Tagged: Rush Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 10:44 PM on 01/06/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Rush   

    Quote of the Day – Rush Limbaugh Edition Part 2 

    “Obama is not confronting the Republicans. He’s confronting the Constitution. The Republicans are not Obama’s obstacle. The Constitution is Obama’s obstacle.”

    Rush Limbaugh on Obama’s controversial recess appointment.

    • nicedeb 2:27 AM on 01/08/2012 Permalink | Reply

      He really knows how to put things in perspective – I actually “live-tweeted” the second part of that.

  • just a conservative girl 3:22 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Rush, ,   

    Yeah, Rush Went There 

    Because he didn’t sexually harass anybody because she said stop, and he stopped; she said take me home, and he took her home.
    I did notice that when we were listening to Bialek she said that she told him, “What are you doing, Mr. Cain, I don’t want you to,” and he stopped. She said no and that was it. No means no. . . . When Herman Cain drove the babe home she actually got there and is alive to talk about it. 

    Now, I am not a listener of talk radio very often.  While I do sometimes get useful information, I personally feel it more entertainment than substance.  But, shortly after the press conference I was in a car with a friend who was working on a local campaign to re-elect a state delegate doing a get out the vote effort for yesterday’s elections.  He happened to have it on.  I thought then that Rush went too far, but I didn’t really get to hear the entire thing.  

    Jill over at Pundit and Pundette didn’t take to the Rush dialog on this any better than I have:

    Well yes, it’s true, no one’s accusing him of abduction or murder. But that’s what I’d call a pretty low bar. Would Rush have the same casual response if someone treated his wife like that?

     She asks the question:

    What she is accusing Cain of is worse than that. I’ve been out of the dating scene for a while and I know things have changed, but have we really sunk so low that a guy sticking his hand up a woman’s skirt and pushing her head down to his crotch is just making a romantic overture?

    There are many things about Ms. Bialek’s story that I find troubling.  There are things that just don’t make sense to me.  One being that what she was describing is not harassment, but assault.  That was a criminal offense and she should have contacted the police.  Digging to see if she has financial gain to making these allegations, is she prodded along to make them, and if so, by whom?  Those are legitimate questions to ask. Her credibility then becomes questionable.  But, for people to talk about her sexual history is downright low and disgusting.  Bill Kurtis has basically publicly called her a whore:

    And lot of people [at CBS] know her and she has a history. . . . There’s a lot more to the story that is just developing.

    One of the constant themes you hear from the right in regards to the media coverage of the accusations against Bill Clinton once he started running for president was that the media attacked the women instead of dealing with the allegations against President Clinton.  That is exactly what Rush just did.  He now no longer has the credibility to go after the press for not doing their jobs in regards to Clinton.  

    I believe that the first women’s motivations for making the accusation need to be examined.  Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has pointed out an article done the by the AP on one of accusers who seems to have a history of making harassment claims.  She went on to make another complaint at her next job, in fact.  In that complaint she was looking for a raise and a promotion.  Apparently, the claim was eventually dropped, but one can detect a pattern of behavior with her that makes her complaint against Cain much less credible.  

    As a woman, I find it just more than a more disturbing that the first line of defense is to call the woman a whore and to dig into her sexual history.  In this day and age most women have a sexual history.  Some may be more sorted than others, but few women were pure as the driven snow on their wedding nights.  The right or wrong of that is up to your own particular morals.  But if only a virgin or a woman who was on her wedding night can be a victim of sexual harassment or assault, most women better start not leaving their homes without a guard, because it will open season on many of us.  

    I have to hang my head in shame to see where Rush took this conversation.  His sexual innuendo with her last name and saying that since she is still alive to talk about it is way over the line of decency.  I am with Jill in asking if someone stuck his hand up his wife’s skirt would he just be grateful that she isn’t dead, and to heck with the gesture?  

    As a person who honestly believes that the media went too far in going after the women who accused President Clinton in a personal, demeaning, and disgusting fashion, I am no more pleased the some on the right are doing exactly the same thing.  Investigate the claims and look into seeing if they are being driven by money or a sick attempt at 15 minutes of fame.  But leave the woman’s sexual history out of it.  It is none of our business.  

    • SignPainterGuy 3:50 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

      It is indeed a slimy can-o-worms these women have opened up !

