Carbonite didn't pull ads from Ed Schultz ("Laura I. a talk slut")

[jas2525]

1) Limbaugh is on public airwaves, Maher is on subscription cable.
2) Limbaugh has advertisers to lose, Maher does not.

Maher may not have advertisers to lose, but if HBO starts bleeding subscribers because of him, the effect is basically the same.

Got news for ya':

If people decide to avoid a certain sponsors product because that sponsor basically pays Rush Limbaugh to be a scumbag on the air, it's not a big sacrifice. The consumer will just buy flowers from someone else.

Cancelling your subscription to HBO would instead deprive the consumer, IMHO, of some of the better programming on television. BIG sacrifice.

Very few people will go for that.

And how wonderful that the far right's habit of lying about the material facts of an issue, just to then beat down the strawman they created, is finally having light shined on it.

It's about time.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>the far right's habit of lying

There are liars on both the left and the right. There are hypocrites on both sides, too. And for that matter not everyone is far-right or far-left--some, like me, are to the right on most issues but to the left on some social issues (Dennis Miller: "I don't mind if Larry and Steve get married but I do
object to an Islamofascist firebombing their wedding"). Political opinions can be so extreme that the likes of John McCain, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, or Scott Brown can be seen as "far right Rethuglicans" or "Republicans In Name Only" depending on whom you talk to.

And btw if someone has opinions opposite yours that doesn't mean they can't be a nice girl or guy.
Andrew Breitbart died last week, and someone recalled the day when he and Seth MacFarlane
appeared on Bill Maher's show the same day. Andrew was kinda worried that Seth might really
make fun of his conservative opinions (Breitbart would have been considered a liberal in days gone by). Well, Seth didn't, and during and after the show they shared a little drink from a flask
and got to talking. Andrew said he was glad Breitbart didn't go after him: "My 12 yr old son is
watching and would have seen me made a fool of by you" or words to that effect. Turns out
that Breitbart's son's favorite show was Family Guy.

"Call him up," said Seth. And for 10 minutes, the man who gives voice to Peter, Brian, Quagmire,
and so many others gave a riotous performance over the phone to Andrew's son.

See, a far-right-Rethuglican and a moonbat can both be nice guys. God Bless both Seth
MacFarlane and the late Andrew Breitbart.

Holy crap.

http://cdn.*************/mediaserve...h-macfarlance-andrew-breitbart/x2_b3f61d8.jpg
pic

 

[jas2525]

>>the far right's habit of lying

There are liars on both the left and the right. There are hypocrites on both sides, too. And for that matter not everyone is far-right or far-left--some, like me, are to the right on most issues but to the left on some social issues (Dennis Miller: "I don't mind if Larry and Steve get married but I do
object to an Islamofascist firebombing their wedding"). Political opinions can be so extreme that the likes of John McCain, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, or Scott Brown can be seen as "far right Rethuglicans" or "Republicans In Name Only" depending on whom you talk to.

Certainly people of very different opinions can be nice to each other.

However...
That does not make it okay for someone to habitually misrepresent material fact, which Limbaugh and his ilk do regularly, to create strawmen---just so they can beat them down at the "liberals" expense.

I have voted for Republicans and Democrats, and like you, have a mix of liberal and conservative positions, depending on the issue.

I watch and listen to both right and left leaning broadcasts. I also pay attention to the established facts that exist and have found that the righties and lefties ARE NOT equidistant from the truth. The lefties actually seem to try and present information far more often that IS factual, while many on the right do what they can to obfuscate the reality of a situation if it doesn't suit their narrative of "liberals bad, conservatives good". The outlandish lies they put out in an effort to throw red meat to their audiences is disturbing and contrary to their "patriotic" theme, in that they have created a lot of polarizaion and division in this country just for financial gain, and that's unforgiveable.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Ed Schulz called (a very public person) Ingrham, a "talk slut". What does that mean exactly? It was just a gratuitous nonsensical name to call her, with no real sexual implication. Limbaugh, on the other hand, completely mischaracterized and fabricated the material content of a private citizens testimony and went on to insinuate that she's having sex with lots of people. If that's not slander, I don't know what is.

What?! SLUT has "no real sexual implication"? Try calling your wife, sister or mother, or even a co-worker a SLUT, and see if they agree with you.

To be clear, Ms Fluke waived her "private citizen" status by identifying herself for the record at a public hearing. Still, Rush's meltdown was unacceptable. Commonly accepted Judeo-Christian principals frown on the heaving of marginalizing perjoratives on anybody, by anybody, regardless of the forum.

Ed was wrong, and so was Rush. Wrong is wrong, and a victim's social status serves no latitude for mitigating the "degree" of wrong. It's high time we stop fudging on this reality.

 

[landtuna]

What?! SLUT has "no real sexual implication"? Try calling your wife, sister or mother, or even a co-worker a SLUT, and see if they agree with you.

Calling a female a "slut" by itself indicates a clear, positive sexual intent. Prefacing it with a modifier like "talk" clearly puts it into another spectrum. And, if there was any confusion as to what Rush meant he cleared that up by the use of the word "prostitute".

