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

[Arthmoor]

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.

I could probably write my own book filled with all the things MSNBC has said and done that piss me off so much. There aren't enough hours in the day to describe the hate they spew forth on a daily basis. I can't even fathom how anyone stomachs watching that network. They make the Daily Kos look tame and seem civil.

 

They have everything to do with this because of the left wing bias that's so deeply embedded in the media these days.

 

Also, Beck wasn't taken off the air. Fox News nor Beck himself ever said any such thing. He left to purse his own news service.

 

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).

The general point I was after was to point out the horrid double-standard, which you've more or less identified. Olbermann and Maher get away with this sort of crap all the time and nobody says anything about it. Stewart and Colbert too, and people think those guys are actually funny for doing it.

 

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.

Then I suspect you've never actually listened to his show. "Low information voters" are definitely not the audience he's reaching.

 

"Sir, what government have you brought us?" with, "A democracy, if you can keep it,"

Actually it was: “What kind of government have you given us?” His reply, "A republic if you can keep it.”

 

There are no democracies on this planet. Democracy was actually something the Founders feared greatly because it can only lead to mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.

 

The kind of right-wing people you're describing are also about as fringe as fringe gets and are not the bulk of the Republican party by any stretch. If I had to guess, I'd say you've been paying far too much attention to the commentators on MSNBC since they're the only ones I've ever seen describe us this way.

 

Interesting you should bring up the Overton Window because that's something Glenn Beck used to talk about all the time, though his evidence actually points to the fact that it's been shifted the opposite direction you seem to think it has. His main observation being that the window has been shifted so far to the left that anyone who would have once been considered a moderate is regarded as a right-wing fringer by most. Largely due to liberal media bias.

 

The Republican party didn't lurch toward some sort of mythical far-right. Conservatism is still something the majority of this country readily identifies with and if you really stop and look at the presidents since Reagan, they're nothing like he was. All of them having been dragged back toward the left. Clinton was a left-leaning moderate. GW Bush was a RINO by all accounts. Certainly his big government spending habits were not conservative at all and many of us were quite upset with him over it despite his having been on the right track for national security policy.

 

What this all boils down to is that the left scares the crap out of me. Their slavish adherence to pseudo-scientific garbage to advance their political agendas at the expense of the entire country would have been considered treasonous as little as 25 years ago. Obama is Carter all over again. Carter was FDR squared, and they're all aspiring to bring back Woodrow Wilson. God help us if they ever succeed.

[HeyYou]

Neither the dems, nor the repubbies give a rat's patootie about the 'average american'. Politics in general has become a game of who can get the mostest, the fastest. Neither party has the best interests of the US in mind. Certainly not GW Bush. He got us into one war based on lies, we invaded another sovereign nation because of ONE man. Bush did more to undermine US standing on the world stage, than any president before him.

 

The major problem we have in this country IS the political parties. Seems folks want to adhere to 'their' parties politics, and anyone that disagrees with them is obviously unbalanced, deluded, misinformed, loony, or, a host of other insults. Let me clue you in, it doesn't MATTER who you vote for any more. The same policies continue, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class evaporates into the ether. The military-industrial complex run this country. It's all about money.

[AlexxEG]

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.

 

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html

 

Contraception isn't just used for birth control.

[Deleted472477User]

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.

 

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html

 

Contraception isn't just used for birth control.

 

Exactly. As I stated in my post, (Reading is fundamental!) she was speaking on behalf of a friend who'd needed it for MEDICAL REASONS not just so she wouldn't get pregnant.

 

Also, to the person stating about women's rights and so on...Did you know that Viagra and Cialis are considered medically necessary? Which is funny, since I never knew that getting it up could be vital to men's health and physical well-being in the same way that taking birth control pills is medically necessary in some cases for women :P

 

So Moveing, you state you wouldn't pay for women's pleasure. Fair enough. What about the ED drugs I mentioned? Those are for men's pleasure. If that's a different story, there's a word here I won't use, even though it isn't a vulgar or profane word, because I don't want to get a strike. So I'll just leave it there.

Edited March 8, 2012 by nyxalinth

[HeyYou]

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.

 

http://www.youngwome...d-uses-ocp.html

 

Contraception isn't just used for birth control.

 

Exactly. As I stated in my post, (Reading is fundamental!) she was speaking on behalf of a friend who'd needed it for MEDICAL REASONS not just so she wouldn't get pregnant.

 

Also, to the person stating about women's rights and so on...Did you know that Viagra and Cialis are considered medically necessary? Which is funny, since I never knew that getting it up could be vital to men's health and physical well-being in the same way that taking birth control pills is medically necessary in some cases for women :P

 

There are certain powers out there that have a major issue with anything that interferes with procreation, but, have no problem with something that supposedly promotes it......

[Deleted472477User]

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.

 

http://www.youngwome...d-uses-ocp.html

 

Contraception isn't just used for birth control.

 

Exactly. As I stated in my post, (Reading is fundamental!) she was speaking on behalf of a friend who'd needed it for MEDICAL REASONS not just so she wouldn't get pregnant.

 

Also, to the person stating about women's rights and so on...Did you know that Viagra and Cialis are considered medically necessary? Which is funny, since I never knew that getting it up could be vital to men's health and physical well-being in the same way that taking birth control pills is medically necessary in some cases for women :P

 

There are certain powers out there that have a major issue with anything that interferes with procreation, but, have no problem with something that supposedly promotes it......

 

 

Just as I figured, Hey You. Well, better get my coffee before I get any crabbier :P

 

Everyone, I want to point out again that Rush lost sponsors because her impugned the lady's morality and her lifestyle using very rude and inflammatory words, and because he requested to see video of whatever he thought she'd be getting up to with all that free birth control, not because he doesn't think birth control should be paid for. THAT is the issue here, and if I wasn't more clear on that from the get-go, you have my apologies.

