Rush Limbaugh says the darndest things

[A Theist]

....then the use of that term should be tasteless and unprofessional under any circumstance.

Agreed.

Again, did you miss the last four times I called Schultz "unprofessional" and "tasteless".

To me it seems as if you're saying that although you agree the term is tasteless and unprofessional, you can see the justification of using it to describe a woman under some circumstances.

Not at all. At no time did I defend Schultz or justify his use of the term.

My point, and somehow you keep missing it, is...

a political attack =/= personal defamation of character.

...Ed Schultz was attacking Ingram politically, using very inappropriate and unprofessional language, but still a political attack as is clear by the context. Limbaugh was attacking Fluke personally and sexually, as well as coming on to her to make a sex tape for him.

The two are not equivalent. Kind of like how a misdemeanor is not equivalent to a felony. Both are breaking the law but they're not the same.

You are desperate to make them equivalent to run cover for Limbaugh. Just so you know, I see what you're trying to do.

Apples and apples DP.

Apples and oranges, AT.

Absolutey not. I'm not running cover for Limbaugh or anybody else. The use of that term under any circumstance is uncalled for...and just so you know, I see what you're trying to do too. You're in denial of the double standards and hypocrisy that exists on the left, when you're confronted with it, you deflect and distract to cover up the hypocrisy.

It's all the same DP.
Apples to apples.

[DeistPaladin]

Absolutey not. I'm not running cover for Limbaugh or anybody else.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't consciously aware of what you're doing. This may be a subconscious rationalization.

Here are the steps if it helps you identify your own pattern:
1. Rush said something unacceptable.
2. You dug up something a liberal said
3. You equivocate the two.
4. "See, Rush was just being persecuted for being a conservative"
5. Rush is the victim. The shame belongs to the liberals, not him.

In fact, the whole purpose of the "both sides do it" canard is to run cover for conservative abuse in our political system.

The use of that term under any circumstance is uncalled for

And I agree.

...and just so you know, I see what you're trying to do too. You're in denial of the double standards and hypocrisy that exists on the left, when you're confronted with it, you deflect and distract to cover up the hypocrisy.

There is no double standard coming from the left.

I'm wondering if maybe the problem is you don't understand that personal defamation of character is worse than an attack on someone's politics, even if the same offensive word is used.

...or you're pretending not to understand something so basic.

It's all the same DP.

No, it's not.

Personal defamation is worse than an attack on someone's political activity, even if the same offensive word is used.

Apples to apples.

Apples to oranges.

[A Theist]

Absolutey not. I'm not running cover for Limbaugh or anybody else.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't consciously aware of what you're doing. This may be a subconscious rationalization.

Here are the steps if it helps you identify your own pattern:
1. Rush said something unacceptable.
2. You dug up something a liberal said
3. You equivocate the two.
4. "See, Rush was just being persecuted for being a conservative"
5. Rush is the victim. The shame belongs to the liberals, not him.

In fact, the whole purpose of the "both sides do it" canard is to run cover for conservative abuse in our political system.

The use of that term under any circumstance is uncalled for

And I agree.

...and just so you know, I see what you're trying to do too. You're in denial of the double standards and hypocrisy that exists on the left, when you're confronted with it, you deflect and distract to cover up the hypocrisy.

There is no double standard coming from the left.

I'm wondering if maybe the problem is you don't understand that personal defamation of character is worse than an attack on someone's politics, even if the same offensive word is used.

...or you're pretending not to understand something so basic.

It's all the same DP.

No, it's not.

Personal defamation is worse than an attack on someone's political activity, even if the same offensive word is used.

Apples to apples.

Apples to oranges.

...and I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that you may not realize what you're doing.

Hopefully these steps will help you identify your own pattern of denial:
1. A conservative says something unacceptable. You're outraged.
2. You're confronted when someone on the left did the very thing you condemned the conservative for. You're shocked.
3. You're next reaction is a naive disbelief that the left could do such a thing.
4. You deny that hypocrisy exists on your side and then you try to cover it by creating some kind of justification for it.
5. Conservatives just like picking on liberals.

"In fact, the whole purpose of the "both sides do it" canard is to run cover for conservative abuse in our political system."....Continued denial that guilt is attributed to the left.

"There is no double standard coming from the left."....More denial. There is a double standard coming from the left.

"Apples to oranges.....Apples to apples.

[DeistPaladin]

You're confronted when someone on the left did the very thing you condemned the conservative for.

One more time...

A political attack =/= a personal defamation of character.

The Ed Schultz case you cited is an example of a potty mouth. He was unprofessional. His language was inappropriate. His choice of words was obnoxious. But there was no defamation of character.

The Limbaugh case is an example of defamation of character combined with a creepy proposition to boot.

Same word. Not the same thing. Remember, Limbaugh wasn't condemned just for using the word "slut". He was condemned for his defamation of character and his creepy proposition.

Find some other way to absolve him.

[zappa1258]

It will agree that was in bad taste, but most people realize there is a huge difference between insulting a public demogouge for rabble rousing & insulting a private college student for testifying before congress.

