Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Howard Stern(dirty mouth MO) gets a free pass while Rush Limbaugh(uses S word once) gets canned???

Posted 2 years ago on March 17, 2012, 5:28 p.m. EST by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How is it that Howard Stern gets too use all the dirty insulting words he wants to and call women sluts and porn stars.....and Rush gets the shaft here?----I dont agree with Rush but how am I going to know what the republican party is up too without him? I have been listening to him since my grandfathers garage. Can you listen to Howard Stern with your kids within earshot and not get red faced?

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I can and do live without either of these two "gentlemen", tho I have listened to them on the radio (remember radio?) enough to know I don't need to hear anymore from them, thank you very much.

As to knowing what the far right thinks, I watch Fox News. They tell the right how their econmic woes aren't nearly as important as "value issues" and that they should vote accordingly.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Howard stern is a comedy show, and Howard Stern never called anyone a slut, let alone a law student who was asked to testify before Congress. There is no comparison here. None. But if you've listened to Rush Windbag that long I'd compare you to a moist turd.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

LOL Howard Stern never called anyone a slut..LOL He did call Sarah Palin a slut, a bitch, and a cunt.

I am not into Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin however you have to admit there is a double standard. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt and there was no call for boycotts.

I remember when Sarah Palin was called a slut, whore, bitch cunt milf etc repeatedly by the left. To this day they still do. Sarah Palin is a woman who has been married for over 20 years, never cheated on her husband Todd and they have several children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrbV8LssNfI

And by the way calling someone a slut on national radio or TV is calling someone a slut. It does not matter if you have a clown suit a red plastic nose and balloons.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I completely disagree with your last point. There is a big difference between Howard Stern calling someone a slut (hello, shock Jock) and, say, Mitt Romney calling someone a slut on public radio.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney did not call anyone a slut. That is not his style.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Exactly right. Mitt would just buy her company and lay her off.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Only if her company was loosing money every month and after attempting to save it finding it could not be saved. Sometimes that happens when times change.

Nobody buys a company to close it down as that would be a waste of money. You buy it in the hopes you can save it and make some money.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - you go girl. Tell it like it is. Now sanatorium would probably do the same thing in a slightly different way - he would likely pay for spankings because he is such a naughty boy. Self discipline approach.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That's a side of Rick we haven't seen. And I hope we never do. Follow this link if you really want a laugh...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Laughing - Thank you I will.


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/


OMG - That is funny. More than a little disturbing too.

That goes to show why he looks for spankings.

He's like Mitten in that they both do not know how to open their mouth without inserting their foot.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I think the difference is between a political 'slut' and a physical 'slut'...

The political 'slut' could easily apply to any person (male and female) engaging in politics at the level we appear to be discussing.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Sarah Palin is an ignorant hypocrite who invited ridicule with her incendiary rhetoric. There is no comparison.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Disagreeing with someone is no excuse for calling them a slut, especially when Sarah Palin is married to her high school sweetheart and only love.

Slut is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. I am not saying that is a bad thing, that is just what it means.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago
  1. Howard Stern never called her a slut. Find me some proof.
  2. It goes way beyond disagreement. When a person attempts to exploit bigotry to get votes I say it's fair game. Palin's ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and opportunism made her an irresistible target of ridicule.
  3. What reason could Limbaugh possibly have had to call a law student who was invited to speak to Congress about a health issue a slut? He was attacking all women. It is a stunning tactical blunder for the RepubliKKKan party to launch a war on women. So thanks, cavemen.
[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

(1) Howard actually called her "you fucker", "you cunt", not a slut. He says because she had targets on a map of the districts she was going after and that lead to the shooting of congresswoman Gifford.

PROOF http://tinyurl.com/82dtgsa

(2) What he did not mention is that the Democratic Leadership Council has the same sort of map on their web site.

http://tinyurl.com/6dnvcud

They took the map down but the page is still there and it talks about the map. You will see the broken image half way don the page right after the words "The heartland strategy begins by choosing likely targets for Democratic gains. Let's go to the map:"

http://tinyurl.com/yldmfvw

You may not agree with her tactics but that does not mean you call someone a cunt, slut, fucker, whore...

(3) I don't agree with Limbaugh but his reasoning was because the law student was publicly advocating Catholic Church to be required to provide contraception for their employees when contraception is against church beliefs. I do not agree with the churches concept but I respect their right to believe what they believe. Is the issue about sex, yes. Does that mean she is a slut, no.

I do not agree with Limbaugh. That is not my point. What I am saying is that these things always seem to be big deal when someone on the right is the name caller. We had Bill Maher call Palin a cunt, nothing happened. We had a congressman Jerry Brown call Meg Whitman a whore, nothing happened. David Letterman calls Sarah Palin has a slutty look, nothing happens

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Howard Stern had a legitimate reason to be angry with Palin, what reason did Limbaugh have to be angry? No reason, except his hatred of women.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You just proved my point.

You selectively defend offensive behavior while I say both are wrong.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

No, I'm not offended at Stern calling Palin a cunt because I think she is a despicable person. Limbaugh's assault on Fluke was completely unjustified, ridiculous, and prolonged. Stern does not preach hate and intolerance, day in day out, as Limbaugh does. In fact Howard Stern is consistently an advocate for minorities and has done a lot to combat homophobia. Limbaugh will scapegoat the nearest minority or woman in order to further his intolerant agenda. There is no comparison between the two.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You proved my point again. You have selective ethics.

I do not believe calling someone a slut, cunt, fucker, nigger, spic, kike, dike, coon, wop... is ever appropriate. It does not take any courage. In fact to me the behavior is a cop out and shows weakness.

When someone resorts to this behavior I believe the do not have the intellect or courage to develop a reasonable argument and instead seeks to promote hatred.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Guess what--I disagree. Do I have a right to in your world?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes, you have a right to disagree and a you have a right to selective ethics.

You have a right to hate whomever you want. You also have a right to call someone a cunt, fucker, nigger, spic, kike, dike...

If you do use those words however, or condone someone who does , you should refrain from criticizing another. That is called hypocrisy.

You do have a right to be a hypocrite but you should at least acknowledge that you are.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

It's not hypocrisy, each case is different, you can't make a blanket statement, and yes, ethics are selective, unless you are the curator of universal ethics. There is no comparison between what Limbaugh said and what Stern said but you refuse to acknowledge this, you keep spouting your senseless doublespeak.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I did not miss the point with your fucker examples. I said it is from my perspective inappropriate in either case when I apply my ethical values which may be different from yours. I would agree calling someone a fucker when nobody can hear you is not as bad. It would, in my opinion, be bad if your two year old was in the car to hear you call the driver a fucker which in a sense proves it is bad to do so.

They difference in your example has more to do with the way we treat children which is different from adults in respect to their culpability. This is why they are "tried as a minor" in most cases. You cannot kick your minor out into the street for disobeying you. So of course calling a two year old a fucker sounds worse but that does no lessen the implication of calling an adult, on a national radio program, a fucker, cunt, or slut. I believe both men were wrong.

Fluke was chosen for a reason and she chose to testify nobody forced her. She was not "called" or subpoenaed. Also, what she said in her speech portrays her as an activist.

Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States. They have a right to not provide a product which is contrary to their religious belief. As an atheist I think it is silly however they should not be forced to provide it if that is what they believe. If someone wants to have sex they can pay $0.50 for a condom orTri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply at Walmart. If they cannot afford either ff those (about the price of one drink at the bar) then they can go to Planned Parenthood and get it for free.

Fluke also claims that not providing contraception is an attack on women. Why is it not an attack on men? Because it sounds better if you say it is an attack on women. Why not have the male partner share in the cost of the contraception so you each pay $0.25 per copulation?

Sandra Fluke put herself in the middle of the debate. She manipulated and spun facts to make her point. She is not a two year old stepping on the Church's toe.

According to reports, it was Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, who pushed for Fluke’s testimony. Maloney also initiated the call for Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for his on-air derogatory remark about Fluke, according to The Daily Beast.

Maloney is tied to a progressive pollster, Celinda Lake, who recently ran extensive polling in an effort to gauge voters’ reactions to including birth control or contraception in insurance coverage.

Lake heads Lake Research, which lists both Maloney and Nancy Pelosi as recent clients.

During the hearing, Maloney thanked Nancy Pelosi “for bringing Sandra [Fluke] to this hearing and for your commitment to these issues that are so important to tens of millions of women and men across our country.”

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Catholics have no right to force their archaic beliefs on others. They don't have to use birth control, but they have no right to tell Sandra Fluke she can't. Maybe Georgetown could just decide they don't believe in cancer treatment, if God decides you die you die, so they can refuse to cover any treatment, after all it's God's fucking will right? Religious liberty means you can choose for yourself, when you force your beliefs on others that is stripping them of their liberty. Fine, you can argue that if Fluke wants birth control she can pay for it herself, and then we could argue about the evils of a capitalist health care system and the insatiable greed of the drug companies, etc. We live in a world that is over-populated and it's getting worse yet we are still debating this issue, it's completely ludicrous.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Why?

Because I do not believe each case is different. If it is wrong it call someone a slut, cunt, nigger, fucker then it is wrong.

You can get your point across without resorting to slander.

From the point of view of being ethical, what Stern did calling Palin a fucker and a cunt is just as bad as calling an contraception activist a slut. They are both activists trying to promote and agenda. You happen to agree with one and not the other. I for the most part do not agree with either.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Fluke was an activist trying to promote an agenda? How so? And Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate spewing hate-filled rhetoric. And do you really think slut and fucker are as bad as nigger? And you don't believe each case is different? SO if I call the guy who cut me off in traffic a fucker, that is the same as calling my two year-old nephew a fucker for stepping on my toe?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Cannot comment to your post below....

I would not call either person a fucker but that is just me. I do not know why the person cut me off in traffic so I usually shrug it off.

As for Fluke promoting an agenda, Mr. Limbaugh made his remark concerning comments she made during her speech to House Democrats in support of a private insurance mandate for contraceptives. She was an activist speaking at a national event and was promoting the idea that the Catholic church should be forced to provide contraception for their employees. She was not a two year old stepping on his toe. Either way, calling her a slut is inappropriate.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Hate i missed this thread 2 weeks ago... Nice job though - you completely crushed EndGlottony. My only wish is that he/she would have realized it.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Fluke was asked to come there and testify and she was talking about Georgetown's medical plan. You missed the point with my fucker examples, not surprising.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

In times of revolution (or for that matter any kind of social upheaval) "objectivity" is a very personally dangerous position to take, though ironically it also doesn't take much courage. In times of social change the question is not how objective one can be, it is, "Which side are you on?"

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do not believe calling someone a slut, cunt, fucker, nigger, spic, kike, dike, coon, wop... is ever appropriate. It does not take any courage. In fact to me the behavior is a cop out and shows weakness.

When someone resorts to this behavior I believe the do not have the intellect or courage to develop a reasonable argument and instead seeks to promote hatred.

[-] 0 points by MrWashburn (5) 2 years ago

Doesn't obama continuously exploit bigotry to get votes?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Examples?

[-] 0 points by MrWashburn (5) 2 years ago

Have you seen what hes been doing? Hes using race to get re-elected and creates a phony war on women. Hes a lieing scumbag who exploits stereotypes to get his way.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

It's spelled lying, you ignorant fuck. You are so full of shit I can smell you from here.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

what about ed shutlz? what about obama using the term " teabaggers "?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Tea partiers are despicable ignorant bigots who deserve to be mocked and belittled with unceasing urgency. Why is your only defense of Rush to deflect by crying foul against others? Because there is no other defense for Rush.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

ms fluke was NOT "testifying" before congress. she was speaking at a nancy pelosi set up press conference.

[-] 3 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

No, she was testifying before Congress, the reason being that Republican cavemen have launched a war on women. Republican misogyny started this ball rolling.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

get your facts right, fluke did NOT testify before a congresional committee. flake gave her " tesitmony" in a press conference st up be pelosi. do some research on it, before you mouth off with the dem talking points

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Fluke TESTIFIED before a House Sub-Committee. I am not a Democrat, I do not watch cable news or listen to talk radio, you will hear no talking points from me, only facts gleaned from READING a NEWSPAPER. On the other hand, I am certain you did not come up with the "Pelosi Press Conference" distortion yourself, I suspect it's a RepubliKKKlan talking point. How ironic.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

sorry dear, it was NOT a house sub committee,.....is a was press conference staged by pelosi to look like a house committee..

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

There's your RepubliKKKlan talking point again.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

it's a fact, NOT a talking point, but ows /dems/ libs never let the facts get in the way of their agenda

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

How is it a fact? She testified before a House Sub-Committee, which in your opinion did not qualify as a House Sub-Committee. Where did you get this line of BS from, because you definitely did not come up with it yourself. And even if it was a press conference, this is your defense for Rush's vicious attacks on a person he did not know because she was a woman?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

she did NOT " testify" before a house committee,....it was a press conference set up by nancy pelosi to look like a hearing. you're entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT entitled to you own facts. any comments about ed shultz or letterman or maher and their continuing hate speech directed ate palin and any republican they choose to malign?

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

And Obama had Breitbart killed and Rush no bad cuz look look udder people say stuff.

[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Because a bunch of middle-aged white guys didn't let her testify before Congress. A panel full of males discussing female health issues, who knew?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

there were two witness scheduled that day, one was not going to be there so the dems wanted to put fluke in as last minute substitute. it doesnt work that was in DC. Oh, and they were not discussing "womens health issues" it was about the constitutionality of the forcing a religious institution to go against its principles,............ something that's proteced by the first amendment.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

No, religion is just your excuse from a bunch of middle-aged white to assert their dominance over women.

You and your fiction has no right to tell ANYBODY what to do with their lives. Keep your delusions in church where they belong. I'm going to fight this religious assault on women's rights tooth and nail, because I am sick and tired of a bunch of idiots who blindly follow some fiction book trying to tell everyone what to do.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Indeed (well stated) ... except that it's not only a bunch of middle aged white men (if it were, the kookery of religion would be easier to deal with).

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you're too stupid to understand the issue.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

No me and many others are just not falling for your bullshit any longer. Get your fiction out of women's lives. You don't see me advocating for drug tests at your churches, do you? Maybe we should require all church-goers to undergo psychiatric evaluations just to make sure that they have enough mental capacity to realize that the bible isn't FACT, its FICTION that people choose to BELIEVE.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you're still stupid. go read the 1st amendment to the constitution.

[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Where does the 1st amendment say that "women are not allowed to receive health care that they need, while men are covered for Viagra?"

Fucking Christian pig. Why do you hate women?

Freedom of religion doesn't give anyone the freedom to oppress people, and that includes denying medical care. You fucking religious freaks are all the same. You think you are doing "good" but all you are doing is attacking everyone that isn't you. We're not putting up with your bullshit for any longer. Go away.

[-] 1 points by melbel61 (113) 2 years ago

No but the first amendment protects religious freedom. If Ms. Fluke or you or any woman wants their contraception paid for through their health insurance, then don't go to a Catholic university or work for a catholic organization. I'm a woman, non-practicing Catholic. I'm non-practicing because I disagree with the Church on a myriad of issues, however, I believe in the Constitution and I will defend their constitutional right for freedom of religion. That's the point of this ridiculous argument. Women in this country are not oppressed. If you want to see real oppression, look at the Middle East, Africa, etc., where women cannot be educated; must wear burkas; are frequently raped, mutilated, and killed by their oppressors. I'm sorry, this so called 'war on women' in this country is laughable when compared to the true human suffering by woman around the world.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Denying women health care is a step backwards for human rights... Remember only a few decades ago black people were not allowed to use the same bathrooms as whites, and a few decades before that women didn't even get to vote. The bible was used to justify slavery as well.

Doesn't this restriction infringe on everyone's religious rights if they are NOT Christian? If I work for an employer, I don't want his/her beliefs to cause me to lose some of my rights. Its is discriminatory against Athiests, Jews, Muslims, etc. Employers can't discriminate against their employees, no matter what religion the employer claims to represent.

How is this even attacking anyone's religious freedom? No one is stopping you from praying or going to church. No one is stopped from believing that the Earth is only 6000 years old, water turned to wine, etc. but there is no law that states that you get to force those beliefs on others. Muslim men cannot enforce "sharia law" in this country either. You can believe, but if your belief is against the law then you can't ACT on the belief. There are probably some murder cults in this country that think the laws against murder are infringing on their religious beliefs too...

The fact that you want to attack a group of people just because they want medical care is NOT a religious right. Your rights end where mine begin. You can believe that contraception is wrong and speak/pray about it all day long, but you can't act on that belief and break the law by keeping that item away from women.

If you don't want to provide medical care for your employees, then get out of business or run the business with no employees. You have the right to do whatever you want to in this country. You don't have to have any employees at all. In fact, if you are so against following the law because of your beliefs, how about leaving the country? I hear Iran is nice this time of year...

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 2 years ago

Explain how not covering the cost of birth control pills is an attack on women. There is no rights violated here. Birth control pills are an "optional" pharmaceutical in most cases except where required for medical regulation of a women's period. Birth control is always optional, not a mandate. Besides, there are many cheap or free outlets outside the institution of discussion. So where is the problem? The rhetoric is way offline on the actual subject matter. Too many mis-statements have been presented on this forum. It becomes a much easier discussion without all the talking points.

