'Sluts' Unite Against Republicans, Rush Limbaugh

[vienna]

http://news.yahoo.com/sluts-unite-against-republicans-rush-limbaugh-100132902--abc-news-politics.html

Ah, that Rush, working hard to bring Americans together... :DL

...

[AVGWarhawk]

Some people have a lot of time on their hands. Wonder if there will be a calender sporting pictures of the participants?

[vienna]

Some people have a lot of time on their hands. Wonder if there will be a calender sporting pictures of the participants?

Just pray that Rush doesn't do a swimsuit calendar... :DL

...

[gimpy117]

I can see how the group name is a little whimsical and silly, But they make a good point. it seems like to me that the GOP has been pandering to the religious right, and in the process been poised to mount a full scale war on reproductive rights.

[Ducimus]

Hilarious. I'd be more amused though if they took the word slut, and made an acronym out of it. Without an acronym, it just lacks a literary, and symbolic...... punch.

[Sailor Steve]

You're living in Utah now. Haven't you seen the T-shirts that say SL,UT?

[Ducimus]

You're living in Utah now. Haven't you seen the T-shirts that say SL,UT?

:har: nope, I sure haven't. I guess i spend too much time in "Happy Valley". I've only been to SL, like twice, and both times it was to see the lights at temple square. I'm pretty sure that city block is an extension of happy valley in and of itself.

[AVGWarhawk]

Just pray that Rush doesn't do a swimsuit calendar... :DL

...

Oh the visuals :-?

[Platapus]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would listen to him these days. He used to be funny back in the 80's when he did comedy.

But he has no education and no experience in public policy or political analysis.. but people listen to him like he was some pundit? :doh:

It confuses me.

[vienna]

But he has no education and no experience in public policy or political analysis.. but people listen to him like he was some pundit? :doh:

It confuses me.


Beats the hell out of me, too. There are a lot of these so-clled "pundits" of all political stripes who have very, very little or no education or empirical experience who seem to dominate the minds of people who can't seem to see beyond the hyperbole and question just what gives them any bona fides to speak authoritatively on matters that should not be left to the whims of "entertainers"...

...

[Ducimus]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would listen to him these days. He used to be funny back in the 80's when he did comedy.

But he has no education and no experience in public policy or political analysis.. but people listen to him like he was some pundit? :doh:

It confuses me.

Beats the hell out of me, too. There are a lot of these so-clled "pundits" of all political stripes who have very, very little or no education or empirical experience who seem to dominate the minds of people who can't seem to see beyond the hyperbole and question just what gives them any bona fides to speak authoritatively on matters that should not be left to the whims of "entertainers"...

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o-fxjuwEvA

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh the hilarity of it all...

How many of you actually read the article? Did ya miss the part that says only 30% of women think that there is an attack on reproductive rights? Yep - 3 out of 10 - which is about the same number of women out of 10 that currently register democrat. It used to be as high as 4 out of 10, but more and more of both genders are registering (or reregistering) independant.

So basically this was an article that said that women who are democrats feel they are under attack by evil republicans, and the other 70% of women are actually sane, educated and know better.

I bet you also missed that 60% of women said that they don't care about this topic and would prefer politicians talk about the economy. But hey, the current administration wants to avoid that at all costs, so media hurries to make a story about "SLUTS" - all in supposed response to something that happened over 3 months ago.

The tail is wagging the dog on this one. Or was it a slow news day? Couldn't anyone find anything to attack Romney about?

I mean, you didn't expect them to report on Bill Clinton saying that Romney was qualified to be President, now did ya?

[Tribesman]

How many of you actually read the article? Did ya miss the part that says only 30% of women think that there is an attack on reproductive rights? Yep - 3 out of 10 - which is about the same number of women out of 10 that currently register democrat. It used to be as high as 4 out of 10, but more and more of both genders are registering (or reregistering) independant.

How many people didn't read the article?
it says only 7% don't think so plus there are another 17% of non responses.
So basically this was an article that said that women who are democrats feel they are under attack by evil republicans, and the other 70% of women are actually sane, educated and know better.
So according to Haplos arguement 76% of women are insane uneducated and don't know better.
Does that put his arguement on an intellectual par with Rush?

[CaptainHaplo]

How many people didn't read the article?
it says only 7% don't think so plus there are another 17% of non responses.

So according to Haplos arguement 76% of women are insane uneducated and don't know better.
Does that put his arguement on an intellectual par with Rush?

Normally I would say "thanks" for putting me on par with the guy who can outwit liberals with half his brain tied behind his back. If you weren't constantly stalking me here on subsim I would have. But since your idiocy is on display (once again), I guess its up to me to point out the obvious.

Let me quote the article in question:
Only three in 10 women said they believe there is a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services," according to a Kaiser Health Tracking poll in May."

