Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, February 18, 2019

The defense that conservatives use to explain away Rush Limbaugh’s more outrageous statements is that he’s a “comedian.” A comedian who is praised and supplicated by the leaders of the Republican Party.

Rush made one of his famous jokes on Monday:

You find yourself staring, looking at, casually glancing at a woman, but you know that it’s now socially taboo. You shouldn’t be doing it. And you think everybody is noticing you doing it and condemning you in their minds. You shouldn’t — so you walk up to the woman and say, “Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?”

Try that. Might help. And you don’t know ’til you try it.

Get it?

There’s proof that it’s a joke because the same or a similar joke has been made about 30 million times, according to Google. There’s even a Facebook page based on it.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) recently announced that the GOP leadership was providing training on how to speak to female voters, which is likely part of what Limbaugh was mocking with his “tip.”

Clearly this training is already paying off. Iowa Republican candidate for Senate Mark Jacobs revealed that women need to be spoken to on an “emotional level,” something he learned from his wife and daughters. Apparently, after a long day of being told that their breasts are staring at men, women aren’t capable of being spoken to like adults.

Rush Limbaugh Rape Filibuster

 

Screenshot via the Rush Limbaugh Show

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 315

136 responses to “LISTEN: Comedian Rush Limbaugh Has Advice For Men Who Stare At Women’s Breasts”

  1. montanabill says:

    Someone from the side of moral depravity is criticizing an old joke? That’s hilarious!

    • charleo1 says:

      At least we believe in feeding hungry children, Bill. You’ll never grab
      the high ground, carrying that millstone around your neck!

      • montanabill says:

        Unfortunately, most on your side believe in feeding hungry children with someone else’s money. I rarely see personal, involved compassion from liberals. The people who work beside me in charitable endeavors are usually conservative like me. I won’t say it never happens, but it is rare.

        • Lynda Groom says:

          You need to broaden your circle of friends. We volunteer for the local senior fire wood program and our group has people from all walks of life and political affiliation. Doing good things does not depend upon which political party one believes in.

          I can’t help but wonder just where you believe the money to help feed hungry children is suppose to come from? Very few of us can afford to feed everyone in need without revenue from other sources. Would you like to explain yourself further?

          • montanabill says:

            I’m glad to hear that you are investing personal time. That is as important, maybe more, than simply writing a check. However, that check is important too, as you well know. The money comes from people who share the belief that we must help our neighbors. In my circumstance, I am able to donate quite a bit and do. Since I’m still very active in my businesses, my free time is a little scarce, but when I can make the time or get a specific request, I will make every attempt to personally help. As you have surmised my writing, this is the type of help, I believe, works, not massive bureaucratic government programs that mostly support those who are part of the bureaucracy. The amount of money squandered by these programs (any single one of them) is staggering! Unfortunately, for all the supposed ‘do good’, they continue to exist without keen oversight or review, and ultimately become simply vote buying dependency programs using taxpayer money.

          • mikem42 says:

            Stop blowing your own horn. You aren’t the story here. Many do more and don’t ask for recognition.

          • montanabill says:

            Pay attention the comment content. No recognition is ever considered.

          • Lynda Groom says:

            Unfortunately there are not enough church events that can put a dent in the problem. Charity is wonderful thing, but it is not enough. The problem is just too large to expect private donations of time and money to solve. We need government to lend a hand when it is needed. The days of having bake sales to help the poor family down the block are long gone like many of the fictions of the 50’s.

          • montanabill says:

            Church events? You are casting a pretty narrow net. While it is true that social conservatives do tend to contribute more through their churches than liberals, they also donate significantly directly to charitable organizations and causes. I’m not a social conservative, so the majority of my giving is direct. As an example, it was not the government that helped polio victims or funded research. It was the March of Dimes. It is the American Cancer Society and other cancer organizations, like Susan B. Komen and the Childrens Miracle Network that do the most for those stricken with cancer and funding research. St. Jude does wonderful work for children. Those are just a few, not to mention veterans support groups like the Wounded Warrior Project. With those, their are lots of local support groups in our respective communities. Believe me, we donate significantly to charities. Just don’t let a closed mind blind you.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            Do you realy think that the organizations you mention are the exclusive domain of conservatives? Preposterous!