[-] 1 points by melbel61 (113) 2 years ago

so then from your post, you do not believe in the first amendment, freedom of religion? you don't have to work for any organization, religious or otherwise that do not provide you the health benefits that you so desire. as I stated in my post, I am a non-practicing Catholic and I wouldn't work for the catholic church, but I respect their religious rights, that's the difference. You want people to respect your views, but don't seem to respect others. If you want a health insurance policy that includes contraception, then don't work for the church, plain and simple.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

No its the other way around. If I am an atheist and I want to work for a catholic hospital for whatever reason, then you a) can't refuse to hire me based on my religious views alone, b) can't fire me based on my religious views, AND c) can't treat me any differently than anyone else because of my religious views. This law would allow employers to abuse c. It would effectively give the green light to companies to discriminate against entire groups of employees because of one person's religious beliefs.

The 1st amendment grants individual rights, NOT group rights. You as an individual have every right to deny health care coverage to yourself, but you cannot deny those rights to others.

We should create a constitutional amendment that clarifies exactly what the 1st amendment means, because religious groups have been hiding insidious and discriminatory practices behind it for too long.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Ah yes, yet another fine example of what has turned occupy to shit.

While fine christian folks have been busy defending labor laws, opposing sopa/pipa, working for social justice as called for by the bible, people like you whom claim tolerance, show that you are anything but tolerant.

But when we accomplish the afore mentioned, people like you try to claim credit where credit isn't due.

People of faith helped overturn anti-labor laws here in Ohio

People like you accomplish nothing.

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I don't need a fiction book to tell me what is right and what is wrong. That's the difference between people like me and people like you. You claim to be the most moral people, yet your book tells you to attack gays, blacks, muslims, etc. The bible was used to justify slavery, the crusades, and the spanish inquisition. If your bible never existed then millions of lives would have been saved.

You don't think agnostics, atheists, muslims, gays, and other people that you Christians hate so much weren't busy "defending labor laws, opposing sopa/pipa, working for social justice?" We do all of those things, AND we stand up for the rights of those that you so-called tolerant people want to see dead.

No, I'm NOT tolerant of hatred, in any form.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Boy you really are a crazy person.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Speak for yourself. Believing that people turned water into wine, walk on water, that the Earth is 6000 years old! Cool story, bro!

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

[-] 0 points by debndan (1111) 17 minutes ago

Ah yes, yet another fine example of what has turned occupy to shit.


So you are here - because why?

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

oh I pop in every few week in between actual activism to see if occupy online has gone back to what it was in the beginning, or if it's continuing down the road of extremism.

And since occupy continues to claim to represent the 99% I want to see whom claims to talk for me.

Not to mention from time to time people come here looking to see what they can do to make a difference, so at every opportunity I mention the importance of voting in the primaries, registering others, ballot initiatives, letters to editors etc., you know, generally accomplishing something.

Oh, wait, you don't know about that sort of thing, my bad.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You know?

I do not ever remember your bringing a direct action item here and posting it for participation.

I do all the time. I also post them out to other social media for wider coverage.

This I would call productive use of time on a communications hub.

And I am not the only one - others here are doing the same.

So if you are a true supporter in the movements against corruption I would suggest that you put-up or shut-up.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

blah blah blah

I don't remember anyone from occupy helping to overturn anti-labor laws here in ohio

but as far as using this forum to help further such a thing, there was only one person back in November that did so and I believe I'm sitting in their chair.

But that was to accomplish something

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Whatever. Sure do think a lot of yourself don'tcha.

See the thing about this movement? You don't have to be visible to participate. There are plenty who are visible on a daily basis but not everyone is able to do that.

So HTF would you know as to who was involved? Did you personally interview all of those people and ask them ?

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

well, to reply to your last comment( below it was no option) the HTF I know who was or wasn't involved in the repeal of those laws? Because we circulated those petitions BEFORE occupy ever existed.

But here are a few of my earliest posts when occupy first got up and going:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-ows-needs-us-conservatives-and-how-you-can-att/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarianism-is-so-wonderful/

Post's like those were not only acceptable back then, but much appreciated, but that was when occupy really was tolerant, go ahead read for yourself.