BTW, I had no idea who Ed Shultz & Laura Ingrahm were before you mentioned them.

Sandra Fluke is no longer a private college student. She became a public figure when she spoke before Congress regarding an issue at the center of a political debate and most recently putting herself deeper into the political arena when she spoke at the Democrat Party Convention. Fluke was also an outspoken activist before this.

Wow. I'm a bit surprised you haven't heard of those two. In addition to having his own radio talk show, Ed Shultz also has his own show on MSNBC, The Ed Show. Laura Ingrham, in addition to her own syndicated radio talk show, is a well known regular on Fox News.

---

Even if this is true, and I've watched Ed Shultz and have never known him to use language like this, it's still apples and oranges.

The term "whore" or "slut" is sometimes used in a political context as a tasteless term for "shill" or "drone". For example, if I were to use this term for Justice Thomas, Scalia or Roberts, I might call them "corporate whores". This is not to suggest they're sleeping with corporate execs for money but they're drones who do their bidding on the bench.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, wasn't talking about Fluke's political actions. He was talking openly about her sexuality, including demanding that she make sex tapes for his enjoyment.

The term even used to describe one's political activity is tasteless, I agree, and from what you've told me it sounds like Schultz was appropriated disciplined for it. Rush went into an entirely different area by attacking Fluke personally and making personal defamatory attacks against her. Apples and oranges.

But thank you for bringing this up. This is a classic example of the conservative retreat to centrism when you get caught lying or being abusive. "Both sides... both sides... but the Democrats... Tu Quoque"

...and yours is the classic example of more naive leftist denial everytime you get caught with your heads up your asses....

Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingrham a slut.

You have no idea what the word fascist means. You have bastardized that word. I would say the other way is more correct. My grand father left Spain due to the fascist. You sir are retarded.

[A Theist]

You're confronted when someone on the left did the very thing you condemned the conservative for.

One more time...

A political attack =/= a personal defamation of character.

The Ed Schultz case you cited is an example of a potty mouth. He was unprofessional. His language was inappropriate. His choice of words was obnoxious. But there was no defamation of character.

The Limbaugh case is an example of defamation of character combined with a creepy proposition to boot.

Same word. Not the same thing. Remember, Limbaugh wasn't condemned just for using the word "slut". He was condemned for his defamation of character and his creepy proposition.

Find some other way to absolve him.

You're wrong and you're in denial. Schultz is just as guilty. The term has a particular social stigma attached to it. Schultz is just as guilty as Limbaugh when he used the term 'slut' to defame and disgrace Laura Ingrham on air.

[DeistPaladin]

You're wrong and you're in denial. Schultz is just as guilty. The term has a particular social stigma attached to it. Schultz is just as guilty as Limbaugh when he used the term 'slut' to defame and disgrace Laura Ingrham on air.

I think we've long past the point where we should agree to disagree here because I can't seem to pound it through your thick skull that defamation of character is worse than having a potty mouth (and the context is clear that Schultz was describing Ingram's political activity, not her personal sexual activity). Fortunately, I believe that I've made my point clearly to any who choose to observe our exchange. I trust it will be as clear to them as it is to me that you're desperate to absolve Rush Limbaugh by trying to paint him as a victim of a double-standard. I've patiently tried to explain why it's not so but you are brain-washed and unable to have a rational conversation.

[A Theist]

You're wrong and you're in denial. Schultz is just as guilty. The term has a particular social stigma attached to it. Schultz is just as guilty as Limbaugh when he used the term 'slut' to defame and disgrace Laura Ingrham on air.

I think we've long past the point where we should agree to disagree here because I can't seem to pound it through your thick skull that defamation of character is worse than having a potty mouth (and the context is clear that Schultz was describing Ingram's political activity, not her personal sexual activity). Fortunately, I believe that I've made my point clearly to any who choose to observe our exchange. I trust it will be as clear to them as it is to me that you're desperate to absolve Rush Limbaugh by trying to paint him as a victim of a double-standard. I've patiently tried to explain why it's not so but you are brain-washed and unable to have a rational conversation.

Something we finally agree on. We're past the point where we should agree to disagree. Your little playground game of denial dodgeball has become tiresome. The only thing that you've proven in our exchange is that you're too indoctrinated beyond any capability of fair and rational thinking. This was clearly evident by your naive attempts to absolve the left of its hypocrisy and double standards, disguising them under a veil of false justification. You're far too childish to have a rational conversation with. You don't take disagreement well.

[Puddleglum]

Corporate whore, media slut.

Both acceptable in the world of politics , get over it.

[A Theist]

Corporate whore, media slut.

Both acceptable in the world of politics , get over it.

I'll have to disagree with you here. 'Slut' is a gender specific term that has a negative social stigma attached to it. It's never acceptable. MSNBC agreed and they suspended Shultz for a week for using the term....

“Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” said a statement from MSNBC.

It was inappropriate for Limbaugh to use the term and it was equally unacceptable when Schultz used it.