[DaveTheRedd]

Rush is just another "shock jock" type of entertainer. It is widely known he is going to say things that are outrageous and are meant to irritate some people. Just because he is a right wing shock jock, does not make him any less outrageous than guys like Howard Stern.

 

The sponsors know he is going to be controversial, so why pull the ads now?

 

This is not to be an endorsement of Rush, my own political leanings are moderate, somewhat conservative.

 

My point is, that it is entertainment, just like the news, none of it is just informative, with the exception of maybe the weather. Every news service has political leanings and always will, dictated by whoever is in charge of that service. (ie: fox, msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs, cnn…)

[Illiad86]

I remember when Sarah Palin was running and Rush said "She is being treated unfairly because she's a woman". Then this stuff happens...

 

Honestly, I don't know if he should lose sponsors. They know how he is. Personally, I listen to AM Radio when we are driving and sometimes he is on. Most of the time, he makes me wanna punch the radio console. Other times, he does have some decent points. This was a little too outrageous though. He used to be not this crazy about stuff...like the above poster said he's becoming more of a "shock jock" than anything.

 

I believe birth control pills should be covered by insurance. Like others have said, it's not just for preventing birth. My friend takes them because she has endometriosis. Before she started taking them, that time of the month was so painful that she had to call into work sick. The pills don't completely get rid of the symptoms, but she can now put up with the pain. If Viagra and the other "peener pills" are covered, why isn't birth control? Women fought many a years to have rights, but reproductive rights are still a hot topic. But, there's probably a lot of men in power that still believe we are "baby makers" and we shouldn't have any rights in that sense.

 

Most states though, do have a plan for low income women to get birth control free of charge. You have to be pretty low income to get them though (think it was like 200% or something crazy below the poverty line). Every 10 weeks, they send you 30 condoms, 2 female condoms, one emergency pill, and 3 months of birth control pills. I did some figuring and that costs around $1,000/year for the state to give this to women. But, what's cheaper? That or welfare, WIC, and all the other programs they provide for low income women with kids?

 

Personally, I don't believe the state should cover a lot of things that they do cover for low income folks. Some of them really need it (disabled in one form or another), but many people "play the game". My boyfriend's uncle gets SSD because he "can't swallow". But the last time we saw him, he had no problem swallowing a beer and eating some food...so yeah. Honestly, some of these plans just keep the poor more poor. "I can get all this free stuff from the state and government, why do I need to get a job?"

 

People shouldn't get all crazy about this though. There are plenty more things to be worried about than birth control should be covered by insurance...like the deficit, big government, over-spending, etc. It's an easy topic to start controversy over and it is an election year.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Illiad86

[marharth]

Beck was canceled since advertisers quit sponsoring him.

[sukeban]

@Arthmoor

 

I think we're going to have opinions that are more or less insoluble on this matter. Which is fine.

 

However, in the spirit of trying to reach some more common ground, I would say that there's probably a broad right- and left-wing consensus over many of the most pressing issues of the day. What I mean is that both of us could probably agree with HeyYou in the post after yours, the one where he states that neither of the parties really care much for their constituents; rather, they care far more about simply being re-elected and defending their Washington prerogatives.

 

Which is why, I think, conservatives and progressives are getting at the same sort of ideas, though often using a somewhat different vocabulary to describe them. Both sides realize what is going on--that our representatives, on both sides of the aisle, are almost universally corrupted by special interests and corporations.* Nobody likes to see Senators, Cabinet members, or top military brass pushing contracts and loopholes for specific industries, and then, when they're ready to leave government, proceeding directly into the employ of said industries, turning around and lobbying their old colleagues back in Washington for yet more contracts and loopholes. That is indefensible and totally corrupt.

 

*Lobbying was recently found to have one of the largest ROI of any investment that a company can make, something like an average of 1:150 USD return.

 

It's also a terrible, terrible joke that Senators and Representatives can ignore insider-trading regulations and make stock purchases based on information they obtain as a member of government. And that most of our elected representatives are millionaires (net worth of average Senator: $2.5 million)? How is this representative of our population as a whole, which is, by and large, getting poorer if one uses real-wages as a baseline? And one wonders why our representatives have no problems passing yet more tax cuts for the rich while having no compunction passing regressive taxes that disproportionately impact the middle class and the poor. They are giving tax cuts to themselves and to those in their milieu--those lobbying on behalf of special interests--the ones cutting the campaign and the SuperPAC checks.

 

That, I think, both the left and the right can agree on. As we collectively drift toward oligarchy, that is.

 

And much of the media gives us content utterly orthogonal to the important political issues of the day, things like culture wars, race baiting, and celebrity gossip. As a younger person, I can say that I really don't have much of a stomach for the culture wars and view them as an unpleasant artifact of the preceding generation. My primary concern is the truly sad state of political and economic affairs that this generation of 'leaders' has bequeathed to anybody under the age of thirty.

 

The country has actual problems to solve, and we get a rehashed 1950's debate over birth control? We get Sheriff Arpiao still screaming about The Birth Certificate. We get a Republican Congress shamelessly abusing the filibuster and debating the Blunt Amendment in the House. C'mon man, this is not responsible governance. Dems worked with Bush, as they worked with Reagan. Reagan *gasp* passed tax increases and he never fought a real (Grenada isn't real) war. Reagan would probably be kicked out (or resign like Olympia Snowe) of the Republican Party for lack of ideological purity, despite the cult of personality surrounding him now.

 

Finally, regarding ideological purity:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/House_Party_Means_46-111.jpg

 

TL;DR -- There are fringe elements on both sides, but one side's fringe is larger and louder than the other.

Edited March 9, 2012 by sukeban