          • montanabill says:

            No such statement was made or implied. You are interpreting what you read with a blind eye.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            And you are trying to think without a brain.

          • tax payer says:

            Tax money the Government would use to lend a hand. The poor family down the block may have more, but they will let you know they have nothing. So, people believe them and try their best to make them happy.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            Would that you were so irate about the waste of taxpayer money on corporate welfare.Waste is waste isn’t it? At least the ones you cry about are spread around to people while the others are ushered into off shore corporate bank accounts.Some good,in fact a great deal of good,is better than none.

          • montanabill says:

            You just made a big assumption based on the left’s propaganda. And you made it wrong.

          • Mark Forsyth says:

            You wish! I did neither one.

          • montanabill says:

            That time you didn’t make an assumption, you made a mistake.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            All the charity money donated for everything probably wouldn’t cover the need in any single category. Of course, if one thinks that about one in a million or two people receiving public assistance “deserves” it as you obviously do, then charity is great.

          • montanabill says:

            Speculation. Of the 47 million on SNAP, how many truly need or deserve to be on the program? If you have been on unemployment for over 6 months, is it possible you shouldn’t be? How many of the 77 different welfare programs are really needed and don’t duplicate each other? I understand if you can’t answer those questions with any certainty, because government makes no effort to monitor, quantify or serious qualify these programs.

          • Charles L Smith SR says:

            The church I go to will have a food drive about every 2 months. They will have it after a Sunday service. And the members go to a Publix store. And we fill up all of the local food banks.

        • Charles L Smith SR says:

          The conservatives do give more to foodbanks,charities,,and churches..

          • dmhlt_66 says:

            NO – they do NOT!

            Well, except for giving to churches. That’s what they like to point to, to make them look “generous” – they give to institutions that provide THEM a service.

            Liberals are much more generous in donating to organizations that provide a direct service to the poor.

            Documented by an MIT study:

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

          • montanabill says:

            There are plenty of studies that support both sides, so simply cherry picking one that supports your contention is hardly the absolute word.

          • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

            Please provide the ones that support your side of the discussion and of course is non-partisan.

          • montanabill says:

            Simply Google: conservative liberal donations to charity

          • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

            “We found that while both Republicans and Democrats tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority,” said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and assistant professor of marketing at Pennsylvania State University. “Given these differences, Republicans are more inclined to donate to a charity when these values of purity and respect are met, whereas Democrats are more inclined to donate when the emphasis is purely on equality or protection rather than respect or purity.””
            Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-liberals-politics-affects-charitable.html#jCp

          • dmhlt_66 says:

            [1] I didn’t “cherry pick” anything
            [2] It’s clear you did NOT read the study
            [3] It was an MIT study published in a peer-review journal
            [4] You provided NO cites supporting your contention – well, other than “Ipse dixit” …
            [5] But you said it like a true right-winger

          • montanabill says:

            Please! As a former academic, I’m familiar with ‘peer review’. And, given the large diversity of available studies, both independent and university supported, you did, indeed, cherry pick.

          • dmhlt_66 says:

            I got to admit, you have got “Ipse Dixit” down to a fine art.
            Facts? Not so much! Hell, NOT AT ALL!
            Then again, Facts do have a definite Liberal bias.

          • montanabill says:

            I did previously post the Google line you needed to verify my contention.

          • dmhlt_66 says:

            Going to go to one of yours – Joe Wilson:
            YOU LIE!
            Because no, you did NOT post any Google links.
            You want the last response, you can have it – because you’re not wasting any more of my time.

          • plc97477 says:

            They are hoping that by giving to churches they can have a hope of getting to whatever heaven they believe in.

          • highpckts says:

            BS!!!

          • tax payer says:

            Double that.

          • BillP says:

            Could please provide some evidence of this claim. Where I live that is just not he case for food banks and charities.

        • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

          First, “our side” believes in feeding hungry children with our money as well. Do you ask ALL people who work in charitable endeavors if they are conservative or progressives? Do you ask ALL people who make donations if they are conservative or progressives? Oh by the way most really “Good Christians” do not have to go around telling everyone about their charitable endeavors, they do it because they are compassionate not for recognition.

          • montanabill says:

            Then I would expect you to agree that it is far more effective to do such work at a local level with known organizations than to simply support large, impersonal government programs that are extremely ineffective and riddled with fraud.

          • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

            You would be wrong, I do not believe it is far more effective to do such work at a local level. I support government programs combined with the local charitable organizations. Do government programs have fraud yes, but riddled with fraud – no. Please provide the proof that they are riddled with fraud and not just the talking points from Beck, Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge report.

          • montanabill says:

            Simply check out the GAO reports.

          • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

            From the GAO report: ”

            GAO has designated Medicare and Medicaid as high-risk programs partly because their size, scope, and complexity make them vulnerable to fraud. Congress established the HCFAC program and provided funding to HHS and DOJ to help reduce fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.

            GAO was asked to examine how HHS and DOJ are using funds to achieve the goals of the HCFAC program, and to examine performance assessments and other metrics that HHS and DOJ use to determine the program’s effectiveness. This report (1) describes how HHS and DOJ obligated funds for the HCFAC program, (2) examines how HHS and DOJ assess HCFAC activities and whether key program outputs have changed over time, and (3) examines what is known about the effectiveness of the HCFAC program in reducing health care fraud and abuse.

            To describe how HHS and DOJ obligated funds, GAO obtained financial information from HHS and DOJ for fiscal year 2012. To examine how HHS and DOJ assess HCFAC activities and whether key outputs have changed over time, GAO reviewed agency reports and documents, and interviewed agency officials. To examine what is known about the effectiveness of the HCFAC program, GAO conducted a literature review and interviewed experts.

            In comments on a draft of this report, HHS noted examples of CMS’s efforts to reduce health care fraud, though these examples were not included in the HCFAC return-on-investment calculation. Additionally, HHS and DOJ provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.”
            This does not say that Fraud is rampart, they state that there is fraud (which I acknowledged) and they have adopted ways to reduce fraud.
            Happy Holidays

          • charleo1 says:

            Excellent post! Super impressive. And what struck me as I
            read it, is just how intricate, and complicated it is to describe
            what measures continue to be taken to combat fraud. And, how ridiculously easy it it is, to make these broad disparaging
            remarks, about these vital programs, as though they were such common knowledge. Like, everyone knows the sky is
            blue, and the government always wastes money. Well, first
            it’s just a flimsy excuse for those who begrudge every morsel
            of food the poor consume. It’s who they are, and what they
            believe. But the way in which they go about defending their
            position, says a lot about the technique the Right uses to,
            “educate,” their followers. First, they establish their, “blue sky,” fundamentals. Those things the message masters
            have repeated, and pounded into them, again, again. Until they start off their argument with what in their minds, is the unassailable truth. As if gospel from on high! The Government is incompetent. It can’t do anything, and it’s wasteful. Then
            to wrap up their, “indisputable case,” with another, thing that in their world, goes without saying. But, of course! The private sector is always better, in every way! But, again.
            Terrific post, on a difficult, but very well stated response.

          • Allan Richardson says:

            That is certainly true, but the total AMOUNT of help available from private charity is nowhere near enough; the funds to make up the difference have to come from deep pockets, and no other deep pockets are willing to donate enough.

