Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

67 Responses

  1. j swift
    j swift June 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm |

    I once knew of an alcoholic that found Jesus and became a zealot fundie activist (busybody). I figured he was just changing addictions. Maybe Rushbo has too.

  2. Thomas
    Thomas June 27, 2006 at 4:53 pm |

    From the paper Zuzu linked, it appears that we know that the Nice Guy(TM) evolves into:

    But then situational abusers of under-age prostitutes often voice the same kind of self piteous narcissism (western women refuse them access to what they ‘need’ sexually, they prefer ‘jerks’, they ruin them financially through divorce settlements, etc.).

    Having read some of that paper, I now need to shower. With Lysol.

  3. nik
    nik June 27, 2006 at 5:06 pm |

    Perhaps he just wanted to have a wank?

  4. Ack Ack Ack Ack
    Ack Ack Ack Ack June 27, 2006 at 5:13 pm |

    I really wouldn’t be surprised to learn Rush is a pedarast. We already know he gets off on his power-trip of a radio show.

  5. Qusan
    Qusan June 27, 2006 at 5:51 pm |

    This total reject of a jerk at my job who was obviously inept at dating in America went off to the Philippenes and bought (well, he brokered a deal with her parents) and bought a child-like wife. For a while, she would spend every afternoon sitting in our cold kitchen/breakroom staring into space. It irritated the heck out of me hearing that “baby” voice reverberating all afternoon. But someone else got just as fed up, complained about it and he was told she couldn’t come in anymore. (We don’t have daycare for kids. Definitely not purchased brides). He tries to get into conversations with the other guys who have “real” wives but he always ends up sounding wierd. He creeps the hell out of me and I think he even creeps out the men.

  6. Kate AuH2O
    Kate AuH2O June 27, 2006 at 6:08 pm |

    I just read “Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl” and was feeling pretty pro-prostitution. But this post sure puts things in perspective.

  7. ew
    ew June 27, 2006 at 6:16 pm |

    Limbaugh joked about the search on his radio show Tuesday, saying Customs officials didn’t believe him when he said he got the pills at the Clinton Library and he was told they were blue M&Ms. He later added, chuckling: “I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it.”

  8. Natalia
    Natalia June 27, 2006 at 6:24 pm |

    The sex trade is such a huge tragedy, involving millions of lives, and billions in cash. And for as long as rich, callous perverts are allowed access to poor women and men, it will continue.

    Exile.Ru is a website where men routinely brag about buying women for pleasure. It’s gruesome. Someone needs to declare a flame-war on these assholes.

  9. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm |

    “(I) love the Latin lifestyle: one wife and as many girlfriends as you can handle….”

    If that’s not racist, it’s close enough to borrow racist’s ID.

  10. Esme
    Esme June 27, 2006 at 8:29 pm |

    What escapes me is why they brag about how many women they’ve “nailed,” as if they’re not paying for this. I mean, it’s a canned bird hunt. There’s nothing to be proud of when you pay for sex and you get what you paid for. It’s a simple business transaction. The prostitute is not your wife, or your girlfriend, and there’s a damn good chance she wouldn’t have fucked you if her livelihood weren’t involved.

    Sounds a lot like someone who describes himself as a hunter when what he means is he gets drunk and shoots tame quail.

  11. jack larkin
    jack larkin June 27, 2006 at 10:10 pm |

    Talk about adding 2+2 and getting 5. Last I heard Rush was dating a CNN commentator of all people. If someone said this about a democrat politician you’d be ranting on about smearing him etc.

  12. kate
    kate June 27, 2006 at 10:27 pm |

    Other highlights for those who didn’t have time to read the 31 page report, or Rush’s comments about his ‘trip’:

    Interviews with sex tourists,

    They let you do things here an American girl’d never dream of doing. I can’t even say to you what they let you do. You’d be shocked, really its shocking what they’ll do just to please you…they’ll even let you beat them and they get excited. It turns them on.”