      • just a conservative girl 4:04 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

        No woman has opened the particular can of worms I am referring to. That is all you guy, all you. Her sex life isn’t our business and making a claim of rape, harassment, assault or anything else that a woman may make still doesn’t make it our business.

        • SignPainterGuy 4:56 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Sheeeeew, I knew I was steppin` in it as soon as I clicked the “reply” button. ;-)

          The women made the charges. That`s the very first thing the vast majority of us knew about it. There is the “opening of the can” ! That being said, I agree with you, it really isn`t our biz. I like knowing people are happy with their lives, but I don`t need nor want all the details.

          You and I know, in a correct world, people`s personal lives would be left “personal”. None of us believes this is a correct or even remotely fair world. Ugly invasions of privacy are gonna happen, we can watch or don`t. I like it no more than you.

          As for Rush, he is a cheer leader for the right. He can be expected to do the opposite of what the left does. He is attacking the women while the left attacks Cain. Right or wrong, there it is ….. He has a remarkable record as “America`s Truth Detector”.

          My position is, this all gives me pause. I`ve backed up to take a wider-angle view, hoping to see more of the forest, waiting to see what shakes out. How`s that for mixed metaphors ? ;-)

          One more; if you attempt to sling mud on someone, you`re gonna get some on yourself.

          I hope the whole truth comes out !

          • SignPainterGuy 5:00 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

            The last woman came forward with allegations, not having made official charges in the past. I guess news reporters broke the story of the other women having file charges.

            I guess it would be more accurate to say, reporters and this last woman “opened the can-o-worms”.

            • just a conservative girl 6:24 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

              No, it would be accurate to say that men are doing what men have doing forever. Treating a woman who makes a claim into a whore. This is the age old story of the rape victim who deserved it because her skirt was too short.

              Women continue to treated as sexual objects by some, and it is very disappointing to see and hear conservative men doing it.

              • SignPainterGuy 8:09 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                OK, have it your way, but you`ll have it without me. I`m feeling really uncomfortable under your all-encompassing man-blanket !

                GOD made me so much more than just an instinctive animal ! I happen to respect and love women and see women as equals, to be appreciated and wooed, not taken as property or dismissed as somehow less than myself. I reject your premise.

                • just a conservative girl 8:54 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                  Where exactly did I say all men? I was talking about two men. One who kept referring to her as buy a lick and another who heard in an elevator she is loose woman. That is hardly all men.

                  • SignPainterGuy 1:38 AM on 11/10/2011 Permalink | Reply

                    “No, it would be accurate to say that men are doing what men have doing forever.” (sic)

                    That would be the all-encompassing man-blanket.

                    “That is all you guy, all you.”

                    That was personal. I didn`t open the subject / “can-o-worms”, Politico`s reporter`s and this last woman / accuser did.

                    One simple, four letter word could have avoided the insult I felt, “some”, as in “some men”. OR, “too damn many” men, OR, “A frustratingly large number of” men. Anything to show that you realize that some of us men try to be Christian men.

                    I read your posts with interest and comment to share my opinion and hopefully, to encourage you to write more. I accept that you have medical issues that I credit for your many typos, but I take them in stride, giving every effort to take your story in the sense you intend.

                    I appreciate the same courtesy !

              • kerry 8:13 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                what is your outrage really about? are you saying women never lie about rape? really? and you seem very comfortable lumping all men together as brutes and neanderthals.

                • SignPainterGuy 8:20 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                  My point exactly ! Thank you !

                  • kerry 8:28 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                    you’re welcome. it’s just as wrong to lump all men into a category as it is women.

                • just a conservative girl 8:39 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                  My outrage is about the hypocrisy. The right still screams bloody murder about how the Clinton accusers were treated by the media and they turn around and do exactly the same thing to this woman.

                  I never said that women don’t lie about rape. I said calling her a slut shouldn’t be the first line of defense.

    • zillaoftheresistance 9:10 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know if those women are slutty or not and I DON’T CARE, but one of them has a history of causing trouble for former employers with false accusations and another has a history of filing all kinds of lawsuits – a career “victim”. That they come out NOW all these years later with these unprovable stories doesn’t make them ‘whores’ regardless of their sexual history, it makes them bitches, gold digging and/or attention seeking BITCHES. They are not credible and neither is the moron stream media. When I see a story in the NY Times or some other MSM entity about Obama’s murdered dead gay alleged lovers then maybe I will give a flying fig about something they allege about Herman Cain or any other Republican. Until that day comes, nothing they say is worth a tinker’s damn.

