no, you don't get any kind of free pass - CINO or conservative - by saying that "If only I'd known, I'd..." If you didn't know, you're obviously not smart enough to be making decisions for this country, and should hand in your voter's registration card until you can learn to read, observe and make your own decisions without resorting to the "Libs suck!" methodology of modern politics, because it's your piss-poor decisions that have required that we spend the next few generations recovering from this royal's family's destruction of this country and its future.
"Excuse-making after the fact that "if you had known" you wouldn't have supported it is absolutely worthless"
So I guess that you would say the same about the liberal Democrats who supported the war like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Didn't they get to read the intelligence as well? How can you blame me for not knowing but give these Democrats a pass? A lot of people were wrong on this. The vast majority of the American people supported this war at the beginning, so if I'm stupid for not knowing the truth, then I guess about 80% of Americans are stupid as well.
"Today's Conservatives (INO) and true Conservatives have been making excuse after excuse for why they have elected this sadistic psychopath into the Oval Office"
For you to say something like that only proves that you're a psychopath. You're in effect bashing the majority of the American people who voted him into office. Why would the American people vote for someone like John Kerry who is weak on national security, supports higher taxes, supports unfettered abortion, and would appoint liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court? They instead voted for someone who is strong on national security, supports lower taxes, is pro-life, and appointed originalists to the Supreme Court.
You were fooling yourself or allowing yourself to be lied to. I knew better because I read what the intelligence agencies were actually saying and there was NO SUCH consensus from our intelligence agencies what they were saying was we think maybe because of his past policies but have no hard evidence. France meanwhile was saying no programs or stockpiles and Germany told us France had the best intelligence in the region and we should listen to them. You heard what you wanted to hear. If you paid attention you would have known better.
"If you paid attention you would have known"
Then I guess Hillary Clinton and John Kerry should've known better as well.
And yet....there are so damn many of us. We must really be correct in our ideology to attract the majority despite abortions.
we're just culling the weak from the heard. That's why the right wing is shrinking.
In culling the weak from the heard, is anyone caring about the unheard?
Be even arguing or refuting this comical assertion of Rush's is ridiculous. He puts this stuff out there and waits for some reaction to try and discredit it, when it's so patently absurd on the face of it, and he knows it, that arguing against it is almost as silly.
Goes to show how sensitive America is becoming. Liberals all over are starting to censor what you can say. It is BS. Very one sided. SFU has a fine example of Hypocrisy going on right now.
Who's censoring Limbaugh? Nobody. That's who. More alarmist rhetoric from the right.
I did not say him. But I can point out some recent examples of Liberal Hypocrisy. Liberals are no better than those cons. Just dress different.
We're holding our breath.....please do
How many times you see a liberal stom a American Flag, or put down Christians?http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54634
I am not at all Christian, or Gay, and the below bothers the hell out of me. I am Married and DAMN proud of it.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54587
"How many times you see a liberal stom a American Flag, or put down Christians?"
How is that hypocritical? I'm not clicking on your links. It's probably some seething nest of con evil.
no ist is not. Afraid of the truth?
Not interesting in giving con sites more page views. It's the same reason I don't watch 'The O'Reilly Factor'. In fact, I have Fox News blocked out, so I don't have to see that garbage as I channel surf.
It's World Net Daily, a total crackpot site. Surprised?
I have never stommed a flag.
Yes you did. There is a U-Tube video of you stomming a flag WHILE you're getting a lapology.
Yes, it is. WorldNetDaily is a well-known source of wingnut lies. Nothing they say should be taken without a mine's worth of salt.
incidents of people stomping, burning flags in this country are almost non existent. another right wing urban legend.
and to the issue here. we are hardly underpopulated at 300 million people. and our present immigration policies will bring us to 400 to 450 million by 2050. not a good thing. in fact, a very bad thing.
Mefirst, if you were a terrified Republican seeing the obvious takeover of your country by Muslims and other "different" people , you might not have a concept of too many "Americans".
And I know from talking to my friendly neighborhood cons that white people aren't having enough babies, and all those "others" are breeding like crazy animals.
Besides, what does burning or stomping on an American flag have to do with this? Are you saying that that specific type of speech should be limited? Isn't that exactly what you were railing against just three or four posts ago?
Very peculiar logic.
You really swallowed it hook line and sinker didn't you? That Christian censorship story is about separation of church and state. Just because some hack partisan blogger frames the case as censoship doesn't make it so.
Your source has Chuck Norris as a columnist.
I am sorry but Worldnutdaily is a toilet with less credibility than my aunt Tilly and she is locked up in an asylum
How is criticizing religious people censorship, again?
Yopu realize the ruling was about removing ONE FLYER from a wall, right?
My god you righties are such whiners. One flyer gets removed in a workplace and you go off screeching about it.
no, it was the gays that wined about it to be removed. The cryed first.
But Tommy, if he were to constantly call someone's mother a whore and claim it to be a joke, should that person just laugh along with him? I know the answer is to ignore him but what does that do to the poor woman who is being abased?
People like Rush need to be curtailed..if enough people speak out about "not liking his jokes" maybe a change could be made. Rush is a cash machine to his station so as of now, he is an untouchable. That, I believe, is understood by those who go after him...but one day the party will be over.
P.S. Sorry that you laughed at that original joke...I will be sentenced to the Bill Maher show...I wanted Rushs' chair.
She should just ignore the ahole and move on, unless he stalks her or get violent. Soon enough, you wont be able to look at anyone wrong without someone screaming, LAW SUIT!
