Limbaugh on Dem primary: If "feminazis" had remembered to oppose "affirmative action for black guys ... they wouldn't face the situation they face today"
On the May 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that "one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan." Limbaugh then said, "They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. ... [L]iberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because [Sen.] Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate." He concluded, "So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the May 14 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh asserted, "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago."
From the May 21 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: You know, the feminazis forgot one thing. Well, one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.
They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. And it's -- one of the things is affirmative action is exactly -- it's, you know, liberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. There's no question, the way he is being treated by the drive-bys and so forth and so on. The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed.
So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today.
Greetings, my friends. Welcome back. Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program today.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
We have harse penalties for drug offenses--as long as the offender is a minority.
The harsh world of the conservative has created a harsh world.
Sorry, Bruce but despite Rush's weakness of the flesh I do believe even he can rehabilitate his earthbound form. I believe making people like him suffer for their addictions only drives people deeper into madness.
Not even close. Drug addiction is a physical illness, not an "offense," and the only option should be medical treatment.
You may as well have a "three strikes" rule for the flu.
Why seperate a pot head from society? Why incarcerate an addict if their only offense is getting high?
If they're out hurting other people because of their habits, sure we have to protect ourselves fom them and put them away. But putting a harmless addict in jail is a bit silly given the humane alternative of treatment and rehab. If rehab doesn't stick and they're still out getting high how are you harmed in the long run?
It's difficult to make a blanket statement about it, but at this point in American history it has been determined that certain drugs should not be legal for consumption for a variety of reasons, including personal endangerment and public endangerment. I believe statistics would show that people who abuse illegal drugs are in a high risk category for causing other problems.
While I'm sure there are some abusers that would not trend toward those statistics, society is looking at "likely" outcomes and taking appropriate actions to protect innocent citizens.
And the comment about likely outcomes may make sense to a person who bought into the conservative pre-emptive war argument but to lock-up a person for getting high based on thier potential behavior is hardly appropriate.
I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. ;-)
Enjoy the long weekend.
nope
You left out intellectual lightweight. You have to be real stupid trying to pass off a 10 year old paper written by a high schooler as proof of Obama's "liberal" positions.
Snoop,
Perhaps you'd care to comment on the number of Democrats (10%-20%?) who say they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Are they racist too?
Are they racist too?
Perhaps they are...
Umm, just because you don't agree with Obama doesn't make you a racist. Nobody is saying that at ALL. Of course, that is the line that you guys would want to put out there though.
Perhaps you'd care to comment on the number of Democrats (10%-20%?) who say they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Are they racist too?
I wouldn't go there if I were you, AA. Remember that thousands of racists left the Democratic Party for the GOP back in the '60s, following Strom Thurmond's lead. And racist groups like the KKK and the CCC are predominantly Republican.
On the few right wing sites I've been to, I've actually seen variations of the following:
"If Obamby is President I feel it is my duty to do everything in my power to take him out."
I kid you not...I've seen it quite a few times, usually with harsher language
DB,
Got any links? I think you are making that up. I find without the link that you are guilty of your own attempted assassination. Character assassination. ;-)
Who knows? It could be you posting on those sites?
Irony,
Snoop's link to those racists did not say anything about any party affiliation, Democratic or Republican.
To make the jump that it is the Republicans who are racist when 10%-20% of Democratic voters, won't vote for Obama, is a very weak attempt at projection. Especially since the article states that the offenders are Keystone State Skinheads.
In case you didn't know it, they are white nationalists and take their cues from social Darwinism and National Socialism. Both of these ideologies are on the left and hence are more closely aligned with progressive thought than conservative thought.
You can do better snoop.
Irony,
The second link does not say anything about O'Reilly having any influence over the firing of a Comcast CN8 reporter.
Might it simply be he acted unprofessionally by publicly calling O'Reilly a "mental case" and "morally unacceptable" to give O'Reilly an award?
Snoop is really stretching today.