    “Sometimes, Mr. Jones went on, 10 years old come down from the mountains, and when they’re all dressed up you can’t really tell, they look 16 when they’re all dressed up.”

    and another who comments that he sees himself helpless to act on his moral outrage at tourists, while enjoying young women himself describes

    “An American sex tourist describes witnessing a German sex tourist trying to drag a young boy out of a bar and how the child was desperately resisting, crying and attempting to hide under a table. The American was so disturbed by this that he went and asked a Dominican standing nearby what was going on. The Dominican told he was with the German who had already paid for him.”

    Rush says of his trip

    Limbaugh joked about the search on his radio show Tuesday, saying Customs officials didn’t believe him when he said he got the pills at the Clinton Library and he was told they were blue M&Ms. He later added, chuckling: “I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it.”

    Let an asshole speak and all you have to do is listen to find all the answers you need.

  13. j swift
    j swift June 28, 2006 at 12:21 am |

    Jack, if a democrat politician got on the air most everyday and tried to blow smoke up everyone’s ass about his talent on loan from God and his moral superiority I would be calling him a hypocritical fuck too.

  14. scott
    scott June 28, 2006 at 1:14 am |

    Perhaps he just wanted to have a wank?
    -and conversely “perhaps” you’re just a wanker?
    Maybe the idea of some sweaty,fat white git flush with money and power who enjoys abusing 3rd world children for his own panting sexual gratification strikes you as funny?Twit.

  15. raging red
    raging red June 28, 2006 at 2:03 am |

    I think Nik meant, perhaps he just wanted to jerk off.

  16. raging red
    raging red June 28, 2006 at 2:05 am |

    Which wouldn’t require a solo trip to the Dominican Republic. He probably does that while he’s on the radio.

  17. Mark
    Mark June 28, 2006 at 3:23 am |

    It is, of course, one thing to giggle with schadenfreude at the detention of one of the most famous and eloquent voices of the “enemy” (conservatives).

    It is quite another thing to use innuendo to accuse the possessor of that voice of some heinous conduct, based in part on the unsubstantiated comments of a former blogger who suggests that Mr. Limbaugh had been “on a Third-World sex tour.”

  18. amyc
    amyc June 28, 2006 at 6:12 am |

    Oh, Mark, cry me a river for poor, heinous-innuendo-bedeviled Rush Limbaugh, inventor of the modern heinous innuendo (“Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hilary Clinton” — ring a bell?). We’re merely hoisting him on his own petard, as it were.

    Odds are he was using that Viagra for something down in the DR. He’s not married, he traveled alone, and Viagra is a “special occasion” medication — not something one would need to take every day (like BC pills). Why would he need an erect penis if he were, say, just lounging on the beach and reading the Bible?

    As Peggy Noonan once said, “Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.”

    Love,
    amyc, former blogger who is tickled pink to have been quoted by such a great site

  19. Ack Ack Ack Ack
    Ack Ack Ack Ack June 28, 2006 at 6:54 am |

    It is, of course, one thing to giggle with schadenfreude at the detention of one of the most famous and eloquent voices of the “enemy” (conservatives).

    You forgot disingenuous.

    It is quite another thing to use innuendo to accuse the possessor of that voice of some heinous conduct, based in part on the unsubstantiated comments of a former blogger who suggests that Mr. Limbaugh had been “on a Third-World sex tour.”

    Why would any single older man go to the DR with a bottle of Viagra? It’s not really a destination hotspot otherwise.

  20. ginmar
    ginmar June 28, 2006 at 8:07 am |

    God, if there’s anything more pathetic than guys boasting about canned hunts, it’s dittoheads getting offended that Rush is getting what he dishes out.

  21. Thomas
    Thomas June 28, 2006 at 9:09 am |

    Limbaugh is a pustule. His defenders should be keel-hauled on an aircraft carrier. If you show up defending that asshole, nobody here cares what you think.

