Should Rush Limbaugh be losing sponsors for the things he said?

[Deleted472477User]

My own feeling is yes, he should. Not just because I disagree with the man in general (I'm a moderate Liberal) but because it was cruel, uncalled-for, and nowhere in any of her words did she state anyone should pay for her birth control so she can have all the sex she wants. This woman was talking on behalf of a friend who needed birth control pills for medical reasons and couldn't afford them. the woman ended up losing an ovary as a result.

 

For those who are unaware of the statements and the ensuing brouhaha:

 

Rush's Comments

 

Loss of Sponsorships

 

Sandra Fluke dismisses the apology

 

ETA: Jim C. Hines, author of the Goblin Quest novels, had this to say about Free Speech and this is what I am trying to convey. i hope this clears things up:

 

"Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid *crap*--(not his actual word, but I can't say it here.).

 

Freedom of speech is hard. It’s messy. Sometimes it’s ugly. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Nor does freedom of speech obligate me to agree with your words, or to provide them with a platform."

Edited March 12, 2012 by nyxalinth

[sukeban]

Limbaugh should most definitely lose sponsors--and perhaps be fired--because of this.

 

People have first amendment rights, sure; but just like the cliche about not being owed a living, neither do consumers or companies owe Limbaugh their discretionary income or advertising budget. To assert otherwise would sound quite... socialistic keke.

 

Personally, I am glad that this has blown on up Limbaugh. Dude has said equally dubious things in the past, but most of the time it's boilerplate right-wing stuff about Obama being a Kenyan or a crypto-Muslim or a Chinese secret agent or something. This time though, he woke the wrong dog by attacking a normal person.

 

Glenn Beck used to be popular until he started drawing flow charts of "Illuminati --> Lenin --> Castro --> George Soros --> Obama" and talking about secret UN plans, world directorates, black helicopters, FEMA death camps, and, probably, fluoridation draining away our vital fluids. Don Imus got fired for calling female basketball players "Nappy-headed hoes" or something to that effect. I would say that what Limbaugh said is probably worse than that.

 

In short, Limbaugh contributes nothing of value to American political dialogue. Whilst that doesn't mean he should be silenced, it does mean that perhaps he shouldn't get paid for his caustic rantings.

Edited March 6, 2012 by sukeban

[Arthmoor]

In short, Limbaugh contributes nothing of value to American political dialogue. Whilst that doesn't mean he should be silenced, it does mean that perhaps he shouldn't get paid for his caustic rantings.

I'll be waiting for the call to see the entire staff at MSNBC "not silenced but not get paid" then too since not a single person there contributes anything of value to American political dialogue. I've heard far worse from the left-wing mouthpieces on that network than anything Limbaugh has said recently.

 

Good luck getting Limbaugh off the air though. He's immune to this sort of made up ranting and raving to get someone fired. He owns the studio the show broadcasts from, and there will always be stations willing to carry him due to the huge ratings his show draws.

[BlackBaron2]

I certainly think so. I have the same views of other "journalists" who use their position to spew vitriol, regardless of which side they're on. I don't think the left-wing mouthpieces are much, if any, better at not spouting bigoted crap.

 

We have our own paranoid ranting journalists too. Like Julie Bindel, why the Grauniad keep that hateful miserybag around is beyond me.

[marharth]

What exactly has MSNBC said that pisses you off so much?

 

Also what does MSNBC even have to do with it?

 

If you say stupid stuff people don't want to advertise for you, it is that simple. I hope he gets taken off the air just like Glen Beck did.

[Deleted472477User]

Wow, someone agreed with what he said actually?

 

Not sure if trolling

 

(Insert skeptical Phillip J Fry Face)

 

Or something I can't say here on Nexus...

 

 

But anyway, Arthmoor, if someone on MSNBC made the same sort of comments, I would be just as wound up and furious, believe you me. And because I don't want a strike or to get my thread closed by my own hand, I'll just leave it at that.

 

BlackBaron2: I don't think I've heard her. I liked Keith Obermann, but I sometimes felt that he crossed the line.

 

Back on topic: In regards to the person who agreed, it's fine if you don't feel that taxpayers should pay for birth control, be it to prevent unplanned pregnancy or for medical reasons. It's not fine if you agreed with his other comments about her being a flirt, etc. flirt shaming doesn't fly.

 

EDIT: Nexus' filters changed a different word to "flirt", not me, just in case you're wondering :)

Edited March 7, 2012 by nyxalinth

[BlackBaron2]

Nyxalinth, she doesn't do radio talkshows, she's just a writer for The Guardian. She has said some really horrible things about transgender people and so-called "traitors to the sisterhood" aka women who don't fit her notion of sexual purity, and she says horrible things about men too. Basically, she's the radical feminist British version of Glenn Beck.

 

Anyway, yeah, onto the topic, supporting journalists who have clearly lost their marbles is something I find rather unconscionable. Well, lost their marbles and/or are con artists.

[RZ1029]

Define should? I'm not about to boycott something/someone for paying Mr. Limbaugh. I in no way condone calling someone a flirt, that was out of line, in my opinion.

 

However, unless he gets government funding, then keep paying the man so long as the paying party agrees with what he says. If the private party that funds him agrees that she was just a flirt, more power to them. Every has opinions, and most of them stink.

 

Personally, I've never put much stock in him as any sort of authority, but FAR worse has been said by both sides, albiet in (slightly) less public mediums. The man issued an apology, done and done. We're all adults and can agree to disagree with what some man on tv says.

[sukeban]

I'll be waiting for the call to see the entire staff at MSNBC "not silenced but not get paid" then too since not a single person there contributes anything of value to American political dialogue. I've heard far worse from the left-wing mouthpieces on that network than anything Limbaugh has said recently.

 

Good luck getting Limbaugh off the air though. He's immune to this sort of made up ranting and raving to get someone fired. He owns the studio the show broadcasts from, and there will always be stations willing to carry him due to the huge ratings his show draws.

I think the more appropriate syllogism would be that, roughly, MSNBC = Fox News of the left (albeit with more liberal [pun absolutely intended] use of facts to support their positions). However, Fox News =/= Rush Limbaugh. Thus, MSNBC =/= Rush Limbaugh.

 

I would be willing to perhaps meet you half-way though, and state that I, too, believe that Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher can sometimes veer into the realm of "WTF" in their criticism of the right. They are, however, not on MSNBC (at least not anymore).

 

I dislike Rush because a) I am a partisan, and b) he caters to low-information voters, a group that (just like Skyrim vampires...) I both hate and fear. Worse still, after listening to Rush for three hours each day, many of those low-information voters become low-misinformation voters, the bane of democracies the world over. After drafting the Constitution, Ben Franklin may or may not have answered the question, "Sir, what government have you brought us?" with, "A democracy, if you can keep it," the sentiment of which animates my contempt for low-information voters. A democracy only works if voters are using the same reference point--ideally things like science and facts--to base their choice of candidates and policies on. However, it is the project of the right-leaning media in this country to obfuscate and deny said reference points, exhorting their viewers/listeners to base their preferences on disingenuous rhetorical bombs like, "Obama is a Muslim! Where is the birth certificate!" that are both sickening and also utterly transparent in their attempt to manipulate voters based on Obama's race, perceived religion, or "foreignness," none of which have anything to do with his policies as a President.

 

What Rush and his brethren do is actively shift the Overton Window of the country further to right--at the expense of the political left and center. The left becomes the center, the center becomes the right, the right becomes the extreme right. Suddenly, things things that would have been perceived as reactionary or just prima facie unwise a generation ago, things like not raising the federal debt limit and allowing the country to default or tearing down the barrier between Church and State, are somehow acceptable as viable political outcomes. Where I am going with this is that this is how democracy is unmade. Shift the Overton Window too far in any direction--left or right--and suddenly you lose the center, you lose moderation, you lose the very foundation that democracy is built upon, left with a menu consisting of nothing but extremes.

 

There are infinite resources that trace the trajectory of the Republican Party's post-1980 lurch to the far-right. The same emphatically cannot be said of the Democratic Party. FDR's Democratic Party was far more liberal than today's, as the Democrats have been ensnared in the gravity well of Republican extremism and dragged rightward as well. Dwight Eisenhower, the honorable wartime general and Republican President, would likely not find a home in the modern Republican Party; instead he'd likely be branded as a "liberal" Democrat no matter his own thoughts on the matter.

 

This is why I find Rush fundamentally unpalatable, his entire business is predicated on profiting from actively making the United States a worse place. I don't love Obama or the Democrats, but I do respect and prefer the fact that there is at least one political party in the country that is willing to look at science and fact instead of paying blind obeisance to the vicissitudes, prejudice, and caprice of their collective "gut."

Edited March 7, 2012 by sukeban

[Moveing]

Why should he lose sponsors?

 

A young woman demands contraceptive payed by the taxpayer because "low income" students wanna screw around the campus without facing the possible consequences. I have many more terms for those people on my mind.

Why should the taxpayer pay for 3000$ costs for pills and condomes of others? Or say it an other way: I'am in debt for those people? I don't f*** her, so why should i pay for their contraceptives?

 

The situation is clear and this hole debate is just a waste of time. And these leftwing extremists even dare to call this womans rights. Womans right isn't to let others pay for their pleasure.