      • zillaoftheresistance 9:12 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Also, shouldn’t the fact that one of those bitches works for the Obama administration kind of cast a shadow on her credibility? How about the fact that these attacks are coming out of Chicago?

        • zillaoftheresistance 9:13 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

          That Bialek woman lived in David Axelrod’s building and is apparently friendly with him:

          • just a conservative girl 9:15 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

            I am not defending the woman. I am talking out about how she has been sexualized. The things you are bringing up are legitimate things to look into.

            • zillaoftheresistance 10:22 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

              I don’t listen to talk radio (radios are for me to find music I can sing along to) but are you sure the reference to ‘history’ explicitly meant sexual history? Could it not have mean these women’s histories of being litigious gold digging serial accusers who are well connected with prominent leftists? Those bitches do have histories that are not sexual in nature which completely undermines their credibility.

              • just a conservative girl 10:31 PM on 11/09/2011 Permalink | Reply

                Yes, there was more to the quote. Let’s put Herman and Sharon in the car at the same time and the roles may even have been reversed, given the track record here. That is about her sex life plain and simple.

  • Jill 12:22 PM on 04/16/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Rush, Trump   

    Rush and Trump 

    Something I don’t understand:

    I haven’t been able to figure out why we’re supposed to accept Trump as a conservative just because he says he is. Or why in the world anyone would want to replace one unqualified narcissist for another. Or why Rush Limbaugh keeps giving him airtime. It would be nice to have a capitalist in the Oval Office again, but surely we can do better than a blow-hard who lives for the spotlight.

    Does anyone understand why Rush, who rarely has guests on his show, is featuring Trump so prominently? He’s appeared on Rush’s show on two occasions that I know of. (At least Mark Levin is not buying what Trump is selling.)

    • fuzislippers 2:26 PM on 04/16/2011 Permalink | Reply

      No idea, but I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not buying what Trump is selling, either. I don’t care which conservative endorses him; he’s not for me.

      • just a conservative girl 12:16 AM on 04/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Rush likes stirring the pot with the birther crap. I am not sure he believes it, but he certainly isn’t opposed to using it.

        Have you noticed that most of the people who say they support Trump are big time birthers?

        • zillaoftheresistance 6:40 AM on 04/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

          I’m a “birther”. I don’t support Trump for president but I am glad that people are finally talking about Obama’s murky past after so many of us have been told to STFU for the past 3 years. It’s not just the BC, he’s had at least 2 different social security numbers, both of which came from dead people (identity theft is illegal, you know), he somehow was able to go to Pakistan at a time when Americans were not permitted to go there, if he was adopted by Lolo Soetero, as appears to be the case, when did he legally change his name to Barack Hussein Obama II, if he ever did? Where are his school records, medical records, anything? Why does nobody seem to remember knowing him in his distant past? There are people I went to kindergarten with who haven’t seen me since who I recently discovered still remember me and I remember all the kids I grew up with even if they were only around for a short time, why does nobody remember Lil’ Barry? If he has nothing to hide, why has he spent millions of dollars to keep anyone from seeing his records? Why is his campaign also financing the battle to keep his past locked away? Why are people who expect Obama to be subject to the same level of scrutiny that any other person in his position would be subject to considered crazy and stigmatized? He should have been properly vetted 3 years ago but nobody in either party bothered because the Alinsky machine was so very effective at destroying the reputations of anyone who asked even the simplest of questions that would be asked of any other candidate for public office, especially the most important office in the world!
          Of course his administration has been such an awful failure (unless the goal is to destroy America because then it’s remarkably successful) that there are so very many more issues that he needs to be hit over the head with repeatedly as the battle for 2012 approaches so I can understand why some folks think investigating his past is a distraction, but are we unable to multi-task? He needs to be hit over the head with everything we’ve got! EVERYTHING! Nothing should be off the table. This issue is hurting him now that one does not instantly become a pariah for bringing it up and anything that hurts Obama is a very good thing! Trump, whatever his motivation, is in a position to ask these questions so the people we’d actually like to see in the WH next won’t have to (although McCain should not have been such a sissy in 2008 – he lost not just because he’s a RINO but also because he was afraid to really fight to keep Barry from winning because at that time it was waaacist to treat the leper messiah the same as any other candidate would be treated).

