Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment? : You simply don't understand what "subjective" and "objective" mean. That's really all there is to it.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, you should pick up a dictionary sometime.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    Limbaugh has been a sexist bigot, at least in his act, for years.  The only real story here is how pathetic Romney and Santorum sounded when asked about Limbaugh's comments.  2 men with daughters who didn't absolutely bury Limbaugh for his unprovoked personal attack on this woman, what a couple of LOSERS.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]I'm not sure what Kennedy having gotten away with murder (at best) or involuntary manslaughter (at worst) has to do with what Rush Limbaugh said. I'm rather tired of playing the "Democrat in time" game...    If that game is valid, then we should all just stop posting here because undoubtedly, someone on "our" political side invariably did or said something like what we are presently talking about.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
    Yet you play it weekly with the "Bush in time". It is relevant because at that time, there was no outrage and NOW even went out of their way to say Clinton was their type of guy. What Rush did was bad and from the liberals on this board you would think he shot a puppy. Kennedy, Clinton nah no story there.
    On the scale Rush is the lighter on this front!
    If you are consistent then you don't have to worry about someone coming back with "your side did this". You can say with honesty "yea and I spoke out against him then too".
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment? : You simply don't understand what "subjective" and "objective" mean. That's really all there is to it. Christ, at least my sister understands she's gullible. As it would appear to turn out, I was giving you undeserved credit by saying you were being facetious. I thought you understood that it is possible to objectively analyze someone's words and conclude they did not actually mean them. Instead, it turns out, you genuinely believe that it is impossible to disbelieve someone without being biased against them. Thus, you take the absurd position that everyone who, unlike you, does not believe that Rush Limbaugh meant his quasi-apologetic words, must be "biased". You are the only gullib...  I mean....objective person in America, I suppose.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Seriously, why don't you pick up a dictionary and try to understand the meaning of the words rather than throwing out useless sarcasm.  

    Better yet, why don't you explain to me what they mean if your so convinced that I simply don't understand.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]Perhaps you should. " 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." And you should also watch out about accusing everyone you disagree with of being biased. That manages to be stupid, lazy, and insulting all in one go.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Okay, you're half way there.  Nice job.

    Now try subjective.

    Subjective:  modified or affected by personal views, experience or background...

    Subjective opinions are inherently biased.  Sorry if that bothers you.  But your whining and moaning and tossing out useless insults cannot change the meaning no matter how hard you try.

    Because I disagree with someone doesn't automatically make that person biased, or me for that matter.  I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see that.  

    Have a nice day.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    I wonder what will happen to Rushbo now that his own words took down the blowhard. Maybe, like fellow bloviators Jimmey Severino and Howie Carr he will be banished to some end of the dial low wattage AM station playing in a paranoid conservative bunker.... within a twenty mile radius. 

    Oh wait, his already is. Never mind.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]Any examples? I think the full extent of what I've said about Bush over the last year is: 1. In rebuttal of idiotic claims that Obama policy is solely responsible for the deficits. That is, the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Unfunded Perscription Plan, and the mortgage/financial crisis did not cease to happen and did not cease to cost money once Obama was inaugurated. Pointing out that as revenue fell as a result of things that happened before Obama took office is not "Bush in time". It's called reality. New spending under Obama is almost exclusively the stimulus, and to the extent that Obamacare costs the government money. Those costs are not even a majority of the new debt that has piled up since Obama took office. 2. Comments on various Bush policies Obama expanded or continued.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
    But for almost 2 whole years the President had a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. He could have done ANYTHING he and the Dems really wanted to do. They didn't pass a budget so you can claim all the excess spending is stimulus! That is BS! We are spending @$1.3 TRILLION dollars a year more than we are taking in. In 3+ years Obama has added @$6 TRILLION to the deficit. THAT is all stimulus? BS again!
    Any honest person would look at that record and accept it is Obama's economy. It is Obama's attack on religion and it is Obama's war in Afghanistan. He surged even though he campaigned on "get out now". Why as an American Citizen are you not angry that for 3 years we have not had a federal budget? You are a lawyer right? Look up the legal responsibility of the POTUS and Congress and budgets. Yet you look the other way!
    Bush did it worked for year one and maybe part of year two but again the Dems had TOTAL control of the country for 2 years!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]I wonder what will happen to Rushbo now that his own words took down the blowhard. Maybe, like fellow bloviators Jimmey Severino and Howie Carr he will be banished to some end of the dial low wattage AM station playing in a paranoid conservative bunker.... within a twenty mile radius.  Oh wait, his already is. Never mind.
    Posted by BilltheKat[/QUOTE]