Then try to say with a straight face the occupy of back then is the same as it is now.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope you have not changed - your still full of yourself and still very condescending.

Do you find it hard to look away from a mirror?

Thank God The movements against corruption continue to grow and develop. We are stronger now then we were back then. We are more diversified than ever. Yet we remain on point.

Don't care if "you" agree with this assessment or not.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The sky in your world is PUKE GREEN?????

Business is business.

Church is church.

The addressing of a business issue is not a religious infringement.

You have freedom of religion, there is no such thing as freedom of business. Though the corrupt are trying very hard for it.

[-] 0 points by MrWashburn (5) 2 years ago

Quick question. If businesses aren't free to find ways to profit... what reason do hey have to keep people who come up with the new ideas?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Business operates to the same laws as always. These laws need to be enforced, that leaves plenty of legal leeway to operate under. The comment you were responding to was about the church running a business, they have the same legal rights and no more. At least that is the way it should be.

[-] 3 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Calling somebody a prostitute, who is not actually a prostitute, on the air to ten million people is libelous. Considering that she is a law student, he is lucky that he is not getting sued for it.

Howard Stern is not on AM radio so if your kids hear it it is your fault.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

must be because rush vocalizes what is in the filthy hearts of republicans and they do not like that! they want you to believe they are good christian souls.. not greedy hate filled control freaks they actually are.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20443) 2 years ago

I don't listen to either. But, in fairness, Stern is not leading a political party the way Limbaugh is, right?

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

How does Rush have all of the influence that he does? Dems don't have anyone with that kind of influence that I'm aware of, do they (if you might know)?

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

He has influence because he has 15-20 million listeners most of which are probably active voters. I listened to him a bit in the 1990s when I was in the care a lot. He is definitely a right winger.

There is nobody on the left with that many listeners or viewers but if you add up the shows that are left oriented you get close.

  1. Bill Maher has 2 million viewers
  2. Rachel Maddow has 1 million viewers
  3. The Ed show with 930,000 viewers
  4. Chris Mathews has 800,000 viewers

But then again Bill O'Reilley has 2.5 million viewers and Sean Hannity has 2 million viewers. Maybe the country just prefers conservative leaning talk shows.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I think you're right that America leans toward those conservative radio shows because they are so over the top lewd, crude and ugly. It's like listening to those evangelist radio shows where the preacher screams stirring the listeners up like a pep rally. People are addicted to that kind of crap...look at what's on TV most of the time...aggression, violence, sports and those ridiculous reality shows full of hysteria. conservatives love ugly, arrogant, competitive hype. It's a dog eat dog world and who better than to lead the pack but an aggressive conservative.
The only conservative that I like is Ron Paul. At least the man is a gentleman and behaves respectfully .

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I have to cop to watching Bill Maher with some regularity. I watch mainly because of the guests and panelists he has on. Him, I could take or leave, though occasionally he says something funny. He's a comedian, first and foremost so he's supposed to crack wise. Rachel Maddow had a credibility issue recently, if I remember correctly. Don't watch her too much at all. Same for Ed. I never watch Chris Mathews. Well, I DID a few times, but that was several years ago. I didn't care for his style of interviewing people, so I stopped watching his show after a month or so. I have been watching some Dylan Rattigan. Seems like an intelligent guy.

I watch Hannity, The Five and even the ego that is Bill O'Reilley on occasion, getting a laugh or two from them as well.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20443) 2 years ago

I have really no idea, but I'll guess it's a combination of charisma and saying what people are really thinking and want to hear. He reinforces people's feelings and beliefs, maybe?

I'm thinking maybe Bill Clinton for the Dems, but no one of celebrity stature that has a constant bully pulpit the way Rush does.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

He seems to tap into something not-so-deep-down in some folks. It's like that Oral Roberts thing, almost. Some wierd charisma coupled with predetermined biases and stereotyping or something. I can't think of anyone I see that way as being influential of me. Anyway, if Rush got the axe, I guess the petitions sent to his shows sponsors played a role in that, though I don't much care for censorship. That's what would've been done in effect with this firing. Of course I'm writing this without knowing the broadcast member stations' policies regarding slander.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20443) 2 years ago

I don't think he has been fired. And, yes, he's just reinforcing people's, I hate to say it, ignorance.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I'm angry someone decided to censor me on this debate. I not a conspiracy theorist and I can back up every claim I make. I need about two months time sorry for the delay but I will provide proof. Ridiculous.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

When a bratty, sniveling child gets in trouble, he/she points to the nearest kid and says, "Well, he did it too!" I love that you think Rush only called her a slut once. That's what happens when you get your info from sound bites. When's the last time you read a book or had an original thought?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Rush Limbaugh gets canned


thanks for the wonderful news! I would open the can, dump it where it belongs, and flush

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is toxic material. I would hope that you would handle it more appropriately. Send it to the CDC or EPA if nothing else for proper disposal.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No one cares about Howard Stern and he isn't a big political player either.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Howard Stern built his career on being infantile, nasty, irreverent and tasteless...huh...maybe there isn't that much difference between Howard and Rush after all.