          • just a conservative girl 4:53 PM on 04/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

            The thing about Pakistan is an urban legend. It is simply not true that American citizens couldn’t go to Pakistan at that time. It is an internet rumor that birthers keep repeating.
            many don’t release college transcripts. I will grant that the media finds ways to get them, but it isn’t uncommon. Palin didn’t release hers when she was on the ticket even when they were requested. Hillary didn’t release her thesis willingly.

            So much of the birther stuff is rumor and inuendo that won’t die. I really would like proof that he personally has spent millions to keep this stuff secret, I can’t find any. Yet these numbers persist.

            For most birthers God himself could come down and say he was born in Hawaii and they still wouldn’t believe it. The Clintons are the dirtiest players around. Do you really believe they would let this go? She didn’t run for president because she had nothing better to do. She wanted it badly. The amount of people who would have to be involved to cover this up is what makes too hard to believe.

            • SignPainterGuy 11:44 PM on 04/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

              I can understand your skepticism with the birther issues, there`s so much evidence that is mere conjecture, coincidental, supposition, circumstantial and things that make you go hmmmmm ! It`s those tidbits that can`t be refuted that sink O in my mind ! Like the interview from his `06 campaign for the senate where a reporter asks him, “Where were you born?” Without hesitation, O answers, “Kenya”. (If I can find the link, would you like to see it?) I`ll bet your familiar with Article 2, section 1 of the USConstitution, the requirments to become prez . The “Born of TWO parents who are citizens” part is the stickler here….no one argues that O`s Dad wasn`t Kenyan; nor do they argue that O Sr ever became a US citizen. I also have 2 links to the Kenyan Parliament that claim Barry as there own . There`s more.

              Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro (as well as other names) is not and can not be eligible to be our president !

              I am a birther for the same reason I am a Christian : I have seen too much evidence not to be !

              • just a conservative girl 1:30 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                The high court doesn’t agree with you on the meaning of natural born citizen. We have already had a president who had a father who was not a citizen when he was born. Arthur. There have been cases about citizenship both before and after the 14th ammendment. There is no way the court will rule he is not eligible on that basis. Not going to happen.

                Both Jindal and Rubio will be allowed to run even though their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth. While I agree that is what I gleened from reading the federalist papers, the court does not.

                Goldwater was born in Arizona, before it was a state. Romney (the elder) was actually born in Mexico to US parents and both were allowed to run.

                The only way he wouldn’t be eligible would be that he was born outside of the US. Then you have to add the republican governor of Hawaii in on it. Two different directors of the health department are in on it as well.

                • SignPainterGuy 1:46 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                  Yes, a huge number of people appear to be in on it.

                  The Supreme court got the separation of church and state out of a statement that IF read in plain English, means the state will stay out of the business of the church. So I personally take issue with a lib. leaning court`s decisions ! Art, 1, Sec. 2 is quite clear.

          • SignPainterGuy 11:56 PM on 04/17/2011 Permalink | Reply

            “It`s not just because he`s had at least 2 ss #s…”

            Hold onto your shirt………….try…at least 39 different ss #s ! And the one he`s currently using was issued in Conn. and belonged to a Frenchman (naturalized citizen) who died in `81 or `83. (from VA Patriot`s comments at Michelle Malkin.com and linked to his site !) You can let go of your shirt now. :-)

            • just a conservative girl 1:42 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

              Then that person lived a long time. The queen birther Orly has said that the it was originally given in a century ago. 1890 I believe is the year she said it was originally issued. The woman is nutjob that has been proven over and over again to have false and misleading information.

              This whole birther issue is no different that truthers. First there were no plane parts, then when you show them plane parts they are then planted.

              You are free to believe what you choose to believe. But this lie would have had to started when he was several weeks old. On the off chance that a bi racial child born before civil rights would grow up to be the president of the United States.

              Even WND says that the birth certificate he released was not a forgery and it is the standard document that the Hawaii issues.

              The birth certificate that I was reissued several years ago doesn’t look much different and I used it to give to the DMV.

              • SignPainterGuy 1:54 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                The story I was referring to is of a man who came to the US in the 20`s, as an adult, was issued the card some time in the `30s, and died in the early `80s. I don`t think Ms Tate was involved. I could be wrong. I`ll try to locate it tomorrow.

                FWIW, I`m not a truther ! But the Obummer docs, those in many cases were scrubbed in a mass movement in the last few years.

                • zillaoftheresistance 6:37 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                  What about Lolo Soetoro’s adoption of Barry? Barry’s legal name was Barry Soetoro when he went to school. When was it legally changed to Obama, if it was ever changed? Can legally adopted children become unadopted?

                  And I am not a truther. I am a New Yorker who still mourns the loss and devestation that islamic terrorists visited upon my friends and family on September 11, 2001.

                  I find it almost funny that the same people who bristle at being called “teabaggers” were so quick to adopt a slur invented by leftists to smear people who have legitimate questions about the man in the oval office who has the murkiest background in the history of our Republic. Shut up, birfers, just accept that there’s a guy with practically no past as your president now. Don’t ask questions, nobody needs to know anything about the guy running the country!

                  • fuzislippers 6:49 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                    I don’t think that’s at all what JACG is saying.

                    I think that there are certainly questions that need answering. Some things just don’t add up. He’s a genius “scholar” who’s never, not once, published any academic papers? Never presented a paper at a conference? How’d he get to be editor of the Harvard Review with no publications, no academic credentials at all? This makes zero sense to me (as someone who knows the pressure to “publish or perish” in academia, I find it completely inconceivable that anyone who was such a “star” never published so much as a book review). I can guarantee this is why he was only a lecturer at UChicago and not tenure-track, or after 10 years there, a professor.

                    How did he pay for his education? Did he get loans and/or grants? And if so, on what basis? (In other words, there may actually be something on the birth certificate that he doesn’t want known because it points to defrauding the federal government or something less serious, but still damning.)

                    I’d also like to know why both he and his wife no longer have licenses to practice law.

                    There’s valid reason to be curious about what’s in his background, on his birth certificate, in his records. No one is telling you to shut up, Zilla :)

                    • just a conservative girl 7:58 AM on 04/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

                      Those are the questions I would like to have answers to. My theory on his college transcripts is that he used affirmative action to get into school and his grades will show that he didn’t deserve to get into Harvard. I had a 3.99 GPA and scored 1490 on my SAT’s and I didn’t get accepted so I firmly believe that getting into Harvard has little relation to your grades. I applied to 10 schools, 9 offered me scholarships and Harvard offered me the door.

                      There is no reason to doubt that he was born in Hawaii other than Berg and Orly saying so.

                      Had he been born in Kenya he would have had to have all of this put in place before he started to run and had all kinds of people willing to go along with the cover up. If it came out it would have ruined his political career as well. Is it really possible that every person he approached was willing? Because no one has talked. They all would have to go along. That is a big leap.

                      Do I believe that a birth certificate should be part of the process of filing to run for president? Yes, but it isn’t.

                      • zillaoftheresistance 2:27 PM on 04/18/2011 Permalink

                        I never said I thought he was born in Kenya. But you both bring up questions that have earned other people the label “birthers” regardless of where they may think Barry was born. So there, you’re birthers too, because that’s what they call ANYBODY who questions his highly questionable past.
                        Can anybody tell me when he legally changed his name to Obama from Soetoro?

  • Jill 1:09 PM on 04/21/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Rush   

    Legal Insurrection gets Limbaugh-lanche 

    I turned my car radio on today and what did I hear but Rush Limbaugh reading this post by one of our favorite bloggers:

    There are few remaining entities which can stand up to the overweening encroachment of the federal government.

    Taking down the leading, and in many ways last remaining, Wall Street powerhouse will remove yet another center of private industry power.

    The serial removal of centers of power outside the federal government in Washington, D.C. is a worrisome trend which becomes more difficult to reverse as the dominoes fall.

    Don’t wish too hard for the demise of Goldman Sachs. Because Goldman Sachs is not the end game.

    RTR. Congratulations to Prof. Jacobson, a smart blogger (and nice guy) who adds valuable analysis to the news. (I wonder how many hits you get from a Limbaugh-lanche?)

    • rubyslipperblog 1:14 PM on 04/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I commented over there when I heard Rush, though under the wrong post. I was so excited. I am sure we are going to get an estimate from the good professor on what a Limbaugh-lanche is worth in traffic.

    • Quite Rightly 5:36 PM on 04/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I heard it too. Which was a lot of fun. Jacobson has been a supportive cyber-friend to this humble blogger.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc