Jesus_lol Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) as for how much of an cretin, Rush is... how about his support for the LRA in uganda? he attacks Obama for sending troops against "Christians", even though the LRA are one of the worst things in the world, what with child abduction, sex slavery child soldiers, rape, murder etc. [img]http://i.imgur.com/qWCmo.jpg[/img] Edited March 7, 2012 by Jesus_lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [img]http://www.freesmileyfacecentral.com/message-emoticons/im-so-bored.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331135046' post='2397215'] as for how much of an cretin, Rush is... how about his support for the LRA in uganda? he attacks Obama for sending troops against "Christians", even though the LRA are one of the worst things in the world, what with child abduction, sex slavery child soldiers, rape, murder etc. [/quote]Jesus_lol, Y U No read what U post? U seem brighter than that. Limbaugh isn't spouting "support for the LRA in uganda"[sic]. He's bashing Obama for sending troops against "Christian rebels" in Uganda while claiming it for US national intrest. Cretiny of Rush for highlighting it as troops against Christianity, kudos for the non-sensical claim it's in the US national intrest to send troops. Your post includes Rush commenting on the charges against LRA in the last paragraph of transcript. Aim your dislike a little more accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331139203' post='2397240'] Jesus_lol, Y U No read what U post? U seem brighter than that. Limbaugh isn't spouting "support for the LRA in uganda"[sic]. He's bashing Obama for sending troops against "Christian rebels" in Uganda while claiming it for US national intrest. Cretiny of Rush for highlighting it as troops against Christianity, kudos for the non-sensical claim it's in the US national intrest to send troops. Your post includes Rush commenting on the charges against LRA in the last paragraph of transcript. Aim your dislike a little more accurately. [/quote] i was pointing out his jerkishness in highlighting it as troops against christianity (especially since they are anything but in their actions) as to the wisdom of a small amount of interventionism? debateable but im all for it in some cases. Uganda at the time needed the help, much like rwanda did when they had their genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i<3LSOP Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I feel that Rush shouldn't have said what he said at all... it was out of place, but... but he apologized and the media and Obama are still "attacking" him because they will try to bring people who are not on their side down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the free speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money Edited March 7, 2012 by Jesus_lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i<3LSOP Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331140521' post='2397253'] i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the fee speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money [/quote] Yes, exactly. He can say what he wants because that is not against the constitution... but he could and did loose quite a few people. Our problem is that some of those in office want to take away our freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1331140521' post='2397253'] i think what is happening to Rush is a good example of freedom of speech and free market ideology working together perfectly. he said something offensive, and will continue to be able to do so, but 20-30 of his advertisers pulled their support. even if that means his radio show goes under, he will still have all the free speech he wants, and be able to transmit it around the world. but he is losing a lot of money [/quote]Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments. All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions. -Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against? -Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331142422' post='2397265'] Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments. All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions. -Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against? -Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary? [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331142422' post='2397265'] Nah. It's just another example of typical superficial political 'bovine dung' that people generally accept as legitmate political debate. Rush's comments are getting criticised more because of his political perspective of the topic than is due for rudeness of his comments. All the hysteria, condemnation, and defense of 'silly sally/prostitute' comment distracts the sheep from logically considering the important questions. -Should the US Government be able to force people to pay for medical treatment that some people have reasonble moral objections against? -Is Govt. paid BC 'really' necessary? [/quote] Well that's true. We all know that it is utterly impossible to be concerned/think about two issues at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1331045572' post='2396844'] It's good to know my obligation to be a good Christian ends the second someone is sinning more than I am. I shall bear that in mind the next time I'm tempted to make degrading comments about a complete stranger. [/quote] None the less, Limburger has no room to talk. You don't throw stones, if your a sinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1331084289' post='2397061'] Please pardon me for having been raised in those "unenlightened dark ages" when there were clear standards of right and wrong, when behaving like rabid cocker spaniels in heat was frowned upon instead of celebrated, and reputation actually meant something. [/quote] Is there any pejorative term in existence for men who have premarital sex, or sex with multiple partners? The nicknames that get applied to men who sleep around aren't pejorative. Some even have an admiring flavour - 'stud', 'Don Juan', 'Casanova'. Meanwhile, women are the ones who get called s*luts, and in the Good Old Days a woman who was known to have had sex outside of marriage would have struggled to find a man who would marry her. A man who had done exactly the same thing didn't have that problem. It was only female reputations that were so highly prized - if by 'reputation' you mean having your past behaviour held against you forever. One mistake and that was it, you were permanently damaged goods. Present-day sexual mores aren't in keeping with Catholic teachings on human sexuality, but neither was this. I am not looking back to it nostalgically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1331154697' post='2397362'] Is there any pejorative term in existence for men who have premarital sex, or sex with multiple partners? The nicknames that get applied to men who sleep around aren't pejorative. Some even have an admiring flavour - 'stud', 'Don Juan', 'Casanova'. Meanwhile, women are the ones who get called s*luts, and in the Good Old Days a woman who was known to have had sex outside of marriage would have struggled to find a man who would marry her. A man who had done exactly the same thing didn't have that problem. It was only female reputations that were so highly prized - if by 'reputation' you mean having your past behaviour held against you forever. One mistake and that was it, you were permanently damaged goods. Present-day sexual mores aren't in keeping with Catholic teachings on human sexuality, but neither was this. I am not looking back to it nostalgically. [/quote] If only we could undo this damage done by feminists to the sexual health of our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331167445' post='2397457'] If only we could undo this damage done by feminists to the sexual health of our nation. [/quote] This is so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331168671' post='2397468'] This is so true [/quote] Back when whores were whores, hypocrisy was a virtue, and women knew how to shut their beaver dam mouths. Edited March 8, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now