  22. nik
    nik June 28, 2006 at 10:18 am |

    After a brief look at the Pfizer marketing website it’s clear I was deeply misguided in my comment above. It’s clearly not possible for a mere onanist to exploit this drug in order to further his own debasement. The only people who gain any benefit from Viagra are big studs who are going to be getting loads.

    I fear I’ve made myself look silly. The idea that an unmarried, Christian, older man, who travels alone on holiday could ever wish to retire to his hotel room for a sly wank is just preposterous. I feel ashamed that I could even conceive of such a possibility. If that sicko wasn’t using these drugs so that his artificially blood-engorged phallus could be used on a vile kiddie-raping expedition, then what was he using them for? I think we need to be told.

  23. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 28, 2006 at 10:50 am |

    I think that amyc’s speculation, as speculation, is valuable. I’m glad somebody pointed this out. If nothing else, it’s made me (and others, presumably) more aware of some of the problems in the DR.

    On the other hand.

    Given that it’s likely that few feminists think highly of Limbaugh, I wonder why Thomas needs to start getting so violent in his language as regards people (like Mark) who suggest that maybe these speculations don’t carry much weight. Is suggesting that amyc might be wrong in some way defending Limbaugh? I don’t think so, anymore than standing up to Senator McCarthy makes one a communist (hopefully amyc will forgive my analogy–she isn’t, of course, anything like McCarthy; I just saw “Good Night, and Good Luck” the other night, so that’s the first ‘poisoning the well’ example is the first that comes to mind). Limbaugh is a pustule, Thomas, but that doesn’t mean that he’s a guy who goes to the DR to have sex with children; it also doesn’t mean that suggesting he may not have gone to the DR to have sex with children means one thinks he’s not a pustule.

    Does going to the DR with a bottle of Viagra (which isn’t yours!) mean that you like having sex with children? Nope. Is it suspicious, worth speculating about? I think so. But here’s some more speculation, as a reaction to something else amyc said in these comments:
    “Why would any single older man go to the DR with a bottle of Viagra? It’s not really a destination hotspot otherwise.”
    First off, there are lots of reasons to go to DR, apparently, from a glance at Wikipedia. Secondly: What does being single and older have to do with it? Single people have sex; old(er) people have sex. And it’s likely that Limbaugh carries a bottle of viagra with him wherever he goes, in the hopes of getting some–and he probably takes it on vacation with him because he’s more likely to meet women in another country who don’t know who he is, and is thus more likely to get laid.

    Do any of my speculations mean that we know why Limbaugh went to the DR, or what he did there? Nope. But it seems to me that making speculations that Limbaugh may have hoped for a hook up while on vacation that had nothing to do with prostitution or children ought not warrant being keel-hauled on an aircraft carrier, as Thomas puts it.

    (And all of this ignores the fact that Limbaugh, who presumably puts forth all sorts of ‘conservative values’, ought not be having sex out of wedlock anyway and such. There are lots of things that he can be called out on, of course, short of being a man who likes to have sex with children.)

  24. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 28, 2006 at 10:53 am |

    I screwed up, and attributed what Ack Ack Ack said as something amyc said. My apologies to all involved. :(

  25. Ack Ack Ack Ack
    Ack Ack Ack Ack June 28, 2006 at 11:02 am |

    Wait, so Jeff, are you agreeing with my insinuation that being a pedarast is somehow worse than having sex with an under-aged female prostitute? Because that was totally tongue-in-cheek.

  26. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 28, 2006 at 11:22 am |

    Ack Ack Ack Ack–
    Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Really.

    I didn’t think I was addressing comparisons between being a pedarast and being a person who has sex with under-aged female prostitutes at all. I quoted your question (which I mistakenly attributed to amyc–again, apologies to both of you) about why else would Limbaugh to to the DR but to have sex with underage prostitutes. Presumably, that wasn’t tongue in cheek.

  27. Ack Ack Ack Ack
    Ack Ack Ack Ack June 28, 2006 at 11:23 am |

    he probably takes it on vacation with him because he’s more likely to meet women in another country who don’t know who he is, and is thus more likely to get laid.

    Uhh. Ignoring prostitution, he’s more likely to get laid because he’s a rich white guy in a poor country. Don’t project your Western world-view onto these women. There is a wealth of ethnographic data about women in tourist-dependent countries erringly, though understandably, believing they can meet and marry some white guy as a means of escaping poverty. It’s utterly racist and reprehensible.

  28. ginmar
    ginmar June 28, 2006 at 11:29 am |

    Well, after all, it’s not like Rushy boy has a history of being a woman-hating, sexist asshole. Nor of lying or being a hypocrite and not being able to stay married. Nope, no reason to suspect the lying fucker at all.

  29. Thomas
    Thomas June 28, 2006 at 1:21 pm |

    Jeff, Mark gets the back of my hand. Here’s what he said:

    one of the most famous and eloquent voices of the “enemy” (conservatives).

    So he’s obviously a fan of the pustule and an enemy of the readership of this blog. Sure, it’s ad hominem to reject his arguments because of who he is, but while that’s a logical fallacy, it is a screening mechanism most of us use all the time.

    If somebody who we know says, “hey, I don’t like him either, but that’s a bit of a leap,” I think most of us will concede that there is nothing here but preliminary speculation. But we’re not here to mollify our ideological enemies. He’s asking us not to kick Mr. “White House Dog” (no, I’ll never forgive that) when he’s down. He can go fuck himself.

  30. eteraz
    eteraz June 28, 2006 at 1:32 pm |

    we should be aware that classist exploitation of women is rampant around the world.

    not only that, but tunisia is a hot spot for numerous european men going there for the male sex trade.

    so its not just limited to conservatives. i imagine that there are ‘liberals’ and ‘greens’ and ‘marxists’ amongst those going to northern africa.

    we should look at the broader problem instead of identifying who is more or less wont to do stuff like this.

  31. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 28, 2006 at 1:47 pm |

    Uhh. Ignoring prostitution, he’s more likely to get laid because he’s a rich white guy in a poor country. Don’t project your Western world-view onto these women.–Ack

    I was speaking specifically of Limbaugh–what woman who knew who he was would have sex wtih him? And in this case I was referring to him on vacation anywhere that people didn’t know who he was, for that reason. I wasn’t saying anything about ‘women in a poor county’–I was talking about ‘women who don’t know who Limbaugh is’.

    I see your (implied) point, however, that it’s likely Limbaugh chose the DR if he was hoping to get laid while on vacation because he might think he’s got a better chance being rich…who knows what he’s thinking.

  32. Shannon H.
    Shannon H. June 28, 2006 at 1:50 pm |

    If somebody who we know says, “hey, I don’t like him either, but that’s a bit of a leap,” I think most of us will concede that there is nothing here but preliminary speculation. But we’re not here to mollify our ideological enemies.

    Put me in the “a bit of a leap” camp. I don’t know that it’s beyond Limbaugh to sleep with teenage (or younger) prostitutes, simply because I don’t know him. Neither do any of us.

    I just get nervous when liberal/anti-Bush folks start using the same smear techniques as Limbaugh and other bad guys.

  33. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 28, 2006 at 1:58 pm |

    Thomas–
    I am likely just incredibly naive–I didn’t read Mark that way. I assumed he was using ‘eloquent’ in some sarcastic sort of way; I see though, that it’s entirely possible he was being sincere, and as such, it’s much more likely he’s ‘the enemy’. I thought he was saying “hey, I don’t like him either, but that’s a bit of a leap,” or something like it, but I appreciate you pointing out that is perhaps a poor assumption on my part. And if you want to discount what he says as a screening mechanism without examining it, fine. How about what I’ve said? I’m not Limbaugh fan, despite what you might think, and I think speculation about his motives ought to include various possibilities, including that he’s a complete creep and evil but perhaps not a pedophile/supporter of child prostitution.