AA: National Socialism was a party of the German political right, with deep ties to other rightwing parties and paramilitaries (e.g.; the DNVP, the Stahlhelm, the Freikorps, etc.) even though, for obvious reasons, they had their differences with some of the old guard monarchical conservatives. Hitler was supported early on by conservatives like Ludendorff (who later had a falling out with them) and eventually came to power in collusion with political conservatives like Hindenburg and Hugenberg. The Nazis formally linked arms with other rightwing groups of the time in the Harzburg Front.
Hitler was supported by the German military and industry (Krupp, IG Farben, etc.) as both a weapon against Communism and against the Weimar Republic. One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to crush the trade unions, something that German industry, broadly speaking, had wanted for years. While there were strains of Nazism that were genuinely socialist in the earlier phases of the movement (most notably revolving around the Strasser brothers), this impulse was forcibly quashed by Hitler both before and during the Night of the Long Knives.
Personally I don't much care for Hitler comparisons (as much as I dislike Bush, I've never called him a Nazi), but Rush's comparison of feminists to Nazis -- the Nazis were virtually without exception male supremacists -- is a prime example of Limbaugh's dishonesty.
Achris,
You were doing well up until that last sentence.
However, even thought it didn't make sense, you scored well on the snarkiness scale. :-)
Deflecting again, AA? I notice your position sounds an awful lot like "But what about them over there?"
Totally avoided making any comment on the republicans. Sneaky, I'll give you that...
Snoop,
Funny I thought the digression to whacko racists was a deflection on your part in order to avoid the issue. After all, it is the Democratic primary and the Democrats who are voting.
What is interesting to me is that the constant meme that runs through progressive posters here is that the Republicans are home to racists. Nobody ever says such things about Democrats however this primary is showing that there is a very large segment of the Democrats who won't be voting for Obama. Is it racism? If so, then it seems that all the moral high ground so many here seem to revel in, is really an illusion. I'd venture to say the Democratic Party has been the party of closet racists all along.
I was hoping some progressive would give me reason to think so many Democratic Party voters are not voting for Obama for something other than racism.
You're full of it. Just because 20% of WV or KY DemocratIC voters won't vote for Obama doesn't make a large part of the DemocratIC party racist. There is a difference between 20% of Democrats in WV or KY and 20% of the general population of the United States who identify themselves as Democrats. Your attempt to paint Democrats in certain states as racist is nothing more than transparent projection.
Given that, there are some Democrats who are racists. Most of the Democrats who are racists left the DemocratIC party in the 60's (as someone stated above). There are racists in both parties - the majority of which are members of the Republican party. More generally, Democrats celebrate race and would like to move toward racial harmony. It's the Republican party that has done whatever it can to hold people of color back, not the DemocratIC party.
Are they racist too?
The percentage who said race was the reason they wouldn't vote for Obama are racist.
I think I heard that. Oxy said that Clinton was getting screwed and therefore the women he calls feminazis were also getting screwed.
Never being one to disagree with anyone or mock them but this unrepentive drug ADDICT is lower than snail s#it. I want info from his Ex-wives. Where are they? I'd like to see his divorce agreement.
Or they are too embarassed to want to be connected to this phony. I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.
Or they are too embarassed to want to be connected to this phony. I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.
They didn't. I suppect than none of Rush's marriage were ever consummated.....
I hope none of them brought another RUSH onto this world.
That would assume that Limbaugh actually had sex with one of these women.
"The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed."
Is he talking about Obama or McCain?
If you sat down on a bus and heard the man next to you talking like this you'd start wishing that the budget of your state provided more in-patient services for the mentally disturbed. But somehow Rush gets paid for it.
I don't think being a racist/sexist automatically means you're mentally disturbed. If that were the case, we'd have overcrowding in our mental institutions in addition to our jails.
Drug addiction and pedophilia, on the other hand...
Ok, I'm a man. Always have been, always will be. There is not a crisis of "young man-boy education" (sounds like he's channeling NAMBLA.) Perhaps he is in crisis.
OT I know, but has anyone else seen the Hagee comments about Hitler fulfilling the wishes of God? I want to comment on that!
Of course Limbaugh is all wet where Obama is concerned, he has inspired many not because he is black, but because of his message, in my opinion.