    Or just enjoy his millions on some remote beach...or in the mountains...or pretty much wherever he so chooses. Ain't this country great...that a fat gaping a55hole like Limbaugh can be hated by so many and not give two sh!ts about it and enjoy retirement if it comes to that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's:
    [QUOTE]Rushfan: Thinking is not objective if it is influenced by bias. You accused me of not being objective. Therefore, you accused my opinion as being based on bias. (That wasn't hard was it?) The problem is that my view of Limbaugh's words was not based on bias, and therefore your accusation is false and insulting. FYVM.  :) I laid out an objective argument, analyzing what Limbaugh said surrounding his apology, and concluded Limbaugh did not genuinely mean what he said. Therefore, not a real apology. Everyone BUT you agrees. Even the people defending Limbaugh do not think he meant his apology. According to you, therefore, all those people are also "not objective" and biased. However, because you blindly accepted his words at face value without thinking about them, you are apparently the only objective person in the world. Congratulations. (Talk about thick-headed......)
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    You laid out what you think an apology should sould like, while calling him a jerk.  He sure sounds like a jerk.  Trying to determine whether or not his apology was "real" or "genuine" is subjective...and you're telling me I am thick headed.  Pretty amusing.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment? : Ugh. P*ss-off you silly tw(i)t. This is even more painful than taking skeeter up on his claims that Hitler is a liberal and that gay people are as wrong as cancer. Sorry you can't state a position without accusing the other side of being biased Mr. Rushfan. (Though I liked the throwing out insults and sarcasm whilst whining about the same. Classy.)
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry if the dictionary upset you.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]I thought an honest person would not post endlessly about how evil the socialist mandate in Obamacare was "rammed down their throats" (Yes, I am looking quite specifcally at you), but then turn around and defend their own attack on Obama by saying he should have rammed other things down their throat. Which is it? Throat ramming good or throat ramming bad? Clearly I am a dishonest person, as...... I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Bush left a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Bush left an unfunded prescription plan. I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Obama did not cause the mortgage & financial crises. I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that these things did not vanish or cease costing money the second he came into office. I thought an honest person would at least be capable of understanding that while Obama's policies can be criticized, it is simply untrue that the entirety of new debt can be blamed on him. That is, unless he had a magic wand lying around that he could have picked up and waved at any moment, making things magically all better. Question: Was the tech bubble Bush's fault?
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
    Bush did leave wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - I never said he didn't. I did say and you ignored, that Obama campaigned on "out now". He was against the surge in Iraq but for it in Afghanistan. Honest
    He and the SUPER MAJORITY of Democrats DID ram Obamacare down our throats! They had to pass it before they knew what was in it! What does a 1099 for spending $600 on a PC have to do with HC? What did I EVER say he should ram down our throats? - I never said ANYTHING from the feds. - honest
    Congress both D and R left an unfunded Prescription drug program! Only Congress can spend! See BUDGET! Oh yea, we STILL don't have one! - Honest
    Obama didn't cause the mortgage melt down - The Dems AND Repubs did - Honest
    Obama didn't do anything to stop the hemorrhaging. With FULL CONTROL of the US government! NOTHING! - Honest
    How do we know when we have not had a budget in 3 years! How do you know what they are spending on anything? We don't! - Honest
    The DotCom Bubble wasn't Bush's fault nor was 9/11. Both of which happened in his first 9 months in office. It was his economy after Sept. 2002 and his first budget (see above and see why I am pi55ed) set the course for recovery. - Honest.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?

    In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:
    [QUOTE]Really? Let's try that again with your definition of subjective inserted in place of the word: That is why you are thick-headed. You are literally taking the position that nobody - not me, not p-mike, not someone who defends Rush Limbaugh - can objectively analyze his words to determine whether he means them. And what's so special about Rush Limbaugh? No human being can ever objectively analyze the quoted words of another person to determine whether he meant them? That is ridiculous. Obviously people have to work on keeping their own biases in mind when analyzing the words of another, but I cannot accept that it is impossible to do so without being " modified or affected by personal views, experience or background...inherently biased." Yes. I'm pretty sure the village idiots of old were amused by everyone else laughing at them. Not sure that cuts in your favor.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Look, I began by saying if you read his words objectively, you cannot tell me there isn't an apology.  Okay?  Do we agree on that?

    Your response was (not word for word) was something like, no there isn't one there.  Not "real" anyway.  

    Objective review puts personal biases aside.  If you want to argue it's not "genuine", then that goes beyond 100% objective into the subjective.  Your argument might be compelling as hell, but still subjective, at least in part.  If you want to remain 100% objective about the words you posted as part of his apology, then you have to conclude he apologized.

    I don't have an opinion on the guy because I really don't know anything about him.  I don't listen to talk radio (except sports) and that's only in small doses.  I can be completely objective about his apology and conclude he apologized.  I cannot determine if he "meant it" or not because I have no basis of experience with the guys background to determine that.  Do you see the point?

     

Share