    Also, I’m not sure what everybody else feels–and you may not care at all, but I, for one, don’t appreciate your use of physically violent terminology when addressing those you disagree with, even if you’re just dismissing them instead of arguing with ‘em. “Back of my hand” sort of language isn’t welcome by me, just so you know; I think it smacks of priveledge and patriarchy, especially coming from a man.

  34. Dilan Esper
    Dilan Esper June 28, 2006 at 2:02 pm |

    Remember, also, that Limbaugh is an advocate of the Administration’s abstinence education programs, which teach that ALL unmarried people (not just teenagers) should abstain from having sex. By that moral standard, which he espouses and which many of his more religiously conservative listeners claim to believe in, Limbaugh shouldn’t have a bottle of Viagra with him at all, unless he was planning on a quickie marriage down in the D.R.

  35. Terry
    Terry June 28, 2006 at 2:12 pm |

    “i imagine that there are ‘liberals’ and ‘greens’ and ‘marxists’ amongst those going to northern africa.”

    Not this Liberal, ever. I spent 4.5 years in the Navy, including three tours to Vietnam, and spent a lot of time in “Navy towns” with sexual services available for very cheap.

    I’m not religious, and I am very heterosexual, but I never touched a bar girl or a prostitute. I thought then, and still think now, that the economic disparity argument is overwhelming.

    I don’t, in fact, understand men who can do that and actually enjoy it.

  36. Thomas
    Thomas June 28, 2006 at 2:47 pm |

    Jeff, I see your point about “back of my hand,” specifically, though I have no intention of avoiding violent metaphors.

    As for Limbaugh, all we have right now is a bottle of viagra and a theory: not much evidence. If it stays that way, the speculation goes nowhere, but if the speculation spurs someone to look closer and something comes out that underlines the possibility, then so much the better.

    About Mark, I thought the subtext was clear. He called Limbaugh eloquent, which nobody on our side believes. He called him “Mr. Limbaugh.” He put “the enemy” in scare-quotes to hold it at arm’s length, showing that he was not adopting our characterization, and then put “conservatives” in parentheses — something that was unnecessary unless he wanted to further underline his disagreement with out characterization. If he’s on our side, he’s engaging in General-level irony, with not a single sideways glance to indicate to the audience that he’s being ironic. But nothing he said was over-the-top enough to be parody, which is what makes the General (or any parody) funny. On top of that, we have no idea who he is. I can’t recall seeing him before and he leaves no link, so we have no extrinsic evidence from which to draw a conclusion that his actual meaning differs from his literal meaning.

    I infer that he got a link to this blog’s mention of Limbaugh, and like a good dittohead, he rushed out (PTP) the “no evidence of that” talking point; here, and probably elsewhere.

  37. j swift
    j swift June 28, 2006 at 4:06 pm |

    It is obvious that that Rushbo did not go to DR to have sex with young girls or older prostitutes because it is obvious that Rushbo is such a stud that he wouldn’t have to pay (even though he has a lot of it). It is also obvious that he did not go chase women and girls because he is obviously a pious and moral man. He is, at present unmarried and would not commit something as pedestrian as fornication. Finally, he did not go to jerk off, because this to is morally repugnant to such a great man.

    why did he have Viagra with him?

    Well, the answer to that is quite clear. Bird watching is very popular in DR and Rushbo needed some place to hang his camera so that it would not get tangled with his binoculars.

  38. Thomas
    Thomas June 28, 2006 at 5:16 pm |

    See, now that’s good satire.

  39. rosie
    rosie June 28, 2006 at 5:27 pm |

    of course rush can get laid in this country, i’m sure there’s PLENTY of dim witted conservative sluts who would throw themselves at the fat fuck, if given the opportunity. but it seems to be that the higher the “moral superiority”, the sicker the fetish is under the surface. rush just wanted to get his sick kiddie prostitute fetish off without (hopefully) getting caught by the overly ambitious american paparazzi around every corner with hungry fangs. he’s just a dumb ass for not getting rid of the evidence before getting on a place, probably too fucked up to remember they were in his pocket. i mean seriously, blue M&M’s??????? not everyone is retarded enough to listen to your show or believe you rush.

  40. ginmar
    ginmar June 28, 2006 at 6:01 pm |

    I love it how his defenders act like inventing the word ‘feminazi,’ calling twelve-year-old Chelsea Clinton the white house dog, and a long history of hateful statements don’t indicate that Rushy has trouble with women.

  41. Antigone
    Antigone June 28, 2006 at 7:07 pm |

    Rosie, be careful throwing the word “Slut” around. It’s a very gendered insult. And seriously, we all know Rush is fat, but seriously what does that have to be with him being a hateful, spewing moron?

  42. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax June 28, 2006 at 9:23 pm |

    I think Nik meant, perhaps he just wanted to jerk off.

    People resort to Viagra to jerk off? That’s serious desperation, there.

    After all, he’s very likely violated his plea deal and he could be looking at doing time.

    For possession of Viagra? Since you’re a lawyer and I’m not, I’ll take your word for it, but that sounds like a disturbing law.

    Unless you mean he’d be doing time for raping an underage prostitute in the DR.

  43. Hattie
    Hattie June 28, 2006 at 10:15 pm |

    Yes, let us not stoop to calling Rush a big fat idiot, for instance.
    I think all this does is to confirm him and his audience in those notions of superiority with which they disguise their mediocrity from themselves, each other, and the rest of us. Conservative guys have lousy morals and figure that liberals are too dumb to figure that out. Hence Rush’s sniggering about what he was up to in the DR. His audience admires this sort of thing. He’s getting away with it, which is practically the conservative credo.
    The world is full of manic losers like Rush, and in him they have found their voice.Obviously, his judgment is way off and he’s on a death trip. He looks terrible. But I feel sorrier for anyone who has to have sex with him.

  44. Mark
    Mark June 29, 2006 at 1:33 am |

    Jeff, I see your point about “back of my hand,” specifically, though I have no intention of avoiding violent metaphors.

    I’m not terribly concerned about your use or nonuse of violent metaphors. I’ve met plenty of Internet tough guys. I have yet to be intimidated by any of them. Nor have I ever been afraid to punch back.

    As for Limbaugh, all we have right now is a bottle of viagra and a theory: not much evidence.

    Correct.

    If it stays that way, the speculation goes nowhere, but if the speculation spurs someone to look closer and something comes out that underlines the possibility, then so much the better.

    It’s still speculation. Somehow, I doubt law enforcement officials are looking at blogs like this one to develop their investigatory or prosecutorial strategies.

    About Mark, I thought the subtext was clear. He called Limbaugh eloquent, which nobody on our side believes. He called him “Mr. Limbaugh.” He put “the enemy” in scare-quotes to hold it at arm’s length, showing that he was not adopting our characterization, and then put “conservatives” in parentheses — something that was unnecessary unless he wanted to further underline his disagreement with out characterization. If he’s on our side, he’s engaging in General-level irony, with not a single sideways glance to indicate to the audience that he’s being ironic. But nothing he said was over-the-top enough to be parody, which is what makes the General (or any parody) funny. On top of that, we have no idea who he is. I can’t recall seeing him before and he leaves no link, so we have no extrinsic evidence from which to draw a conclusion that his actual meaning differs from his literal meaning.

    You post a lot of words to say very little. Where is your link? To what extrinsic evidence of your own positions do you point?

    You also seem to be claiming to speak for many people. Where is your support for such claims? Notice that not all commenters here are agreeing with your statements.

    I infer that he got a link to this blog’s mention of Limbaugh, and like a good dittohead, he rushed out (PTP) the “no evidence of that” talking point; here, and probably elsewhere.

    You infer incorrectly. For one thing, I saw this blog’s mention of Rush Limbaugh’s troubles at the airport right here, at this very blog. For another thing, I have not posted elsewhere about this issue. Further, I’m no dittohead; I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.

    For what it’s worth, I am not a fan of Mr. Limbaugh. I don’t dislike him either. We can certainly differ about his eloquence or lack thereof, but that is at best a side issue.

    I posted a statement of my concerns about what I consider to be idle, reckless speculation about Limbaugh’s activities while he was in the Dominican Republic. You wasted little time in starting your personal attacks upon me. If you want to point out examples of groupthink, you would do well to mention the numerous commenters here who are effectively saying, “Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He most likely went to the DR to engage in sex with underage prostitutes.” That is not logical.

    If you want to trade personal attacks, I’m game. Hell, I’m more than game. However, out of respect for this blog, let’s take it to e-mail. You can contact me at the following address.

    mrkzarate@yahoo.com

  45. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 7:28 am |

    Does anyone else find neutrality in a decidely non-neutral situation, of a man who’s made hatred his success story, extremely disturbing? You don’t like him, yet you don’t dislike him. I don’t see how it’s possible to be neutral about someone who’s been so incredibly non-neutral all his life.

  46. Mark
    Mark June 29, 2006 at 8:02 am |

    Does anyone else find neutrality in a decidely non-neutral situation, of a man who’s made hatred his success story, extremely disturbing? You don’t like him, yet you don’t dislike him. I don’t see how it’s possible to be neutral about someone who’s been so incredibly non-neutral all his life.

    I do not have to dislike Rush Limbaugh any more than I have to like him. Why do you call this a “decidedly non-neutral situation”? As I suspect is the case with most individuals, some people like him, others dislike him, and still others are neutral. I am in the last category. The world is not a black-and-white, polarized space; it is rich with many colors and nuances.

  47. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 8:41 am |

    My point–which you appear to be dodging—is that Rush is not a neutral person. He does not say neutral things. In fact, he says hateful things. How can one possibly be neutral about such a person?

  48. Thomas
    Thomas June 29, 2006 at 9:17 am |

    I’m not terribly concerned about your use or nonuse of violent metaphors.

    I wasn’t talking to you, Mark. I was addressing Jeff’s concern, because I care what Jeff thinks. Not so you.

  49. Mark
    Mark June 29, 2006 at 9:19 am |

    My point–which you appear to be dodging—

    Time out, ginmar! Stop it right now. You have all sorts of anger and hostility in you. DO NOT direct that to me.

    is that Rush is not a neutral person. He does not say neutral things. In fact, he says hateful things. How can one possibly be neutral about such a person?

    You are telling me I must have an opinion about Rush Limbaugh. You are way out of line here. I do not have to have a positive or negative opinion about anyone if I don’t want do, and you are in absolutely no position to demand that I have one. Whether someone says hateful things is irrelevant. I have no obligation to hate anyone. You say many hateful things about men. I do not yet have a negative opinion of you. However, if you persist in telling me how I must feel, that could change.

    You may be able to bully other people in the blogosphere, but it will NOT work with me. Understood?

  50. Jill
    Jill June 29, 2006 at 9:24 am | *

    Time out, ginmar! Stop it right now. You have all sorts of anger and hostility in you. DO NOT direct that to me.

    Now, I’m just a casual observer here, but Ginmar’s comment didn’t seem particularly hostile to me. In fact, as far as I can tell, you’re the one using exclamation points, italics and capital letters.

  51. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 9:58 am |

    So let me get this straight. Mark doesn’t have an opinion about a famous misogynist like Limbaugh, but he does have an opinion about something he can’t possibly know.

    My point, Mark, remains the same and remains simple: You’re not fooling anybody claiming to be neutral, nad your outburst was proof.

  52. Mark
    Mark June 29, 2006 at 10:23 am |

    So let me get this straight. Mark doesn’t have an opinion about a famous misogynist like Limbaugh, but he does have an opinion about something he can’t possibly know.

    I have an opinion about the speculation that started this thread. That is germane to the discussion. Your repeated attempts to demand that I have some other opinion are entirely off-topic.