[-] 1 points by onepercentguy (294) 2 years ago

love stern. purchased a lifetime sirius subscription when he debuted for 500 bucks. turned out to be a great purchase.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Stern had to go to a pay service a good option for Rush

I saw Rush up on the stage with all the elected Washington GOP sitting below and going up to get his blessing tell me when did the elected D's throw a big party for Stern?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I thought Howard stern was on satellite radio...you have to subscribe. Bill mayer comes on late at night which gets him around the fcc rules. They re all gross.

It's a conspiracy though. Really. Dnc been planning it for atleast five years I know of.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

This is free speech. Advertisers are NOT forced to support Rush's brand of hate. They can freely take their dollars somewhere else. It's the free market that the right touts so much until it's no longer convenient to their brand of truth.

Stern is pay for play. If you don't pay to hear him, you won't. Ray, next time research your position, obviously here, you way mis-informed. You missed this one by a long shot.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

This argument is like a baby brother who can't handle not being tall enough to go on a go kart ride while his older brother can. Why don't you care about something REAL like the tax break for the 1% that the 99% don't get? That is a REAL ongoing problem. The discrepancies in those who have health insurance and those who do not. Learn to know what battles are worth fighting. Don't be part of sensational arguments that mean nothing. Do you want a be a tool for hand that holds you down for the rest of your life?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I wish Sirius would fire Howard Stern too, he's a fucking goofy douche bag, who looks like big bird on Sesame Street (and his old tired routine isn't funny anymore). But anyway, I don't think Rush Limbaugh was fired (at least not from his main radio program).

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Why is it that no one here seems to know that Rush Limbaugh is self employed and cannot be "fired"???

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

No but...If you lose your Customers(Advertisers)...You cant stay in buisness...Now who are Rushes listeners.?..Older people who still have a transister radio and vote...age 65-100 and something. More Depends Diapers and Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

[-] 1 points by fst2011 (6) 2 years ago

Not to be rude but this info does not belong here. Someone needs to make a forum where we can have regular talk and then a section for info on the OWS. Alot of really good info is being pushed down cause of casual talk. There is a place for it...but until they fix up this forum we ALL need to make an effort to STAY on TOPIC

Mac

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

Rush is doing better than ever,.......more listeners,......more sponsors. the media matters campaign against him is a huge failure. By the way,............Limbaugh OWNS a majority share of the network he broadcasts over.he can't be fired.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A Limpballs supporter.

Huh.

Now who woulda guessed?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I have never listened to either of these shock jocks, but I did look up Howard Stern and found that since 2006 he has been on subscription (i.e., viewers/isteners choose to pay for his channels) radio and TV, which is probably why no one hears about him anymore. I also wish everyone would just ignore RL except those who choose to hear what he has to say. He is preaching to the choir, and not likely to change anyone else's opinions. Pretending his words are "newsworthy" and reporting them to those of us who do not want to hear them has the sole purpose of making people angry. Enuf already: we're angry enough without help. I must admit, though, that I have learned more about the depths of his ignorance.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Can Howard Stern too. He's another right-wing slimeball.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Based upon his comments Rush seems to think that all Americans pay for Georgetown University's health insurance plan and that the amount of birth control pills you take depends upon how much sex you have. Any point he might have had is rendered moot by his complete lack of comprehension of the situation he was railing against, his rant was only coherent if you live in an absurd fantasy world of hate and greed, of course this is the guy who took so much Oxy he went deaf for a week, maybe he was in an altered state and babbling incoherently? Probably.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I hate Rush Limbaugh...but there is a very IMPORTANT point to be made!

Free Speech is under attack and trivial opinions are becoming the platform for the news media while the real issues like the steadfast erosion of our Constitution is a fact and under attack by BOTH parties!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Slander and libel are not free speech. When I say Rush is a fat fuck addicted to hillbilly heroin, that is free speech, because it's true. But Rush slandered this young woman, nothing he said made any sense or resembled reality.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Slander and libel have to be proven and damages have to be shown in a court of law. Rush Limbaugh was voicing and 'opinion' which is different than accusing the woman of some act.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

So it was Rush's "opinion" that a woman he never met was a slut and a prostitute, and when he called her a slut and a prostitute, over and over, he wasn't accusing her of any act? Think about how ridiculous you are.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

No, I am not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is the fact Rush Limbaugh is given a platform and you are contributing to it. What is more important is for you to understand Free Speech and the First Amendment. Its under attack darling and you are part of it, regardless of the fact that Rush is a dispicable person!!!!!!!!!! Get an education!

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

So what was Rush basing his "opinion" that she was a slut and prostitute on? No one is saying Rush should go to prison, just that anyone who listens to and/or supports him is just as despicable as that drug-addicted hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

You miss the point of Free Speech and the First Amendment entirely. Free Speech is the bulwark against oppression and extremism. Trying to curb it is going to give you exactly that....extremism and oppression...

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

All I said was Limbaugh is despicable, which is, guess what, freedom of speech! Also, as has already been explained a multitude of times, libel and slander are not free speech, and calling her a prostitute over and over was libel/slander. Your turn to continue talking in circles, you slut whore.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Ah ad homs are for people who cannot debate the issues. I should have known to begin with and not responded to your simplicity ;) Divide and conquer , divide and conquer...

[-] 0 points by MrWashburn (5) 2 years ago

Don't you occupiers see you are making things worse? You preach unity and all that crap but cant seem to all agree on how to accomplish your goal. Some of many of the teenagers in your organization just want to rebel or be part of something. We have blacks down south calling for bloodshed and neo Nazis more than happy to oblige. We have incompetent people managing the military. We have aggressive foreign nations building ICBMs. We have a world on the brink of a 30 minute war. There are bigger things to worry about than SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT YOUR BOSSES ARE OUT TO GET YOU. Grow up. We have serious issues thaat should have he full attention of our military. We shouldn't have to worry about domestic issues at a time like this. If you want to help 'the people' volunteer for service. At this point in time the mayans aren't looking crazy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

Calling someone a slut, cunt, fucker, nigger, spic, kike, dike, coon, wop...is protected speech and has been ruled by the Supreme court as such see Cohen Vs State of Califonia.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

If our radio/print/internet journalists are not offending anyone they are not working hard enough!!! I have had it with Anderson Cooper he is a 1% as his mother is Gloria Vanderbilt of the Vanderbilt Railroad Fortune

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

I should have the right to say what I want to say no matter how riduculas you think it is or who it offends

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

This just in-- Jane Fonda( Excumnicated Catholic) and Gloria Steinham( banned from Orthadox Synagoges) have teamed up against Rush Limbaugh(German Lutheran?)--

http://volokh.com/2012/03/13/jane-fonda-and-gloria-steinem-call-for-government-suppression-of-rush-limbaughs-radio-broadcasts/ and http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/13/jane-fonda-and-gloria-steinem-rush-limba

[-] -1 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

Rush aint broke either....Howard smokes doobie while Rush smokes 20.00 cigars. Do you think the 2 could stand to be in the same room together?......Now come on when has Howard actulay informed us of anything?

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Anyone remember Jack Stuef???

by RB 16 hours ago

BuzzFeed didn't do itself any favors on March 19th when it published what appears to be its first contribution by a writer named Jack Stuef. Doesn't ring a bell? Let's stroll down memory lane.

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded. [...] His mom went to a lot of trouble to leak amniotic fluid over 8 states to make sure that he arrived in this world somewhat alive,” [...] Enjoy yourself today, Trig. Have fun! Get drunk (on purpose this time)! We can hardly wait for 15 years from now, when you will finally be able to vote and will be sent off by your mother’s junta to fight the Union in the Great Alaska War. It’ll be quite a loss. You’re the smartest one in that family.

You read that correctly. Stuef is referring to Sarah Palin's son, Trig. The youngest of the Palin family. The one with Down's Syndrome.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/20/Buzzfeed-The-New-Wonkette

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27763) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Howard Stern is an entertaining Shit Head. He is in fact the 1st to admit that he is a douche and in it for the money.

He has also been fired more than once.