Many on the right don't share my view, but I see his appeal to rid our politics and our partisan lifestyle from the poison that has infested our system and driven us to polar opposites of entrenchment. He is honest, also my view, and from that honesty breeds heartfelt compromise and involved responsibility for common goals we all share, irrespective of policy differences.
That being said, if the Democrats screw this up and don't heal the racial and gender divisions that have surfaced in this primary regarding their candidates, they only have themselves to blame. Their pandering to the constituents that Limbaugh outlined has come back to bite them, and fueled immeasurably by the way the Clintons have played the race card, and her victim card, often in this campaign. They may very well come together and be wholly united come fall, it is most likely going to happen.....but to deny the hard feelings on many of their party members is to deny reality.
Many of you will disagree, but it's my opinion.
Thanks Guys, and it's unconscionable the way she is now trying to change the rules in Florida and Michigan; just today she is basically trashing Obama by saying it's his own fault for removing his name from the Michigan ballot, when he was playing by the rules. Her shamelessness knows no bounds, if she doesn't concede soon and stop this nonsense perhaps her and Bill's master plan of derailing the Obama campaign, and put her in place for 2012, will be a real possibility.
How some Democrats can still support her over Obama is mind-boggling. Stunning.
Snoop,
I wouldn't count her out yet. Obama hasn't secured the needed votes. There could be a Memorial Day surprise being offered up by Billary and Co.
Why do you think she is going soft lately. She is ratcheting down the rhetoric against Obama in order to gain back the black constituency when she wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention. There is no doubt in my mind Hillary has a trick or two up her pantsuit sleeve. :-) Will it be enough? We'll see.
There. I've said it. Again. There won't be any "surprise".
Funny how Senator Clinton wants to count Florida and Michigan, now... When they voted earlier than they were supposed to, she didn't say a word about it then...
Especially when Dodd and Kucinich DID bring the issue up at the time. She didn't because she figured she'd have the nomination in the bag after Super Tuesday, so Florida and Michigan wouldn't matter.
Yet another blunder in a long list of blunders...
Knowlies,
It is amazing to me how I have to keep informing you of what your own Democrats are doing.
Howard Dean, according to Terry McAullife, disenfranchised both states completely when that was not in the rules for him to do so. If that is true, then Hillary has a point.
McCaullife also says when Dean disenfranchised both States that it made the agreement by the candidates no longer operative.
DNC members from Michigan and Florida have filed challenges with the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. The process being followed to adjudicate these challenges is completely consistent with the DNC rules.
In Florida, Clinton and Obama both appeared on the ballot; in Michigan, Obama's name (by his own choice, yes) did not.THE DNC HAS told outside parties that the Rules and Bylaws Committe is free to do what it wants with the challenges. That said, the RBC is not free from questions about its institutional politics. If it overturns its sanctions in their entirety, it puts into jeopardy its own legitimacy and that of the Democratic National Committee.
If it accepts the logic of the challenges and awards to the candidates half of their Michigan and Florida delegations, it will face the opprobrium of the Obama campaign and its legion of supporters (and donors). If it turns down the challenges, it may be accused of kicking the can down the road.
In late June, the credentials committee of the DNC takes jurisdiction over delegation matters, and when they do, everything litigated in May will be relitigated.
The problem is not with the voters but with the Democratic Party big-wigs. Obama has blocked efforts for re-vote. Dean and the Party are not dealing with Michigan and Florida, and Hillary is being driven out of the race because of it.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looks to me like Hillary has a good chance of getting at least half of Michigan and Florida's delegates seated.
She is ratcheting down the rhetoric against Obama in order to gain back the black constituency when she wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention.
LOL
AA, you're knowledge of African Americans is showing if you ASSume Hillary's "ratcheting down her rhetoric" will send African Americana running in her direction. With Hillary polling 5% of the African American vote Hillary's "ratcheting down" would be like fighting a wildfire with a garden hose. Hillary and Bill created their own problems with African American voters and only time will tell if it can be repaired, simply ratcheting down" will not work.
Pearl,
If Hillary gets the nomination, and you are skeptical that she can get the black vote, do you think the black voters will sit out the election or will they go over to McCain?
What campaign coffers? She owes something like $20 million. She has dipped into her own pockets to keep the campaign going this long. Obama who has the least money in his own bank account has not had to loan himself money to keep chugging along. He has an almost unlimited number of small donors who keep giving repeated donations.
I find it interesting that McCain, who has the most money of all the candidates in his family accounts, has not been able to tap his wife's fortune even when he was at the low point last year. I wonder how much Cindy McCain really wants him to win. She probably wants to life in the White House and to get waited on hand and foot. But she is not about to part with her inherited wealth to get there. All she has done is give him the cheap use of her private plane which is owned by some corporation not her.
Tommy,
Do you have any idea how Obama will replace the old political divisiveness? Have you heard any ideas on how he will do it?
Have you seen any evidence where Obama is willing to compromise his views?
I think by the time the election rolls around you'll see that the rhetoric does not match the policies.
Obama's only hope is he can fool most of the people all the time. I think it will be apparent by fall that he can't. His contrived outrage over Bush's remarks in the Knesset shows he is playing the victim card and demonizing his political opponents. How does that match with his promises? It is apparent to me that he is playing divisive politics in order to deflect that silly promise to meet with the world's dictators without preconditions if elected. McCain will chew him up on that issue.
Once you get beyond Obama's rhetoric, what do you have?
AA:
Your cynicism is cute ... but yes, there are many people who are sick and tired of the kind of politics that's been played over the past several decades .. by both sides, admittedly, but mainly by yours..
I know you have a vested interest in maintaining the old ways ... fear and division has worked so well for you guys in the past. But hey, Change is a comin.' You can either get on board or get run over. :)
As for your old tired "what does Obama have?' line ... sorry. There are tons of official proposals and policies on his web site. Do some reading - something besides refried right-wing talking points - and then come back and report what you find.
We'll be holding our breath *sarcasm off*
In the case for some right wingers on here, apparently it IS too much to ask.
I see this as a common tactic from right wingers, mostly because just because something is not placed directly in front of their noses, it must not exist. I have also seen this time and again when someone will post up a story that somehow supports their right wing worldview, and inevitably, they'll make some sort of comment about "I bet the NY Times won't put THIS story up..." Of course, as long as it's not from the WND, 10 times out of 10 times, the highly "liberal" NY Times does have said story.
It's called a search engine guys, learn how to use it. It can be your friend.
I also like how a lot of right wingers all harp on Obama about how there is no "substance" in his campaign speeches, how he's not giving us particulars about his plans and policies. I challenge anyone to go to a campaign event and tell me who, and where there are politicians who are giving detailed policy position speeches when they're out on the road doing stump speeches and things like that. NOBODY does it. Why? Because if they did, mostly people would be bored out of their ever loving minds.
Obama draws because he is an engaging public speaker. Not the crowd that he pulled in Oregon. When was the last time any politician drew in a crowd of over 70,000 to hear them make a speech? I don't think I remember that ever happening. That's amazing to me.
Last weekend a right wing relative of mine, who is also a FOX News devotee, told me that we don't know enough about Obama. I responded that if she heard that constantly from FOX, her sole source of news, I could see that she would say that. On the other hand, she knew practically nothing of McCain's serial flip-flopping or Cindy McCain's sordid history.
AA,
To answer your question, because I believe for many reasons that Obama is not just your typical politician who is knee-deep in rhetoric with lofty speeches of hope and change just to get elected. If I did, or if I come to believe that is the case come this fall, I will be mistaken - as of this writing, I don't believe that. Sure, maybe it's some blind faith, or a wish to cling to something new and not the same ole' politics of us vs. them. I don't know.
What I do know is how we cannot get much worse than we are now. I am speaking of our mess in Iraq, our stature around the world, our internal squabbling over everything political in this country, our "hatred" for our political opponents, not to mention a myriad of other problems. Bush has been a failure, McCain offers me nothing. So what are we left with?
I will examine everything of course before I vote for whomever in the fall, but I will look beyond my own selfish self interest on policy and issues for what I believe is the greater good for the country, we need healing.