To be clear, Ms Fluke waived her "private citizen" status by identifying herself for the record at a public hearing.

No, she absolutely did not. She is not a public person by any definition of the word. And it is immaterial to this event even if she were. Rush attacked her personally with words that were not only vicious but incorrect as well.

Ed was wrong, and so was Rush. Wrong is wrong, and a victim's social status serves no latitude for mitigating the "degree" of wrong. It's high time we stop fudging on this reality.

Both were wrong but Ed made his comment only one time and manned up and apologized immediately in a meaningful manner. Rush "apologized" only after the heat was on and he had no other choice. And he managed to blame third parties for his "apology". Disgusting!

 

[listener-in]

To be clear, Ms Fluke waived her "private citizen" status by identifying herself for the record at a public hearing.......

.....Ed was wrong, and so was Rush. Wrong is wrong, and a victim's social status serves no latitude for mitigating the "degree" of wrong. It's high time we stop fudging on this reality.

So if I go to my town board meeting and express my opinion on public business (which, when all's said and done, is my business), I cease to be a private citizen???

As far as Schultz and Limbaugh are concerned, it's getting tiresome to have to point out the difference between them. Ed committed an isolated offense in the heat of the moment. He apologized promptly and did his time. He knows he can get carried away and is probably on a knife edge because of it. There's nothing spontaneous about Limbaugh. He slimed Ms. Fluke for three programs over three successive days and obviously never took one second to consider whether he had crossed any kind of a line - not until the consequences started becoming obvious even to him. And his comments were entirely in line with his very long track record of insulting not just women but anyone he doesn't like - remember his disgusting portrayal of Michael J. Fox?

This isn't a first amendment freedom of speech issue. Stations are not constitutionally obligated to air Limbaugh or anyone else; they are editorially free to air or drop his program, and sponsors are equally free to advertise on his show or dump him. But there's a little matter of character. If any of the suits (overwhelmingly male) that have enabled Limbaugh over the years had taken the trouble to pay attention, it's a mystery to me how they could look their mothers/wives/daughters/granddaughters in the eye. But no, they couldn't see any other way to make their thirty pieces of silver.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Ed Schulz called (a very public person) Ingrham, a "talk slut". What does that mean exactly? It was just a gratuitous nonsensical name to call her, with no real sexual implication. Limbaugh, on the other hand, completely mischaracterized and fabricated the material content of a private citizens testimony and went on to insinuate that she's having sex with lots of people. If that's not slander, I don't know what is.

What?! SLUT has "no real sexual implication"? Try calling your wife, sister or mother, or even a co-worker a SLUT, and see if they agree with you.

To be clear, Ms Fluke waived her "private citizen" status by identifying herself for the record at a public hearing. Still, Rush's meltdown was unacceptable. Commonly accepted Judeo-Christian principals frown on the heaving of marginalizing perjoratives on anybody, by anybody, regardless of the forum.

Ed was wrong, and so was Rush. Wrong is wrong, and a victim's social status serves no latitude for mitigating the "degree" of wrong. It's high time we stop fudging on this reality.

Um, we mitigate degrees of wrong in several instances. Misdemeanors and felonies, manslaughters and murders, censures and impeachments--all depending on context and an examination of facts.

And under media law, there's a difference between a throwaway insult and a specific attack on someone's character. One alleged wrong doesn't equal another.

 

[mescutia]

See, a far-right-Rethuglican and a moonbat can both be nice guys.

You misspelled "Republican".

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

/quote]
...we mitigate degrees of wrong in several instances. Misdemeanors and felonies, manslaughters and murders, censures and impeachments--all depending on context and an examination of facts...under media law, there's a difference between a throwaway insult and a specific attack on someone's character. One alleged wrong doesn't equal another.
[/quote]
Yes, while our system of justice does indeed mitigate "degrees" of "wrong", no ordinance mitigates whether wrong is indeed, wrong. Crimes are rated as midemeanors or felonies, but only to distinguish consequences for sentencing in the rendering of a guilty verdict. Again, wrong is wrong.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

To be clear, Ms Fluke waived her "private citizen" status by identifying herself for the record at a public hearing.

No, she absolutely did not. She is not a public person by any definition of the word. And it is immaterial to this event even if she were. Rush attacked her personally...
Yes, Ms Fluke's status as either Public or Private person is, as you said, "immaterial to this event...", and that's because Rush verbally assaulted her. Wrong is wrong, and he would have been just as wrong had he railed this way against Condalisa Rice or Hillary Clinton. But more on my view of Fluke's public/private status later. I will first re-examine a freelance story I did in New Mexico in 1999, and a threatened lawsuit sprouting from that story over inclusion of a quote of a "private" citizen. Though my response might not sway you, my experience might clarify a few things...

 

[landtuna]

Yes, while our system of justice does indeed mitigate "degrees" of "wrong", no ordinance mitigates whether wrong is indeed, wrong. Crimes are rated as midemeanors or felonies, but only to distinguish consequences for sentencing in the rendering of a guilty verdict. Again, wrong is wrong.

Actually, ordinances and laws are exactly what determines "wrong". How "wrong" is determined by statute.