            Government pockets are deep in another sense: spending out of expanded revenue, when the revenue comes from those who could afford it (not to “punish success” but to make successful people pay their share of the society which MAKES their success possible) puts money that would not circulate very much back into circulation, while government “deficit” spending makes a larger TOTAL supply of money in the economy, and spending it on relief rather than subsidies for the most profitable corporations gets it CIRCULATING, creating more jobs and a bigger economy, which is just what we ALL NEED when the money supply in circulation is insufficient to keep workers employed.

            Government “welfare” programs have so many applications, forms, cross-checks, and threats of prosecution for fraud, that the incidence of fraud could not be brought any lower without spending MORE money on the fraud-prevention than the remaining fraud. Spend two million to stop someone from cheating you out of half a million? Where’s the logic in that?

          • montanabill says:

            How do we know it is nowhere near enough?
            FYI: Successful people already pay in excess of 70% of the country’s taxes. That is nowhere near an equitable distribution of taxation based on revenues. The argument that ‘the rich can afford it’, is based on nothing but pure envy and not fairness.

            Government programs are administered by government bureaucracy employees. Enough said.

          • highpckts says:

            Really?? Based on fairness?? Really? Is that why the wealthy hide their money over seas so they can “share” the wealth and pay their fair share? Please! There is no fairness about it!!

          • BillP says:

            Per the website tax foundation.org in 2011 the upper 1% paid an effective federal tax rate of 23.39%. The tax code favors the wealthy over the average wage earner. The average wage earner doesn’t get much of their income from dividends, interest payments, capital gains and carried interest that are taxed at a maximum of 20%. The Romney’s paid a13.9% and 14.% federal tax rate on over $20 million dollars income for each year so there is definitely a tax code advantage if you are wealthy.

            So all govt. bureaucracies are badly run? That is a blanket statement that has no basis and no I don’t work for the govt,r

          • montanabill says:

            That is selective rubbish. The upper 1% consists of a great many whose incomes are capital gains rather than earned income, resulting in a totally different tax structure. The earned income top percentage, including the now endless Medicare deduction will be around 43% for top earners, which is where my projected tax rate for 2013 is. The reason for the difference: in order to receive capital gains, you must put capital at risk. There is nothing at risk for earned income.

            Blanket statement based on some pretty good familiarity with government bureaucracies. Can you name one that isn’t?

          • BillP says:

            Selective rubbish, typical right wing response to anything that contradicts heir belief? Your next sentence is stating the obvious the rich get a better deal through the tax code while the average worker doesn’t. I do love your rational for why people who receive capital gains should get a better tax rate because they put their capital at risk. We’ll they “choose” to do this and that wage earners put nothing at risk. Gee I guess police, fire, sanitation, help care workers, teachers and military personnel put their health and/or lives at risk but don’t let that enter into your equation.

            In the past I’ve worked for an immigration lawyer and we dealt with then INS now ICE on a regular basis and our dealings with them were always handled to our satisfaction.

          • montanabill says:

            And don’t let it get into your equation that police, fire, etc. are paid locally by local taxes, mainly property taxes. You might even be aware that the 1% usually pay significantly more in those taxes than you do for the same level of service as you get.

            FYI. My preference would be a flat tax. That is really the ‘fair’ method, because the rich will pay proportionally more but not be penalized simply for being successful. It would also eliminate hoards of tax lawyers, tax accountants and, wonderfully, IRS personnel.

          • BillP says:

            You still don’t get it. To you it’s only money that matters, not that these workers put their health and lives on the line every day. Those poor 1%ers may pay more in local taxes than I do but they also get more in tax deductions than I do.

            Do you mean hordes of tax lawyers, etc not hoards.

          • montanabill says:

            Mia Culpa on the hordes, although when talking about lawyers, in might be inclined to put a ‘w’ in front. I’m not sure what local tax deductions they might get, unless it was business property, but the bottom line is that they pay substantially more for exactly the same services you are afforded.

          • BillP says:

            Hate to be picky but it’s mea culpa. But I will agree that a lot of lawyers deserve the “w” in front and drop the “d”. State and local taxes pay for the services you are talking about and as far as I know those taxes are usually a fixed rate. Yes the wealthy do get larger real estate tax deductions and mortgage interest deductions if they have a mortgage. Aren’t you proposing a flat tax?

          • montanabill says:

            Yes, I would like to see a flat tax. Lot of benefits. I don’t get any larger real estate tax deductions. In the places I have homes or offices, I pay the same percentage rates as anyone else. I have never been a proponent of mortgages if you can afford buy. I understand why it is done, but I know of too many who leveraged themselves back to poverty when the periodic bottom falls out. Guess I’m not much of a risk taker. I’ve always subscribed to a slow, but sure, growth, both personally and in business.

          • charleo1 says:

            Nothing is picking on the successful people in this Country,
            but plain old arithmetic. As long as the wealthy continue to
            receive 80/90% of the total gains, their tax rate is going to
            reflect that. Yes, they do a lot of whining about their tax
            burden. But, they also do a lot sticking the profits they are
            making due to low wages, in their pockets. And that, they
            don’t complain about. When the Left contends there needs
            to be more fairness in the compensation levels. That, the
            compensation needs to more fairly reflect the increases in
            production. The boss asks, “What’s fair”? Who decides?
            The truth is, the boss does. If he wants lower taxes, he can
            pay his/her employees a larger share of the profits they are
            helping him/her, generate. But so far, the boss has decided
            to keep the profits up front, and continue to gripe about the
            tyranny of big government. I’m not very sympathetic.

          • montanabill says:

            Your numbers are incorrect. The government publishes good information which would be illuminating. Most of your post is pure conjecture since I doubt you have facts or figures to support your contentions.

            However, when it comes to companies, yes, the boss does make decisions regarding compensation, profit margins, retained capital, risks, future projections, and much more. You are not sympathetic because you have never had to make those decisions.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            I that why Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 15% — far less than his secretary? You scrooges never give up with the BS — do you?

          • montanabill says:

            His secretary probably paid about $8000. He paid around $35 million. Wise up.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            YOU wise up. He can afford the amount he paid, which is a vastly smaller percentage of his income than what she paid. How is paying a lower rate than those who can less afford it and have far less income fair? It isn’t. So while you are having fits of rage over hungry babies getting food, you have no problems with the REAL deadbeats — probably because you wish you were just like them, instead of an insignificant pauper with big daydreams

          • montanabill says:

            So you are now the arbiter of who can afford what. I do think you understand the difference between the capital gains tax structure and earned income taxes. And, maybe you even know why there is a difference. So, you must be simply spouting your tripe to confuse the ignorant.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            My 6-year old can tell you that somebody who makes more can afford more. Somebody who makes your income look like pocket lint can afford more than you, just like how Warren Buffet probably loses more pocket change in his sofa than your entire life’s earnings. Are you even as smart as a 6-year old child?

          • montanabill says:

            Then I’ll let my 4 year old grandson, who gets no allowance, tell your 6 year old how to spend whatever money he/she gets. Obviously, in your world, it is perfectly ok for someone who didn’t earn the money to tell someone else how it should be spent.

          • BillP says:

            You just love writing total bs statements. In 2010 the Romney’s had an total income of $21 million so unless he was insane it would have been impossible to pay $35 millions. You must have forgotten the decimal point, he paid a little on $3 million. Show it looks like you should wise up.

          • montanabill says:

            Wondered how long it would be before someone caught that I had used Romney’s net worth rather than income. Since everyone could have easily looked up his actual 2011 tax return on-line, it was surprising. And even you missed it.
            Romney’s income was $13,696,951 in 2011, and he paid $1,935,708 in taxes. Which still miles above what his secretary would have paid.

          • BillP says:

            Please read my comment again I stated their 2010 income that is also online. Their adjusted taxable income was $21,646,507 on which they paid $3,009,766 in Federal Income tax for an effective rate of 13.9%. Even in 2011 their effective Federal rate was 14.1% that’s lower than my rate of 19.2% and I made a lot less than they did.