    My point, Mark, remains the same and remains simple: You’re not fooling anybody claiming to be neutral, nad your outburst was proof.

    You must be talking about your own repeated baiting. Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time than to argue with rabid misandrists like you.

    If my daring to stand up to you draws further demands that I “settle down” or gets me banned from this site, then so be it. Of course, if that’s the case, I am confident that none of the powers that be will take you to task for your harassment.

  53. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    You’re daring to stand up to me? God, you don’t get out much.

  54. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    Oh, wait, never mind: rabid misandrist is the sure sign of a troll.

  55. jt
    jt June 29, 2006 at 12:16 pm |

    Ho boy. Look, I’m not going to claim to be “neutral” about Limbaugh – I think he’s about as much of an asswipe as, well, any right-wing talking head. But accusing the guy of banging child prostitutes on the grounds that he had some Viagra in his carry-on? A bit flimsy of a case, don’t you think? You might think he deserves it because of horrible things he’s said about Chelsea Clinton or whatever, but, y’know … that doesn’t make it true.

  56. ginmar
    ginmar June 29, 2006 at 12:40 pm |

    JT, as people have said several times, Rush Limbaugh has done and said many things to lead people to have good reason to distrust him. Now he’s violated his parole. He hasn’t earned trust.

  57. Tapetum
    Tapetum June 29, 2006 at 5:51 pm |

    Mark, side me in with Ginmar here. Even if you’ve never heard Rush Limbaugh speak a word, you know, just from reading these comments that he has publicly insulted a twelve-year-old girl, violated his parole, and carries a drug specifically intended for sexual purposes, despite his public support for a world in which sex is only available within marriage – and he’s not married.

    To proclaim absolute neutrality towards Mr. Limbaugh under those circumstances bespeaks an apathy so breath-taking as to leave me flabbergasted. You’re not required to hate him. I don’t particularly hate him myself. I’m just not into hating people. But I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, and a little speculation as to what use he was putting those drugs he put so much effort into obtaining (you’re not going to convince me that his doctor forced them on him, nor came up with the second-person labelling scheme without prompting), seems perfectly appropriate to me. Speculation is not the same as conviction.

  58. Mark
    Mark June 29, 2006 at 6:15 pm |

    To proclaim absolute neutrality towards Mr. Limbaugh under those circumstances bespeaks an apathy so breath-taking as to leave me flabbergasted.

    To call it “absolute neutrality” is probably overstating the matter a bit; however, feel free to call me “apathetic.”

    You’re not required to hate him. I don’t particularly hate him myself. I’m just not into hating people. But I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him,

    Ginmar apparently doesn’t believe others ought to have such freedom of choice concerning their discernment about people. If one disagrees with ginmar, one may be quickly labeled as a “dittohead,” a “troll,” or someone who, uhm, doesn’t “get out much.” She’s certainly entitled to her opinion of me, but I hope you’re not mistaking such ranting for rational argument.

    and a little speculation as to what use he was putting those drugs he put so much effort into obtaining (you’re not going to convince me that his doctor forced them on him, nor came up with the second-person labelling scheme without prompting), seems perfectly appropriate to me. Speculation is not the same as conviction.

    Speculation need not be the same as conviction to be unfair.

    I began my first comment on this thread with a mild complaint about rejoicing at another’s suffering. Let’s not forget that as yet another problem with this thread.

  59. Ack Ack Ack Ack
    Ack Ack Ack Ack June 29, 2006 at 6:33 pm |

    You’re not really saying that Rush is suffering because of this incident, are you?

    And frankly, the insinuation that I’m rejoicing over speculation that Rush visits Third-World child prostitutes is utterly insulting.

  60. ginmar
    ginmar June 30, 2006 at 4:31 am |

    Behold the power of the poor beleagured white boy. Anything less than sympathy and complete nonjudgementalism is taken as an attack. Betcha Mark doesn’t go around defending feminists from dittoheads.

Comments are closed.