-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Rush Limbaugh calls alleged rape victim a "HO"
- Thread starter RBA
- Start date
J
job
Guest
The Condi Defense
I wonder what she calls Rush.
Rush says it was a slip of the tongue. Ah, "The Condi Defense."
Now all the talk show hosts will be using it. Too bad Howard left terrestrial radio before they thought this one up.
"It was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say 'mother's fudge.' My mother makes great fudge."
I wonder what she calls Rush.
Rush says it was a slip of the tongue. Ah, "The Condi Defense."
Now all the talk show hosts will be using it. Too bad Howard left terrestrial radio before they thought this one up.
"It was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say 'mother's fudge.' My mother makes great fudge."
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004
He actually said more than that. In addition to his "ho" remark and psuedo-defense of the lacrosse team, his shifting apology by the end of the broadcast was down to an "apology" that said he was sorry PEOPLE HEARD HIM SAY IT. Not THAT he said it, just that people heard it.
RELAPSE.
The most ironic thing is that it was one of Rush's own listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his audience does include at least a few people not part of the Deliverance crowd.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Phillip Dampier on 04/04/06 07:36 PM.</FONT></P>
He actually said more than that. In addition to his "ho" remark and psuedo-defense of the lacrosse team, his shifting apology by the end of the broadcast was down to an "apology" that said he was sorry PEOPLE HEARD HIM SAY IT. Not THAT he said it, just that people heard it.
RELAPSE.
The most ironic thing is that it was one of Rush's own listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his audience does include at least a few people not part of the Deliverance crowd.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Phillip Dampier on 04/04/06 07:36 PM.</FONT></P>
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004
>
> He actually said more than that. In addition to his "ho"
> remark and psuedo-defense of the lacrosse team, his shifting
> apology by the end of the broadcast was down to an "apology"
> that said he was sorry PEOPLE HEARD HIM SAY IT. Not THAT he
> said it, just that people heard it.
>
> RELAPSE.
>
> The most ironic thing is that it was one of Rush's own
> listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
>
Rush is garbage. What will it take for people to really listen to his anger? Come on...4 wives, drug addiction, etc. He's just a mean person. Before everyone grills me I would say the same thing if Franken called a rape victim a "Ho." How unprofessional.
>
> He actually said more than that. In addition to his "ho"
> remark and psuedo-defense of the lacrosse team, his shifting
> apology by the end of the broadcast was down to an "apology"
> that said he was sorry PEOPLE HEARD HIM SAY IT. Not THAT he
> said it, just that people heard it.
>
> RELAPSE.
>
> The most ironic thing is that it was one of Rush's own
> listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
>
Rush is garbage. What will it take for people to really listen to his anger? Come on...4 wives, drug addiction, etc. He's just a mean person. Before everyone grills me I would say the same thing if Franken called a rape victim a "Ho." How unprofessional.
> The most ironic thing is that it was one of Rush's own
> listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
>
It's not ok to call someone a HO but I assume it's perfectly OK to call Rush listeners a "hillbilly" or "inbred" as the Deliverace remark indicates.
Actually market research has shown that talk radio listeners are more likely to have attended college and have higher paying jobs than that of many music radio listeners. Many of the "long hair maggot infested FM types" as Rush calls them don't even know the basics of what is going on in Washington and who some of their elected officials are.
> listeners who called him on it. It's nice to know his
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
>
It's not ok to call someone a HO but I assume it's perfectly OK to call Rush listeners a "hillbilly" or "inbred" as the Deliverace remark indicates.
Actually market research has shown that talk radio listeners are more likely to have attended college and have higher paying jobs than that of many music radio listeners. Many of the "long hair maggot infested FM types" as Rush calls them don't even know the basics of what is going on in Washington and who some of their elected officials are.
N
nwebster
Guest
> > Many of the "long hair maggot infested FM types" as Rush calls
> > them don't even know the basics of what is going on in
> > Washington....>
>
>
> Many of Rush listening don't know either. They just know
> the basics Rush gives them.
>
That's why people listen to talk radio - conservative or liberal. That's why people listen to talk radio that supports their pre-existing viewpoints, beliefs and attitudes. People just want someone who can articulate their rage for them.
> > them don't even know the basics of what is going on in
> > Washington....>
>
>
> Many of Rush listening don't know either. They just know
> the basics Rush gives them.
>
That's why people listen to talk radio - conservative or liberal. That's why people listen to talk radio that supports their pre-existing viewpoints, beliefs and attitudes. People just want someone who can articulate their rage for them.
I don't know if that's the case with Rush
I know in the early days of his show (circa 1990) it was very common- perhaps every third caller in fact- to call up Rush and say "I want to thank you for saving me from a life threatening disease- liberalism!"
At that time, of course, there wasn't as much conservative media so Limbaugh may have had a great impact. Certainly he drove liberal Larry King- his predecesor as the nation's top talk viewpoint- off the air.
While, yes, Republicans are going to listen to Rush and Democrats are more likely to- well, perhaps not listen to anyone- it is my belief when you have that viewpoint out on a mainstream source it will have an impact.
I know in the early days of his show (circa 1990) it was very common- perhaps every third caller in fact- to call up Rush and say "I want to thank you for saving me from a life threatening disease- liberalism!"
At that time, of course, there wasn't as much conservative media so Limbaugh may have had a great impact. Certainly he drove liberal Larry King- his predecesor as the nation's top talk viewpoint- off the air.
While, yes, Republicans are going to listen to Rush and Democrats are more likely to- well, perhaps not listen to anyone- it is my belief when you have that viewpoint out on a mainstream source it will have an impact.
N
nwebster
Guest
Re: I don't know if that's the case with Rush
It's a chicken and egg arguement: Do people listen to conservative talk radio because they are conservative or are they conservatives because they listen? (And do people listen to liberal talk radio because they are liberals or are they liberals because they listen?) Social researchers have pretty much come down on the side of people listen to talk radio supporting the views they already hold (or to which they are predisposed).
During his heyday, Larry King was the only nationally syndicated host, and he was on the middle of the night - not the middle of the day, like Rush. I would question whether Larry King at that time was an advocate for the liberal viewpoint as Rush is an advocate for the conservative viewpoint today. On his Mutual radio show, he was mostly a very good interviewer who actually listened to what people said and asked interested questions based on what the guest or caller had said. He didn't debate. He wasn't thinking of another question while the guest was talking. He wasn't looking at a list of questions someone had given him. He actually had conversations. He does not have the time nor the freedom he did when he was on for six hours overnight talking to truckers and the guys who make the donuts.
I think the comment you quoted from Rush's early callers reflected the fact that these people did not think the media - including talk radio - represented them or their viewpoints. The liberalism from which they were saved was not their own prior liberalism, but the liberalism by which they felt besieged.
I suspect many Democrats also feel Republicans don't listen to anyone, especially members of the current administration. I suppose there is something in human nature that has us think that if somebody does not agree with us, they could not have been listening.
It's a chicken and egg arguement: Do people listen to conservative talk radio because they are conservative or are they conservatives because they listen? (And do people listen to liberal talk radio because they are liberals or are they liberals because they listen?) Social researchers have pretty much come down on the side of people listen to talk radio supporting the views they already hold (or to which they are predisposed).
During his heyday, Larry King was the only nationally syndicated host, and he was on the middle of the night - not the middle of the day, like Rush. I would question whether Larry King at that time was an advocate for the liberal viewpoint as Rush is an advocate for the conservative viewpoint today. On his Mutual radio show, he was mostly a very good interviewer who actually listened to what people said and asked interested questions based on what the guest or caller had said. He didn't debate. He wasn't thinking of another question while the guest was talking. He wasn't looking at a list of questions someone had given him. He actually had conversations. He does not have the time nor the freedom he did when he was on for six hours overnight talking to truckers and the guys who make the donuts.
I think the comment you quoted from Rush's early callers reflected the fact that these people did not think the media - including talk radio - represented them or their viewpoints. The liberalism from which they were saved was not their own prior liberalism, but the liberalism by which they felt besieged.
I suspect many Democrats also feel Republicans don't listen to anyone, especially members of the current administration. I suppose there is something in human nature that has us think that if somebody does not agree with us, they could not have been listening.
9
954
Guest
> It's nice to know his
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
Likewise, did you know that at least one AAR
listener ISN'T a card-carrying, America-hating
communist, Philip?
(Yes, I enjoy listening to Springer sometimes.
Much higher level than his TV show. He's an
intelligent man, much like Rush.)
Your hyperbole is legendary, Phil.
And I don't mean a conic section.
73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
"Live long and prosper -- without government interference!"
...Mr. Spock, before the NBC censors got to him, stardate 1966</P>
> audience does include at least a few people not part of the
> Deliverance crowd.
Likewise, did you know that at least one AAR
listener ISN'T a card-carrying, America-hating
communist, Philip?
(Yes, I enjoy listening to Springer sometimes.
Much higher level than his TV show. He's an
intelligent man, much like Rush.)
