- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Not one word you said changes the reality and truth of my analysis. Not one single word.
You did not even attempt to begin to refute one word I said. All you did was hunker down in True Believer mode. Why is that? Is the kool-aid that strong with you?
I see no reason to lower myself with that sort of grade school bravado. Although I can see how it fits in with Limbaugh and the tactics of the far right that appeal to you.
You lower yourself with grade school logic responses all the time, so I don't see where you're changing that. Limbaugh is an asskicker on the radio whether you want to admit it or not. Not a single liberal can touch him, I'm really sorry but the truth is the truth. And he make $millions in the process.
Yes, when you have the narrator dressed in clothes (with his horse) referenced from another historical time period, it is confusing to children that may not be knowledgable enough to know that the two times periods are very distinct.
I don't have kids. To answer your question, though, no, probably not but neither would I say how horrible the book is without having read it.
I don't give a damn. There is no way I will give this hatemonger a dime. Nor will I even present anything written by him to my children. The man is a disgusting human being. At the end of the day honest or not, you are making this bastard richer.
Lets flip the script....
Suppose Al Sharpton did the same thing and wrote a children's book that is completely honest. Would you give his book the time of day?
Well, if Sharpton writes a book, he better write better than he speaks or no one will be able to understand what he is trying to say.
Or even worse - Nancy Pelosi? The right really hates her. :lol: I seem to remember a few people being butthurt over Hillary Clinton's new children's book, too.
I would never choose a book by a drug addict for my children to read.
Two words: "Ghost Writer". :wink3:
Wouldn't Sharpton naturally be afraid of ghosts?
I do not like Obamacare
I do not like it, I am quite scared.
I would not like it in a box
I get all my news from Fox.
I guess you wouldn't buy a book by Edgar Allen Poe, Steven King, William Faulkner or Charles Dickens then.
Of course this only names a few of the myriads of authors who suffered with substance abuse.
Sandra Fluke isn't a slut; that is true. She's an attention whore.
I once did the math on how much money she wanted for 'free' condoms and it came out to getting laid over 300 times per day, every day. Yeah that meets the criteria "slut" imo.Sandra Fluke isn't a slut; that is true. She's an attention whore.
The sentiment of Rush's comments were spot on, I dont think I should have to subsidize anyone's contraception (or abortion for that matter), especially not an Ivy league college student. His choice to make it a personal attack was not.
None of those authors write children's books. Try again.
I never said the book is horrible. My point is I would not expose any of my kids to this clown, nor will he get any richer off my dime.
I wasn't going to buy the book, but I think I will now in your honor. Rush thanks you. :lol:
He's a shiester and race huckster - they never let fear get in the way of making a buck.
I know. Why you think Rush is so rich...
Yes, nobody ever accused Rush of not crossing the line into bad taste with some of his illustrations and metaphors.I certainly have not defended him when he has done that, and, while his metaphor or illustration was spot on, he used really bad judgment in how he applied that to Sandra Fluke's congressional presentation. And as always happens in these cases, that bad judgment then became the story and the point he was making was totally lost so far as the media and message board bigots are concerned. And just as I every once in awhile find myself wishing I had expressed my opinion differently and wishing I could rephrase this or that, I'm sure if Rush had it to do over, he would not have used that particular analogy in that particular case.
At the same time, call me a bigot if you wish, but I personally highly resented Sandra Fluke's testimony as 1) entirely self serving; 2) entirely dishonest; and 3) pushing an entitlement mentality that is slowly but surely helping to destroy our culture. Rush used the analogy that somebody who wants others to pay for her to have sex is a slut. And in so doing he is characterized as calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'.
So does my expressed opinion extrapolate that I am calling Sandra Fluke self serving? Dishonest? Wrong pushing a foolish and even dangerous agenda? Somebody could definitely draw that conclusion. But I didn't do that. I applied those characterizations to her testimony. Does that make me a bigot because I disagree with what she was asking for? Because I would say no?
How does one criticize or object to what others would demand of us without being accused of being intolerant? Of being hateful? Of being a bigot? And if anybody here thinks they are justified, correct, even noble in objecting to what others do that affects them, why is Rush any different?
I agree with you fully except for one thing-this was not congressional testimony. She was speaking at a conference that was made to LOOK like an official congressional hearing. Its always spin from them, isnt it?
I have to agree, your post is the very embodiment of 'bigot'. Thank you for the demonstration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?