"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." --- Hillary Clinton, May 9th
Hillary disgusts me when she hauls out drivel like this. It is selfish, it has racial connotations, and it serves no other practical purpose but to divide and splinter the Democratic voting base.
And I absolutely agree with you regarding Hillary. It is horrible the way she is subtly slicing up her party for her own selfishishness.
At this point, unless something drastic changes, I have every intention of voting for Obama for president, despite our vast policy disagreements, as I have said I would much rather support an honest liberal than a untrustworthy conservative - I have no love lost for McCain, he just doesn't impress me at all, we need better.
However, should Obama somehow pick Hillary for his VP slot, which I think is unlikely, but nevertheless, if he does, he will not get my vote. I could never.
OMG! If I'm reading the tea leaves right, is the long sordid love fest with the clinton's finally coming to an end?
All I can say, it's about time. This divorce should have happened ten years ago. Just think, if the left would have thrown Slicky under the bus when they should have, Mr. Gore would have taken over and would have probably been a shoe-in in '00.
Shrillary is so power hungry (think Reese Witherspoons character in ELECTION) I would not put it past her (or bill) to try and scuttle this election so they have one more shot in '12.
Get over it. Clinton was a rock solid president.
Every person in the running for President are what you would call power hungry. McCain. Obama. Clinton. They all want to win. They ALL want the most powerful political position in the world. I think you've really got to want it. Don't you? If you don't want it, and run for it, you get, Fred Thompson.
She swings...she misses. The fast ball went right past you Mag...
Die hard clintonista's are jumping into the Obama life raft off the sinking SS Clinton. The same die hards that Shrill was counting on because most are super delegates. Look no further than Gov Richardson, Sen Edwards, Kennedy and I could go on for days...
They were solidly in Shrills camp. Me thinks the left has been looking for a way to cut the cord with camp clinton for years now, and this gives them cover.
Now back to my original point. Had you divorced bill when he deserved to be put out to pasture, Mr. Gore would have assumed the helm, for close to two years. The '00 election would not have even been close. Gore then goes on to do great liberal things and change the world one light bulb at a time. Get it now?
You have no one to blame for your travails but yourselves.
I do agree with you on one respect. Bill was a ROCK HARD prez! Hard headed and well...
Do you know why Monica Lewinsky became a Republican? The dems left a bad taste in her mouth! HA HA!
I never thought Hillary would be a good President, but I will vote for her if somehow she gets the nomination, which she won't. But if she did, I would cast my ballot for her.
The people who have gone over to Obama, or endorsed him, were never "in the Clinton camp" as they never said that they would endorse her. Ala Ted Kennedy, Richardson, and others.
Gore lost mostly because of the way he was portrayed in the media as a liar and a braggart, which of course, were mis-truths. And anyway, if the Florida ballot recount had not been stopped by a highly republican Supreme Court, we would have had a President Gore in 2000. I mean, the country was so "torn" that half of us voted for Gore in 2000, and almost half of us voted for Kerry in 2004. Bush won both times by the smallest of margins. Anyway, if the Supreme Court had stuck to their "state's rights" views, as they have for literally everything else in recent history (last 10-15 years), Gore probably would have won in 2000.
OK Mag, I've searched the web over and I can't find where Teddy supported Shrill. I'm almost positive he did at one time, but all the news surrounds his endorsement of Barry or his brain tumor. I don't have the time or will to dig any further, so I concede that point to you, with the caveat that I think we'll both agree that Shrill was COUNTING on Kennedy's support and probably did not even court him thinking he would support her. I stand by Edwards and Richardson as they were Shrill shills in the past.
You can blame the High Court, media, stupid Floridians or any other scapegoats for Gore's loss, but ultimately the blame lies with Al himself. He ran a poor campaign; he let others define him; he was poll driven and he never once let us see the "real" Albert Arnold "Al" Gore. All he had to do was carry his "home" state of Tennessee. If he couldn't do that, he probably deserved to lose.