Your hyperbole is legendary, Phil.
And I don't mean a conic section.
73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
"Live long and prosper -- without government interference!"
...Mr. Spock, before the NBC censors got to him, stardate 1966</P>
9
954
Guest
> Rush is garbage. What will it take for people to really
> listen to his anger? Come on...4 wives, drug addiction, etc.
Is it worse to have had four wives than
to be a good Catholic like the Kennedys
and screw around while staying married?
I don't know, so I'd like an answer from
someone knowledgeable on the topic.
> He's just a mean person.
Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
73s
<P ID="signature">______________
"Live long and prosper -- without government interference!"
...Mr. Spock, before the NBC censors got to him, stardate 1966</P>
> listen to his anger? Come on...4 wives, drug addiction, etc.
Is it worse to have had four wives than
to be a good Catholic like the Kennedys
and screw around while staying married?
I don't know, so I'd like an answer from
someone knowledgeable on the topic.
> He's just a mean person.
Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
73s
<P ID="signature">______________
"Live long and prosper -- without government interference!"
...Mr. Spock, before the NBC censors got to him, stardate 1966</P>
> > He's just a mean person.
>
> Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
> Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
No, they just air sound effects of people shooting at a sitting president.
To be fair, if the evidence proves that this girl has, in fact, turned a consensual affair into a legal matter (an idea I've heard bandied about in several places), then quite honestly, she is a ho.
However, as nothing has been proven either way as of yet, remarks like that are a bit premature.<P ID="signature">______________
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
>
> Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
> Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
No, they just air sound effects of people shooting at a sitting president.
To be fair, if the evidence proves that this girl has, in fact, turned a consensual affair into a legal matter (an idea I've heard bandied about in several places), then quite honestly, she is a ho.
However, as nothing has been proven either way as of yet, remarks like that are a bit premature.<P ID="signature">______________
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
N
nwebster
Guest
Congratulations
It's been a while since we has an all out p*fest here.
What about Santa? Women are just walking down the street and he goes, "Ho, ho, ho."
It's been a while since we has an all out p*fest here.
What about Santa? Women are just walking down the street and he goes, "Ho, ho, ho."
9
954
Guest
> > > He's just a mean person.
> > Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
> > Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
> No, they just air sound effects of people shooting at a
> sitting president.
> To be fair, if the evidence proves that this girl has, in
> fact, turned a consensual affair into a legal matter (an
> idea I've heard bandied about in several places), then quite
> honestly, she is a ho.
It happens.
But I was merely reacting to the vicious
characterization of Rush. (No, I'm not a
dittohead and I've probably listened to
him only a few times since Boortz became
available here. Probably disagree with him
more often than not.)
I don't concern myself with stories
from flyover country or Aruba that
have no impact on me.
Instead, I try to follow the news stories
about all the elected and appointed hoes
in DC and Tallahassee. (And at the county
courthouse.) Plus the friggin bureaucrats
who work for them and make us bend over.
> However, as nothing has been proven either way as of yet,
> remarks like that are a bit premature.
Let the Lacrosse fans and the womyn's
activists worry about the outcome.
73s
PS -- Since mentioning Rush above, I decided
to interrupt my Glenn Miller CD and listen
to the end of his show on CC's WIOD. I tell
you, "C'mon Get Happy!" by Glenn Miller is
much more interesting than appropriations!!! <P ID="signature">______________
"When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were." ... John F. Kennedy</P>
> > Unlike those jolly folks on Air Amerika.
> > Nary a mean word ever leaves their mouths.
> No, they just air sound effects of people shooting at a
> sitting president.
> To be fair, if the evidence proves that this girl has, in
> fact, turned a consensual affair into a legal matter (an
> idea I've heard bandied about in several places), then quite
> honestly, she is a ho.
It happens.
But I was merely reacting to the vicious
characterization of Rush. (No, I'm not a
dittohead and I've probably listened to
him only a few times since Boortz became
available here. Probably disagree with him
more often than not.)
I don't concern myself with stories
from flyover country or Aruba that
have no impact on me.
Instead, I try to follow the news stories
about all the elected and appointed hoes
in DC and Tallahassee. (And at the county
courthouse.) Plus the friggin bureaucrats
who work for them and make us bend over.
> However, as nothing has been proven either way as of yet,
> remarks like that are a bit premature.
Let the Lacrosse fans and the womyn's
activists worry about the outcome.