3 out of 10. Here in the real world, 3 out of 10 is equal to 30%. Now, little tribesboy - its time for you to enroll in a remedial math class, because 3 out of 10 is not 7%, 17% or 24%. :haha: Maybe in your lalaland where you undoubtedly have a shrine erected in my honor it equals those amounts...

Has public education in Western Europe really fallen so far that they don't teach basic math, or is this simply another case of you making stuff up again hoping that no one actually pays attention?

Psst - tribesboy. I'll let you in on a little secret - we all can tell its just you making stuff up because of your obsession with ME! :rotfl2:Now be a good little troll and go back to being tormented further in your stalkerishness because your not ME, as I return you to my ignore list. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

While heated debate is accepted, and even welcome at Subsim, namecalling and open insults such as
Now, little tribesboy
Are not. Please refrain from this sort of thing in the future.

[Buddahaid]

Normally I would say "thanks" for putting me on par with the guy who can outwit liberals with half his brain tied behind his back. If you weren't constantly stalking me here on subsim I would have. But since your idiocy is on display (once again), I guess its up to me to point out the obvious.

Let me quote the article in question:


3 out of 10. Here in the real world, 3 out of 10 is equal to 30%. Now, little tribesboy - its time for you to enroll in a remedial math class, because 3 out of 10 is not 7%, 17% or 24%. :haha: Maybe in your lalaland where you undoubtedly have a shrine erected in my honor it equals those amounts...

Has public education in Western Europe really fallen so far that they don't teach basic math, or is this simply another case of you making stuff up again hoping that no one actually pays attention?

Psst - tribesboy. I'll let you in on a little secret - we all can tell its just you making stuff up because of your obsession with ME! :rotfl2:Now be a good little troll and go back to being tormented further in your stalkerishness because your not ME, as I return you to my ignore list. :up:

He gets those numbers by actually reading the article and the link to the actual poll(http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8315.cfm) in the article which states that 7% don't think a wide scale effort is happening, 31% do, 17% didn't respond, and that 42% took some type of action about it as in writing their congressmen. Also that 45% think there are some who are repressing reproductive rights but it's not a wide scale effort.

Now who didn't read?

[mookiemookie]

He gets those numbers by actually reading the article and the link to the actual poll(http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8315.cfm) in the article which states that 7% don't think a wide scale effort is happening, 31% do, 17% didn't respond, and that 42% took some type of action about it as in writing their congressmen. Also that 45% think there are some who are repressing reproductive rights but it's not a wide scale effort.

Now who didn't read?

Don't muddy the waters with your annoying "facts." :rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

While heated debate is accepted, and even welcome at Subsim, namecalling and open insults such as

I don't think he can help it, debate wouldn't be possible either as facts would get in his way.
But still just for the hell of it.......


If you weren't constantly stalking me here on subsim I would have. But since your idiocy is on display (once again), I guess its up to me to point out the obvious.


Oh dear what a plonker, imagine going into one without any thought.:roll:
But is it really true that he cannot see or does he just pretend to be that dumb?
In case it isn't pretence lets make it real simple.
Infant level spot the difference.:yeah:
Did ya miss the part that says only 30% of women think that there is an attack on reproductive rights? Yep - 3 out of 10 -
Only three in 10 women said they believe there is a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services," according to a Kaiser Health Tracking poll in May."
Now I know some people may need help, badly need help so lets be bold

wide-scale effort :know:
See the difference, your claim means you have to have the 30% and add the 45% from the next category, its because of the words.:know:

Has public education in Western Europe really fallen so far that they don't teach basic math, or is this simply another case of you making stuff up again hoping that no one actually pays attention?

Apparently so, it seems they didn't teach you english very well either.
Still lets be generous ignore your pathetic attempt at trolling and point you in the right direction , after all it shouldn't be that hard as you quoted it yourself but clearly didn't comprehend.....according to a Kaiser Health Tracking poll in May.

So 7% must be really dumb, though if you take the other 17% and split it to add between them you could say that maybe 11% are really dumb.
Complicated maths ain't it.:rotfl2:

Psst - tribesboy. I'll let you in on a little secret - we all can tell its just you making stuff up because of your obsession with ME!
CAPS LOCK strikes again, thank you Haplo you really delivered.
It isn't you its the absolute rubbish you sometimes write, this topic being a prime example not only of the rubbish you wrote but of your inability to even think.:woot:

So onto the topic for more sensible people.
How can it be given the publicity and the headlines it attracts not to mention the money being spent campaigning that 7% of people somehow believe that there is no efforts being made to limit family planning, contraception or abortion in the US.
Are these people living in a cave in the middle of nowhere?
If so how did Kaiser contact them for the poll?

