Limbaugh says Barney Frank is the reason shower curtains were removed in congressional men's locker room
March 08, 2010 12:44 pm ET
From the March 8 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/roy-ashburn-im-gay_n_490297.html
This is a parody troll. I'm certain of it now.
Whether Barney Frank has been called worse or not is irrelevant. You don't excuse bad behavior because worse behavior exists.
He has a national platform from which to espouse his conservative beliefs. He therefore represents the conservative movement to some degree, and his comments are going to be held to a higher standard than some random, anonymous poster on an internet forum.
If Rush doesn't represent anything other than himself, then why are conservative politicians terrified to publicly criticize him? Why did Michael Steele feel such a powerful need to turn around and apologize immediately for offending the all-important Limbaugh? Why did Sarah Palin's publicist call Rush in a panic to make sure he knew that Palin wasn't condemning HIS use of the "r-word"? To make sure Rush knew it was okay for him to do it, just not okay for a democrat to do it. Why, when Mike Huckabee was asked about Rush's attack on Obama for going to receive the caskets of fallen soldiers, did he refuse to criticize Limbaugh's comments?
If Rush Limbaugh wasn't an important conservative figure with a large amount of influence within the conservative movement, then why are conservatives so frightened of offending him?
And even if you want to argue that Rush is not a representative for conservatives (which I absolutely believe he is), the point still stands that when you have a national, public platform from which to speak, you are going to be held responsible for the comments you make, more so than some random, anonymous person on the internet.
The people who voted for Barack Obama do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.
BTW, what's the standard by which you determine what is major and what isn't?
Right after the circle jerk, that is.
Well in this case it is. Not that I stipulate to your premise that it is bigotry.
What does that mean?
There ya go, everyone... The religious right on display!
Quit hating yourself and come out along with Rush and let the world know your deep love of men. It's o.k.
That's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp... Not much to brag about.
Gay republican politicans must remain in the closet because that's the only way they can get elected.
Fair enough. Just let them know, if they don't already, its much better to pitch then catch. The internet says so...lol
And there's nothing GAY about watching another man shower?
----------------------------------------------------------
These people's jokes don't even make any sense!
Considering Limbaugh's frequent references to homosexual practices, isn't this a legitimate question?
Of course, if Limbaugh's sexuality becomes a topic of conservation would Limbaugh feel to compelled to marry again in order to dispel rumors?
I'm just asking...
Has Rush Limbaugh ever invited Barney Frank to see his Manhattan apartment?
Are you asking if he's a narcissist?
'Cuz yeah.
But I did see that lovely painting of Rush himself.
Exist.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Eric who ?????????
Please stay tuned for more mm(fvl)updates ...................................
Is he lying to cover his aass or is there some truth in what he's saying?
Where's that 'non-phoney' conservative compassion we're used to hearing from you?
Here's the background, and MORE on the dear Massa. His story is quite telling......
I've already seen the videos . . . those videos came AFTER the hate talkers and Fox started posing their usual rhetorical questions . . . he's using this as an excuse to cover his rear. He has admitted to the inappropriate language and advances to the male staffer and has said he was guilty.
As for your other stupid comment . . . disdain for someone who did what Massa did to his staffer doesn't have a political ideology. I repeat. Massa is a clod.
Why not research your SCANDALS before you post them.
Massa's letter of resignation
From Massa's letter of resignation that he posted on his site before he decided he needed a cover story.
I've found mention of a locker room used by the Capitol Police, but haven't been able to find anything about a locker room used by members of congress. It stands to reason that there would be more than one, since it appears that congressional offices are housed in six different buildings.
Yes, the joke would be that the gay congressman wanted to look at the rest of the men showering.
Frankly, I don't find it offensive. I guess I can see how people might take it so, but to them I'd say toughen up.
The joke would be true if it were co-ed, wouldn't it? Some guy wanting to see all the naked girls is pretty apparent, and since gay men are attracted to men, the joke is also apparent. I also think it is harmless.
This is my opinion, and not gospel, guys and gals.
Of course, this comes from Rush, so it is admittedly an entirely different ballgame.
We can't stop the promotion of homophobia, therefore we just have to accept it, and that will make us tougher.
This is not to say that people should take abuse, but this is not abuse.
Picking battles is a much healthier way to live, and living without the stress of either battling some off hand comment or defending one would really make everyone a lot happier.
You are free to disagree, but this is just this "hateful homophobe's" point of view. (BTW, I am neither hateful nor homophobe, but said for effect on how I know I am perceived.)
Yep, it never ceases to amaze...
I have never said, nor will I ever, that I approve of his rhetoric.
I do think a little change in perspective is a good thing. The change I speak of is to not take everything so seriously.
I see nothing wrong with this statement. We all need to be confident enough in who we are to know that not everything is worth battling over or getting bent out of shape over. Look, my opinion is that there are always going to be jerks and bullies out there, and there will be some that are able to pull the wool over a great number of people (I could put our current prez in this last group). But this is and will always be true. Rather than getting huffy about it, we need to confidently and wisely react in kind. In other words, going tit-for-tat is probably not the best way to do it, and that happens when folks are upset or frustrated.
So it is with Rush. Again, simply my opinion-- feel free to disagree.
I somehow doubt it. I think he thrives on it, and that fuels him. As I have inferred on other threads, the give and take between liberals and Rush just fuels the fire. It just escalates.
If he were to be ignored, I sincerely expect he'd be a lot less interesting to a lot more people.
Here's a quick example. As a Rams fan, I was shocked to hear that he was interested in being a part of the group to buy the team, along with Dave Checketts (owner of the Blues). However, when word got out that he was a part of the team, people from all over strongly objected that he, Rush Limbaugh, the racist pig from the radio and TV might be an NFL owner. They essentially fed his ego and his fire. If people had not thought about it, he would have less ammo on people and would be, well, less interesting. But that is not what happened, and he now has that experience to continue his rhetoric. So in a very real sense, it is the criticism of him that keeps him moving.
I don't think he'd necessarilly go away completely, but I think his influence would be weakened as more people saw him as simply a talking head with less to offer than they once thought. The bottom line is that he would not be near as influential as he is today because more would see through him.
But he did not become an NFL owner.
But people did think about it, talked about it openly, made their feelings known, and his investment partners had no choice but to shove him out.
Speaking of the NFL, Rush also made racist remarks about Donovan McNabb. People thought about it, talked about it openly, made their feelings known, and Rush found himself booted from NFL Sunday Countdown.
You can't convince me that calling this idiot out is not constructive. He will always have his lucrative radio gig, but he is a failure when it comes to breaking into mainstream entertainment mediums that thrive on inclusiveness and tolerance.
You can call him out, sure, but being just as vociferous as he is with the rhetoric is not construction.
I won't change your mind, but I can present my opinion, no?
You can't seem to make up your mind on what his critics should do. First you say to ignore him, now you're saying it's OK to call him out, but just don't be vociferous about it. I encourage you to express your opinion, but it's all over the place.
The trouble with your comment on his relegation is that he is still one of the most popular radio personalities, and a big draw at speeches and such. In other words, he stil has a lot sway.
But he can be weakened less, I think, if he were left alone. He'd have nothing to b*tch about and nothing for his listeners to get into.
Alas.
Gasp! Shocking!
I wonder if the reaction comes from a simple desire that gay men are simply to be viewed with no sort of negative implication, like they might accidently look at some dude's chest or butt. Straight men might accidentally look at some girl's chest or butt. I am not saying straight men should do it, only that we do. Also, women may well view guys like that, too. Is that not a reaction gay men have?
Suppose a liberal commentator suggested that a Republican politician wanted to switch out all of the walls of the womens restroom with transparent glass.
Would you interpret this as simply noting that the Republican was heterosexual, or would you get an implication that he was a pervy predator ?
There ya go.
So, going to your hypo, if it were delievered in a way that was a joke, then it I would tell any uppity conservatives to get over it.
Again, picking battles is important, isn't it? Seriously, getting upset about a joke is understandable. I remember Whoopie's comment about "Bush" that got a lot of flack. But it never really fazed me, for much the same reason I am offering here. Getting upset is one thing, but too upset is something entirely different.
A final thought, I realize this is Rush, who is divisive and often is really quite offensive. I just didn't think this was one of those occasions.
Fair enough?
If you can honestly say that my hypothetical about the glass walls could be delivered in a way so that you wouldn't take anything from it other than that the subject was heterosexual, I'll take you at your word. I can't really think of a source, or a way for it to be delivered, where that's how I would see it. We might just see things differently, fair enough.
I agree with you on the lame joke on Limbaugh, though don't really think it was homophobic, just a cheap shot at Frank. Either way, his comments help no one.
I can imagine a lot of things, and so yes, I can think of how that may be delivered in a way to be a joke about heterosexuals. I am no comic, so I won't even try, especially in an online forum.
And there's no need to apologize for thinking I'm gay, it didn't offend me at all. It might say more than you intended to, though.
What do you think I am revealing more about?
Do you wish to address that?
OK. You've convinced me...
Yes, this is exactly what you wrote. "A homophobe finds a homophobic joke inoffensive..." So, a consevertive (homophobe) does not think a homophobic joke is offensive. From this, it is assumed that the gay joke is indeed offensive. And then, since the homophobe is homophobic, he will use the joke to look past the offensiveness and not be offended. Rather, he will use it to perpetuate the homophobic ideas he already has.
"Happens all the time, and more's the pity." Here, you seem to mean that this is actually something that happens frequently, and perpetuates the homophobic sentiments that are out there. Its a shame, you say.
But as I said earlier in this post, you assume that any gay joke is offensive and that there is no gay joke that is inoffensive. This is not necessarilly true. You also assume that conservatives cannot tell the difference. This comes about in that you infer that conservatives don't find such jokes offensive. This assunmption is also false, because most conservatives do know the difference.
So, my comment seems to be a reasonable inference out of what you wrote-- my inference is that conservatives are pretty much not able to see an offensive joke regarding gays, and that they fail to see this and perpetuate the discrimination against gays because of it.
If you would like to clarify, please do so.
And that not all homophobes are conservatives?
Is that wrong?
A homosexual man is not attracted to every single man he lies on, just that I, a heterosexual woman, am not attracted to every man I lay eyes on.
Homosexuals are attracted to people in the same manner that heterosexual people are. They are not sex-crazed animals constantly on the prowl, lusting after every man they see. That's an offensive stereotype, and it is the premise of jokes such as these.
Why should we treat gay men any differently?
However, the primary source of discrimination against homosexuals is that they are perverts who are unable to control their sexual proclivities. The driving force of prejudice against gays and lesbians is this stereotype. The foundation of any form of discrimination, whether it be homophobia or racism or religious discrimination, is fear. And this stereotype ignites fear--a fear that these homosexuals are rampant perverts who can not control their sexual urges and thus would not think twice about violating you. Furthering this stereotype is in essence furthering discrimination against homosexuals.
For example, one of the primary stereotypes of African Americans that drives racism and prejudice is that AAs are lazy and stupid. So a joke that portrays African Americans as lazy and stupid is racist and offensive, because it furthers that stereotype, that motive for discrimination. A more general, raceless character in a joke that is the utt of the joke for being lazy is not offensive or racially charged since it is not assigning the characteristic of laziness or ignorance to any specific race.
Jokes are frequently used as vehicles for promoting prejudice against a certain group of people, because it allows the joke-teller to maintain distance from the stereotypes he/she is promoting. The person pushing the stereotype can just shrug it off as "oh, I'm just telling a joke, lighten up" or whatever. But jokes that push negative stereotypes, especially the nasty stereotypes that form the BASIS of discrimination (like the image of homosexuals as animalistic, sex-crazed perverts who just want to violate you sexually) are offensive.
That is how I took Rush's comments here today.
I fail to see how that is offensive.
Maybe I am cruel and harsh and "don't get it" but that is really how I see it. Until I see personally the notion that gays are somehow sex craved lunatics I won't "get it". And like I said, what I have seen is simply that straight men get freaked out when hit on by a gay man.
Just like the stereotype that African Americans are stupid and lazy is not true, but people promote that stereotype as a way to perpetuate discrimination against that group.
Can I add another stereotype that just isn't true: conservatives hate the poor.
I know that African Americans are not all stupid or lazy. I know that well.
But I am not sure that it is promoted to continue discrimination. It is promoted, if at all, because of ignorance. People often don't want to address that which is foreign to them, and that which is challenging. They thus buy into notions that make them feel comfortable, like the line that all conservatives hate the poor.
I happen to think that when given someone finds something out first hand, they change their opinion of that matter. So, when they see gays aren't sex crazed lunatics they alter their opinions. When they see blacks working very hard to better themselves and their families and are really no different than themselves, they change their opinions. When liberals see that there are indeed some conservatives who do care for the poor... (or do you :) )
So, I don't think people willfully push such stereotypes because they are all mean spirited. Rather, they do so because something it is comfortable. When given a chance most will make the right call. Of course, there are those who are simply stubborn and are bigots. They are everywhere on every side of every issue.
You may be implying something along the lines of what I have just stated, but I wish to state it here anyway.