73s
PS -- Since mentioning Rush above, I decided
to interrupt my Glenn Miller CD and listen
to the end of his show on CC's WIOD. I tell
you, "C'mon Get Happy!" by Glenn Miller is
much more interesting than appropriations!!! <P ID="signature">______________
"When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were." ... John F. Kennedy</P>
Re: I don't know if that's the case with Rush
As a loyal listener to both, I will only make these statements-
A- I was a loyal listener to King in his heyday. I was a sports nut and a lot of his show dealt with guy from Toledo calling up talking about the Tigers in an era before 24-hour sports talk radio and internet message boards.
But I'm not sure that he really "listened" to people. He was pretty one-sided and was a master at cutting off people- whereas it is Rush who will have a five minute- personable conversation with a caller.
B- As one of those people who Rush saved from the "life threatening disease of liberalism" I can tell you he had an effect.
C- While I agree that obviously any political host is going to have a base of those in his own party something is going to have to spark you to be a liberal or a conservative.
It could be an issue, your upraising, or, yes, a talk show host or your local op-ed page.
> It's a chicken and egg arguement: Do people listen to
> conservative talk radio because they are conservative or are
> they conservatives because they listen? (And do people
> listen to liberal talk radio because they are liberals or
> are they liberals because they listen?) Social researchers
> have pretty much come down on the side of people listen to
> talk radio supporting the views they already hold (or to
> which they are predisposed).
>
> During his heyday, Larry King was the only nationally
> syndicated host, and he was on the middle of the night - not
> the middle of the day, like Rush. I would question whether
> Larry King at that time was an advocate for the liberal
> viewpoint as Rush is an advocate for the conservative
> viewpoint today. On his Mutual radio show, he was mostly a
> very good interviewer who actually listened to what people
> said and asked interested questions based on what the guest
> or caller had said. He didn't debate. He wasn't thinking
> of another question while the guest was talking. He wasn't
> looking at a list of questions someone had given him. He
> actually had conversations. He does not have the time nor
> the freedom he did when he was on for six hours overnight
> talking to truckers and the guys who make the donuts.
>
> I think the comment you quoted from Rush's early callers
> reflected the fact that these people did not think the media
> - including talk radio - represented them or their
> viewpoints. The liberalism from which they were saved was
> not their own prior liberalism, but the liberalism by which
> they felt besieged.
>
> I suspect many Democrats also feel Republicans don't listen
> to anyone, especially members of the current administration.
> I suppose there is something in human nature that has us
> think that if somebody does not agree with us, they could
> not have been listening.
>
As a loyal listener to both, I will only make these statements-
A- I was a loyal listener to King in his heyday. I was a sports nut and a lot of his show dealt with guy from Toledo calling up talking about the Tigers in an era before 24-hour sports talk radio and internet message boards.
But I'm not sure that he really "listened" to people. He was pretty one-sided and was a master at cutting off people- whereas it is Rush who will have a five minute- personable conversation with a caller.
B- As one of those people who Rush saved from the "life threatening disease of liberalism" I can tell you he had an effect.
C- While I agree that obviously any political host is going to have a base of those in his own party something is going to have to spark you to be a liberal or a conservative.
It could be an issue, your upraising, or, yes, a talk show host or your local op-ed page.
> It's a chicken and egg arguement: Do people listen to
> conservative talk radio because they are conservative or are
> they conservatives because they listen? (And do people
> listen to liberal talk radio because they are liberals or
> are they liberals because they listen?) Social researchers
> have pretty much come down on the side of people listen to
> talk radio supporting the views they already hold (or to
> which they are predisposed).
>
> During his heyday, Larry King was the only nationally
> syndicated host, and he was on the middle of the night - not
> the middle of the day, like Rush. I would question whether
> Larry King at that time was an advocate for the liberal
> viewpoint as Rush is an advocate for the conservative
> viewpoint today. On his Mutual radio show, he was mostly a
> very good interviewer who actually listened to what people
> said and asked interested questions based on what the guest
> or caller had said. He didn't debate. He wasn't thinking
> of another question while the guest was talking. He wasn't
> looking at a list of questions someone had given him. He
> actually had conversations. He does not have the time nor
> the freedom he did when he was on for six hours overnight
> talking to truckers and the guys who make the donuts.
>
> I think the comment you quoted from Rush's early callers
> reflected the fact that these people did not think the media
> - including talk radio - represented them or their
> viewpoints. The liberalism from which they were saved was
> not their own prior liberalism, but the liberalism by which
> they felt besieged.
>
> I suspect many Democrats also feel Republicans don't listen
> to anyone, especially members of the current administration.
> I suppose there is something in human nature that has us
> think that if somebody does not agree with us, they could
> not have been listening.
>
- Status