As for our favorite "rouge" prez, I agree with you. The right gained control of the congress for the first time in FORTY YEARS under slick's watch, the conservative movement was furthered by about ten years because of him, and shrill and he took "politics of personal destruction" to new heights. Wasn't it Chris Dodd that said "All politicians lie, but the clinton's lie with such ease"...
Had you divorced bill when he deserved to be put out to pasture, Mr. Gore would have assumed the helm, for close to two years - Hog
You are a typical party before country, anti-american fool. So the Dems should have allowed the radical right to throw out a sitting president due to lying about a bj? I don't think so and most of America didn't think so at the time either.
That would have been some precedent, wouldn't it? But you are too stupid and too partisan to be a good American.
Don't put words in my mouth DB. Nowhere did I say I was "in touch" with the AA community. I said I "bet" they stay home in droves. It was my speculation just like you said later in your post.
Let's put my theory to the test though. Go ahead and let Shrill steal this nomination. Then let's see where the chips fall.
Go ahead dems...I dare you!
Really? Cause that drug war has worked out so well so far right?
Besides with all the overcrowding in prison industrial complex, they wouldn't have any space for his fat butt.
However, should Obama somehow pick Hillary for his VP slot, which I think is unlikely, but nevertheless, if he does, he will not get my vote. I could never.
Rush has mastered the art of getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Tommy is just one example. Because he has gotten people emotionally reacting, he wins.
I have no clue what you are talking about, if you think that Rush Limbaugh has any influence over who I vote for or against, you are mistaken.
If that was your point??
Rush Limbaugh hates blacks and women.
He regards both as child-like, inferior and unwilling to help the rich stay rich.
The guy is stale.
He's lost any vitality he ever had.
Time for change, homeboy.
Another day goes by, and Limbaugh STILL has not addressed the issue of his arrest in the company of a male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s, when he was using the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".....
On the other hand, if there was such a persistent rumor about a figure like Keith Olbermann, for example, I suspect that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly would provide daily coverage.
BINGO!!!! :-)
(BTW, it looks like Walter Winchell sound-alike/Clarence Thomas think-alike Mark Levin has now declared war on Keith Olbermann, and is trying to force GE to fire Keith. This is gonna be fun to watch....)
I think the supermarket tabloids are missing a killer market here. If they would follow, photo, and obsess over national news media figures. What a wonderful world, it would be, dubee dubee dubee du.
!-=$
The one on the homepage looks light he's coming of a night in the drunk tank, tripped over some garbage and hadn't even showered.
And you're point is what exactly...? FWIW, drug addicts are known to abandon personal hygiene. ;>)
And you're point is what exactly...? FWIW, drug addicts are known to abandon personal hygiene. ;>)
Which may explain while Marta Limbaugh failed for divorce. Actually, there's evidence that she and Rush didn't even LIVE together - she has a house in Florida not far from Rush's EIB bunker......
The 'feminazi' thing is ridiculous. Like women are a cult and have a hideous plot to take over the world or something. It is beyond sexist. Is he doing anything here but trying to spread hate and suspicion towards strong, opinionated women? Like any woman who doesn't spend her time knitting and making pie for the hardworking husband is part of this evil plan.
I also object to the grouping of all women into this box he likes to call 'feminazis'. Not all women support Hillary. Her campaign is not some evil plot by women in general to get a woman into the Whitehouse so that we can figuratively castrate the entire world.
And the idea that women are trying to change "men" into "young man-boys" as part of the "feminazi grand plan" is just crazy. He is clearly delusional. My grandmother is paranoid schizophrenic and she sounds less crazy and paranoid than Rush when she says she thinks the Communists are poisoning her food.
Is he doing anything here but trying to spread hate and suspicion towards strong, opinionated women?
You forgot "unattractive". ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh - about 1/2 way down. (Or just search for "Feminism")
Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. -Rush Limpballs
I absolutely loathe scum who say things like this. It's intentionally dishonest. Barack Obama is a Harvard graduate. I don't care what color you are, Harvard doesn't accept people who can't cut it. He's a U.S. senator, who is very eloquent as a speaker. Where does affirmative action figure in to that?