[Takeda Shingen]

As if Rush Limbaugh actually speaks for the Republican party, let alone conservatism in general. Limbaugh is little more than a shock jock. It is like people complaining about the crudeness of Howard Stern. This sort of attack only makes him stronger, as you have given him another 48 hours of free publicity. Idiots.

[NeonSamurai]

Ok lets step back from the personal insults or some infractions are going to fly. Attack the argument not the person behind it.




As for Rush Limbaugh, honestly I have always thought him to be an addlepate. I can't think of a single strong (and by that I mean rational) argument I have ever heard from his mouth. His arguments always dwell in the land of pulling at one's emotions, and purposely bypassing reason. But that is pretty much par for the course when it comes to politics...

[Ducimus]

As if Rush Limbaugh actually speaks for the Republican party, let alone conservatism in general.

And yet when Rush speaks, the majority of the Ring Wing in general listen to him very attentively. What's more, being in the Right Wing, and being slammed by him, is never a good thing. I vaugely remember some news blurbs about Right wing politiicans having to bend knee to Rush once or twice.

I honestly wish Rush would shut up and put up. He talks so much trash, yet doesn't run for any office himself.

[gimpy117]

:o:o:o

Uh-oh! Two mods! Everybody run!
:O:
Jk..lol thought thought I'd point that out ;)

[vienna]

He talks so much trash, yet doesn't run for any office himself.


Mainly he doesn't run because:

He has even less experience than Palin in governmental matters
He only has about a year or so of college education during which he specialized in flunking out
He has a history of severe drug abuse also entailing fraud to obtain his drugs
He'd get creamed in an open debate against anyone (including Sarah Palin)
The GOP would never run him out of fear of tanking their party even more than they did when they backed Nixon until he was forced to resign
The US is not insane enough to ever elect someone like Rush (although he might win in California; after all, they did elect Arnold)

Other than that he is a highly viable candidate... :D

...

[August]

...when Rush speaks, the majority of the Ring Wing in general listen to him very attentively.

I'm no fan of Rush but I do question where you get that idea that the majority listen to him at all. According to Talkers Magazine his average weekly listeners is around 15 million. That is hardly a majority of anything.

[CaptainHaplo]

If your going to quote the actual statistics - quote it right:

Three in ten women (31 percent) overall believe that there is currently a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services, such as abortion, family planning, and contraception" in the U.S. A larger share (45 percent) say there are some groups that would like to limit women's reproductive health choices and services but it is not a wide-scale effort, while others volunteer that no such effort exists (7 percent) or decline to offer an opinion (17 percent).

So lets examine it.

31% equals the democrats we already discussed.

45% actually know that there are groups out there that are against "reproductive health choices" in any form - yet the assertion so far has been that the Republicans are the group against such things - which is patently untrue. If you doubt it - show me where Republicans as a significant party group have worked or attempted to ban birth control pills, or norplant, etc . Ya can't - its a accusation that Republicans have a "war on women" that is entirely untrue and made regardless.

7% don't seem to know that the Catholic church, for example - does stand against all types of contraception.

17% didn't even think it important enough to respond. Well, its safe to say they don't see the matter as a "war on them" - so you have 31% say its a "war on women" - and the rest that don't.

Still comes out to 3 out of 10. Still comes out to a non-issue among non-democrat women. Still comes out to be a whole bunch of tail wagging the dog.

All because the current administration can't face the American people with its economic record, so "team D" is still trying to find a way to divert "team R" and put them on the defensive.

[Tribesman]

If your going to quote the actual statistics - quote it right:


:har::har::har::har::har:
But they are just made up numbers and words by people who don't read
But hey lets examine.
31% equals the democrats we already discussed.

If I was you I would run a mile from what you "already discussed":know:
Still lets look at the new attempt......
No, political affiliation is dealt with elsewhere as is the religion of the people.
Deal with the facts as they are, not what you are still desperately trying to make the facts into after you shot your own arguement to pieces and did a "victory dance" on its corpse.

17% didn't even think it important enough to respond.
No, 17% is the combined no response/don't know if you are going to quote the actual statistics "quote it right":88)

Well, its safe to say they don't see the matter as a "war on them" - so you have 31% say its a "war on women" - and the rest that don't.

Nowhere does it say that, however among Catholic women 3 times as many say the campaign against these issues is a bad thing while among evangelicals it nearly 4 times.
So while the evangelicals are on par with cathlolics in the moderates category they double them in the conservative category which turns your attempted claim right on its head.

To further turn your attempt on its head and show it to be absolute nonsense the breakdown for women thinking the campaigns were a good thing are exactly matched in numbers for republican and democrats though on the "wide spread" 31%range which you somehow think was all team D the proportional split is 2 for R to 3 for D with 2.5 for Ind.

So .....is this simply another case of you making stuff up again hoping that no one actually pays attention?
....sure looks like it:yep:
Maybe you should read it and look at the numbers, it is quite simple:rotfl2: