caroljane

I never even knew he was fat until I saw that photo here. I had only heard him but I admit, he sounded fat.

Furthermore I resent your implication that "getting" a person because he is white, rich or self-made, or anything else for that matter, or that "getting" people in general, is a motivation of mine. I thought you knew me better.

Carol: So the fact that she was an operative with an agenda and apparently lied in her testimony and it has nothing at all to do with contraception does not matter? Just get the rich fat successful self made white guy and all will be fine. Adam Of course it does not matter, in Limbaugh's world. Only the numbers matter. The facts and issues of the situation matter to me, but I am not part of this equation.

Carol: So the fact that she was an operative with an agenda and apparently lied in her testimony and it has nothing at all to do with contraception does not matter? Just get the rich fat successful self made white guy and all will be fine. Adam

Everything gets old. It looks like Limbaugh's tried and true formula of 30 years is showing a few leaks and maybe even (gasp!) costing him money in the form of sponsors, until the heat dies down.

Indeed. I picture her as a sort of Bette Davis (who would have been perfect casting as Rand if the times had jibed)/Mommie dearest type. but who knows, she might have been a distracted babushka type. And there would have been Frank. The children of the great have a pretty bad time anyway, if they were wanted or not. Evelyn Waugh for example was a horrible father, abusive and negligent by turns, his son Auberon inherited his talent however and was an excellent writer, though not the novelist his father was. The mother appears to have been a complete doormat.

Hell of a Ménage à trois! Imagine the conversation! Which one is Maggie? Um, who is the guy? Nathanial Branden's grandfather...even then he knew! lol - too bad Rand never wanted kids. Imagine who could be running for president now!

My guess is a show business misfire. His initial mocking spiked ratings and buzz, so he poured it on. That's the best I can do. I do not think he is a bigot. Michael It does not matter much what he "is", does it? He is an entertainer who will pour on anything that spikes ratings, a moral blank and a cynic. A rich one.

Hell of a Ménage à trois! Imagine the conversation! Which one is Maggie? Um, who is the guy?

The manager fired his bff the coach. It's the manager who should go too. Instead of the best choice(Eckstein), he hired as replacement Randy Carlyle, whom the players hate. PS did you check out the Israel story above? It's a heart lifter.

On the other hand of this sadness, there was a beautiful story in the Toronto Star yesterday, about a hockey team in Israel (Yes, Israel, who knew?) where Israeli and Arab kids play together, on a rink built by a Canadian philanthropist. The team is coming to Canada to tour, and I hope I can get to see them.

Not nearly as boring as usual is the current election fraud scandal. To date over 31,000 complaints have been lodged by voters who were robocalled and misdirected to nonexistent polling places. RMG, the telemarketing company responsible, is of particular interest to me because it is the selfsame place where I worked and helped to unionize fifteen years ago. At that time a big client was the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, headed by Stephen Harper, a close pal of the company head, Michael Davis. I vividly remember us picketers chasing Davis down the Yorkville Street chanting, "Michael Davis, shame on you! You don't care what's false or true!" Little did we know.

In case you missed it, she's on SLOP boasting that she, age 78, has a 25 year old “bf”. http://www.solopassi...#comment-106817 Reminds me of one of my favorite short stories by a "postmodern" author: http://thefloatingli.../08/24/granita/ Wowie. Well,, good on her . Too bad the boy's mother is so prejudiced, luckily J has the advantage of superior academic credentials. She is wrong about what mothers can forgive, however. The nornettes story made my sides ache. A treasure.

Sir, surely you mean "pulchritudinous persons in pastel podcasts" don't you? I know who would win!

Dennis, this is horrible. I know how you feel. Now that it looks like the greatest player in hockey is finished at the age of 25 due to a head hit, the only thing that would make it worse for a fan would be to think that the hit was "just business" for the other team.

Here she comes, that little town flirt.

I've never heard of this before. Mozart only wrote 4 horn concerti. I know, the 9th was your cue. Great thanks for this. I love the vid of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics too!

I'm sure he is often funny. He's a radio entertainer after all. And of course he does not care about Fluke, or anyone else he targets, one way or another. They are just targets. But I do think that the relentless Us vs. Tnem form of public discourse, carried out by booming bullies in broadcast booths, is destructive of critical thinking and political progress.

OK , fine. I said in my first post on this topic that this lady had entered the public political realm by her statement.No argument. But where are you going after this? Do most men agree with Limbaugh's statements?

You are asking a rhetorical question, as I think you know. You have left the context and personality issues dangling. Of course there are buzzwords which cause people to make unthinking judgments. But labelling in and of itself does not survive scrutiny after the heat of the moment. Limbaugh's words of slut and prostitute, addressed to a stranger who was commenting on a public issue of contraception, and his saying her parents would be proud of her, were buzzwords in the heat of the moment which his own "personality" expressed; but he has a national audience he was well aware of; he is a public person; his buzzwords cannot hold up so he has "apologized". My personal characterization of his public statements as misogynist etc. do hold up.

Why do you ask me to separate the words of a radio personality, from his "personality"? All I know of him are his words, that is all he offers to the public.

I do, with the qualification that he is willing to pander to his audience by appearing to be such a person, while preserving his private opinions. Which is contemptible. I wonder what Ayn Rand would think, to have this wretched slug as a leading voice of liberty in America. Carol: She would not have been a fan because of the religious issues. Same way she was not supportive of Reagan. I just want to get a general standard of behavior to judge a person. I frankly wish that Rush had not said what he said in the way he said it. It was still funny. George Carlin and a slew of comedians have made cutting remarks about women. There are female comedians and commentators that have done the same. My question to you, my friend, is, if the words that he used and the phrases that he used were used by comedian X, or radio host Y, would the words in and of themselves make that person a "contemptible misogynist?" Adam Adam , you are asking me to divorce the words and phrases from their context. Nice try. Of course these phrases can always be funny. One of my favourites is the Feynman quote 9th cited once "You are nothing but a whore!"That was really funny. I have myself been called a slut on occasion, although not a prostitute, and it was funny in context, but it was not in public and it was not said by the likes of Limbaugh. His words in his context do make him contemptible, and his "apoligies", maybe more so.

I do, with the qualification that he is willing to pander to his audience by appearing to be such a person, while preserving his private opinions. Which is contemptible. I wonder what Ayn Rand would think, to have this wretched slug as a leading voice of liberty in America.

Carol: I got that. I am never going to make a dent in that shield. He fundamentally revolutionized the medium of radio. He has been an anchor of argumentation concerning the march to marxism in my country. Contemptible is synonymous with "mean," "abject," "low," "base." I maintain, and I have followed him since the second year of his national broadcasting, that that is not accurate. Rush is not mean. He is one of the most generous persons in America. His charity is well known, in addition to his anonymous giving. Rush is brutally satirical and that could appear to take a low road. His apology was clear in stating that he chose the wrong metaphorical language and choice of words. Judged by his fifteen hours per week of virtually spontaneous conversation with his audience, this was barely a whisper on the low road. I believe there is a much deeper issue on why you perceive him as "contemptible." What if he had not used poorly chosen words? What was Ms. Fluke's argument that she offered? Moving the Rush noise aside, what was her argument? Can you state it with clarity? Adam Well. Revolutionizing things is a controversial accomplishment. Lenin revolutionized Russia, for example. I am pleased to hear that Mr. Limbaugh has made charitable donations, and I hope he got good tax exemptions for them. How do you know about his anonymous ones? Inside info? Whatever he has mealy-mouthed about his latest misogynist outburst means nothing as I am sure you well know. The definition you provided still fits him.

Adam, for heavens sake, by "political" I meant that she submitted herself to public scrutiny in a political context. However you dance around it or what other contemptible things other commentators have done I maintain that Limbaugh is contemptible.