Do you think it would okay if the "her" were you mom?
Is he in Her Face doing it? Threatening her? I'd just about kill him then. As liberal as my mother is, she can handle herself. She would probably just laugh at ya. Your mom a sissy?
No, she died long ago...but my mom could've whipped your mom..
Congrats to your mom...how did she raise a little evil one?
Honeslty, all three of her kids are more in the middle than anything. I am not strapped to one party. I vote both ways.
that's a little tough to believe.
Sorry, but i do not need to lie to impress you. Mcnearney got my vote out here. Pombo is a idiot. See, you seeme as a right wing, because I do not followo YOUR views. I am way more in the middle. I hate the extreem right, and I hate the extreem left (Ultra-liberals) I hate the extreem christians, and muslims. I hate the exteem gays, and the exteem homophobs. In a nutt shell, I probably hate you.
i'm probably more in the middle than you. i don't love the democrats, but the republican party has gone off the deep end, with the cult of reagan and bush. but you are hardly the first one on here to spew right wing talking points while proclaiming to be even handed. and that little charade does not "impress" me.
Yeah, yeah. That's what we keep hearing, and guess what? Ignoring the Limbaughs and Coulters doesn't work. Writing their sponsors does. Hitting them with their own words does.
Seriously, advice from conservatives on how to handle conservative blowhards... not terribly useful.
Prince,
What you described is a personal attack/insult on a particular individual......who would have every right to call him on it. What he is saying here is a generalized slam against abortion and liberals, he didn't personally attack anyone by name, and what he is saying is silly and not worth arguing over. You can criticize Limbaugh and his "jokes" all you want to, it's your right.
But to treat this diatribe of Limbaughs as anything more than what it obviously is, is just playing into his hands.
I understand all of that but when does it stop? Just dismissing him is playing into his hands....isn't it? Proof....Ms. Coulter's recent remarks..if she had never been called on the carpet in the past would these newspapers still carry her articles..I would say yes, if no one ever complained.
I believe that a guy like Rush is slick, not smart and has many people dissecting every one of his "thoughts/jokes". Every time he opens his mouth, he slams both sides of the aisle...bash the liberals and promote his ilk. SLICK.
Coulter's offense was a hideously offensive term.......Limbaugh's is just another of his baseless generalizations against liberals. He does it three hours a day, five days a week. This latest is not worth arguing over because it's so ridiculous. How can anyone possibly argue or take him to task against it.......it would just get a "huh?"
Let's use the reasoning for selecting teams for March Madness...It is his BODY OF WORK.
What he is saying here is a generalized slam against abortion and liberals, he didn't personally attack anyone by name
I'd be careful about how you apply that. I agree that there are instances of a joke regarding a group being acceptable, while the same joke about a person would be inappropriate. However, clearly not every joke about groups are appropriate, just some jokes about individuals are ok.
In this instance, I take it to be a sad - and probably baseless -attempt at irony. I don't take it seriously. However, I do think Rush makes himself fair game for jokes in response.
The more seriously ignorant part of this piece is Miller's conjecture. Sadly, some people will buy into it without a second thought.
Wasn't it the book "Freakonomics" that suggested abortions don't reduce the number of people in our country because most women are deciding to delay having children rather than deciding to never have children?
I just read that book and it's only supposition regarding abortions was that it lowered the crime rate in the 1990's. The theory is that starting in 1971, children who would have grown up neglected were now being aborted. By lowering the percentage of young people who were forced to endure the incubators of criminal behavior, the crime rate fell when the children aborted in 1971 on came of age.
Freakonomics mentions no net effect of abortion on the birth rate, but only if you read the revised expanded edition, which includes a blog post written in response to Bennett's tirade about killing black babies.
You could also say right wingers are educating themselves out of existance. In more ways than one!
If all liberals were eradicated tonite, the Cons would eat their own. Maybe this is the way to end Rush's comic routine..get rid of the Libs and then the real pecking order of the Republicans will be shown...I bet those in the Southern Red States would be first to go..
You know the odd thing about Miller's comment?
The US birth rate was totally unaffected by Roe v Wade. Totally.
Which means that all 45 million of those babies were born, but when the women wanted them, when they could afford them and take care of them and were emotionally prepared to have them.
So Zell? Buzz off, you neanderthalic moron...
"How many of these 45 million children who have been aborted would be Democrats....?"
How many would be another Rush Limbaugh? That question is as persuasive a pro-choice argument as any.
"How many would be another Rush Limbaugh?"
-----
The ones conceived as a result of anal sex, of course. (That's a joke, for all you whining wingnuts who think Limbaugh is funny)
wht abt the hicks who forced their sisters to get abortions
What about the red state hicks who get divorced? Are they still legally brother and sister? =0
Thank God Rush Limbaugh doesn't breed.
Why is it everytime I hear some goofy blather out of Rusty Limpballs,I get this mental picture of overcooked pork sausage being gnawed by rats?
Oh wait. I was just looking at his picture on the clip. It wasn't an aural image after all!
Hooray!
Not aural....it should have been AUDITORY.
Crap. Too much good times.
Oxycontin Limboob with another idiotic line of reasoning...what else is new?
Thanks Rush! I've finally realized why there are so many adherents to a political idealogy that's so obviously wrong. I was a bit baffled by it before.
Rush is such a stupid dumb-ass... That's being nice about it.
You know what bothers me about "conservatives" like RINO Hunter? They come on here and make a wild claim about something that is completely false, then when someone comes back at them with facts, they move on to a new wild claim. They never bother to follow through on any of their points with facts or data.