The truth is that Mr. Limbaugh is a monster ...
A statement, Bob, that is no less distasteful than the one Limbaugh made about Fluke. You seem to be doing precisely that which you are condemning.
Whether my statement is more or less distasteful is in this case your opinion, Ron.
The distinction is that Mr. Limbaugh is a paid player in the political fields who abuses people for large amounts of money, and his sexual fantasies about what he would like to do with Ms. Fluke and the people who disagree with him are sponsored by people who should know better. Mr. Limbaugh is using the polite fiction that his sharing of these sexual fantasies with the nation is political free speech and not a form of sexual assault.
The fact that Mr. Limbaugh has chosen somebody who is not a sponsored and seasoned political player to use as an outlet for this particular form of address that has become a trademark of his does not define him as a regular guy, Ron. It doesn’t even define him as somebody who’s engaged in the rough and tumble of political discussion.
In the rough and tumble of political discussion, one might toss an occasional name or make a charge thgat would be true or not true. Claiming ownership of somebody else’s sexual life is different than that. It is a particular form of sexual play that pretends a sort of sexual intimacy that is not there. It is one sided sexual play on the airwaves, I think it may be legal,l but it does not fall under the banner of behavior between consenting adults, Ron. One of them is not consulting, and the other is intruding with their explicit sexual fantasies anyway.
Did you actually listen to what Mr. Limbaugh said? Not only about Ms. Fluke but about any women that Mr. Limbaugh in his own somewhat illogical fashion considers to be using birth control that “He” is paying for? I’d be interested in knowing whether you actually heard what Mr. Limbaugh actually said. I would be surprised, if you had, to find you in disagreement with me.
My opinion about Mr. Limbaugh is an opinion about a man who is a political operative, who makes his living by offering opinions about political events, yes. None of those things would have been enough to have me catagorize him as a monster. There are other Republicans, such as Mr. Rove, that I simply do not like and whose tactics I find difficult to swallow, and I would expect that there would be Democrats that many Republicans would find similarly difficult. That seems to be the nature of political operatives in general. So what? For the most part, I can get along very well with the species so long as they confine themselves to preying on each other.
Mr. Limbaugh cannot seem to confine himself.
I checked the dictionary, finding it difficult to believe that the answer was so basic and straighforward. It was. The definition suggests, Ron, that Mr. Limbaugh is in fact a monster.
The dictionary is not a slithery tricky liberal plot. It’s actually pretty basic and strtaightforward and descriptive. The part that’s difficult is that it’s accurate. Blaming me for noticing that it’s accurate seems to be a case of blaming the messanger. I think more people should have noticed. It’s not as though he’s actually been hiding someplace, he’s been doing what he’s been doing right out in the open for years and years and people have been cheering him on for it.
I’m just pointing out what nobody wants to admit.
And, respectfully, the heck I’m doing what I’m condemning Mr. Limbaugh for doing. Mr. Limbaugh is a very rich man with access to 15 million listeners who periodically choses underdogs to abuse, frequently on charges that are spurious. He then uses his power to do his best to humiliate them in from of his public for money and public approbation.
Perhaps you would like to tell me exactly what piece of that I have duplicated?
I am calling Mr. Limbaugh a monster because he fits the definition. I even made a point of showing the definition so people didn’t have to take my word for it.
I hear you saying my comment is distasteful. What I don’t hear is you saying which part of the definition is wrong. I find what is monsterous to be distasteful fairly frequently as well. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a virtual poster boy for the definition is even more distasteful. Do you imagine that I somehow arranged this with the folks at the dictionary publisher? I assure you, this is a matter of Mr. Limbaugh’s free choice. Nobody consulted me in the process; Mr. Limbaugh choses to do the things he does, near as I can tell, on his own. He is responsible for what he is.
I do take responsibility for noticing. Many of the rest of you were cheering and throwing money and, for all I know, may still be. For me to say that seems to be simply telling the truth.
Ms. Fluke did not and does not fit the definition of slut or prostitute as far as I am aware. Nor do the combat veterans of the middle eastern conflicts of recent years who believed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a bad idea fit the dictionary definition of coward so far as I understand it. I feel that it’s probably a waste of both our time and attention for me to check, but, of course, should you wish me to, I’ll do so.
Actually, I think I’m doing a pretty good job of offering a cold look at Mr. Limbaugh and at offering a dispassionate estimation of what he’s doing and who he is.
Frankenstein’s monster, you know, seemed like a pretty decent guy, if you read the book with any attention. There’s nothing about being a monster in itself that has to be terrible. I think it’s folks like Mr. Limbaugh that give monsters a bad name. The closest thing I would give to a concession is to say that I feel like growling now, which sounds from me more silly that monsterous. I say, Grr. I don’t demand videos of pooir women’s sexual experiences.
Bob: Rush:: Grrr: Videos of poor women’s sexual experiences.
The difference in a nutshell.