            By the way you know you are making up your error that was finally caught , the Romney’s net worth is more than $200 million. So you are wrong again or just lying.

          • montanabill says:

            Romney’s net worth is estimated at $250 million. Whut estimated a 15% tax rate. Since I used the $250 number, the tax would have been about $35 million. By the way, I don’t make anywhere near what Romney has reported for 2010, but I would trade my taxes for his. Must be my turn to whine about ‘unfair taxes’.

          • BillP says:

            I’m not sure what you are stating, last I looked you don’t pay tax and your net worth, just your income from a salary, dividends/interest, capital gains and if you are lucky enough on carried interest. Well we can agree on at least this I would trade my taxes and your taxes for his.

          • montanabill says:

            I pay relatively little capital gains compared to earned income, but jointly, more than Mitt.

          • montanabill says:

            Even if Mitt had paid 0.01%, the dollar amount would be orders of magnitude more than you paid.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            Yeah, just like how Warren Buffet’s pocket lint is worth more than your entire life and everything in it. What’s your point? You still squeal with jealous rage whenever Buffet proves that you don’t have to be a deadbeat to be successful.

          • plc97477 says:

            One thing most people don’t know is that Obama has cracked down on fraud more than any other president in many years.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            No, it really isn’t. The need continues when the givers tire of it or experience financial reverses themselves. Again, if one denies the need (or its extent) and grossly overestimates the level of fraud and waste – a circular bit of logic, since those you deem “unworthy” are obviously committing fraud – private charity is the only workable solution. But government programs work a great deal better than you credit, especially when not sabotaged at every turn by the kind of people you elect, who have a vested interest in proving government doesn’t work.

          • montanabill says:

            Even though I feel you are sincere, my personal life-time real-world experience with government at all levels and many categories, and with private charities doesn’t allow me to agree.

        • idamag says:

          I’ve never heard you complain about farm subsidies to billionaires.

        • highpckts says:

          You need to expand your circle of friends!!

        • charleo1 says:

          If the parents have money, and are not feeding their children,
          we send them to jail, Bill. Who’s money should we be using?
          It’s been my experience, people who participate in charitable
          activities realize the tougher times get, the less donations charities receive. And so, are supportive of government using
          it’s considerable wherewithal, in the wealthiest Country in the
          world, that children here, do not go hungry. I think that most
          people who care about such things, have their charities they
          support within their ability. Since I do nor participate in organized religion. I donate 10% of my earnings to local food
          banks, and homeless shelters. The Wounded Warrior Fund,
          and St Judes in Memphis, are others I would be remiss, if I
          didn’t mention. I figure it’s better than financing some fat
          assed, televangelists satellite time. So they can spew hate.

          • montanabill says:

            Government’s considerable ‘wherewithal’ is the point of a gun!
            Our goals are the same, but differ greatly about the execution. I favor citizen participation at a close level where the needs and distribution can be more effectively monitored. That simply does not happen with Government.

            BTW, it is the “Wounded Warrior Project’, not Fund.
            No disagreement on televangelists.

          • charleo1 says:

            The point of a gun? Really Bill. Not you too? Well, you’re
            a Righty, and you have your own gun, correct? Isn’t that
            the reason you all keep your guns? To use on a tyrannous government? The way I see it. Number one, there’s a lot of
            economic pain out there. And, a lot of people used to have
            much better jobs. The last 30+ years has pretty much knocked the slats out from under. And none of them needing
            some help right now, caused the recession that cost them
            their job in the first place. And, since hungry people, and
            children in particular, are an unnecessary outrage. And if
            left to the locals, even the States, it wouldn’t happen. So,
            you’re exactly right, when you say I don’t care if other
            people’s money is used to feed, house, clothe, and educate
            a child born in poverty. Which number a full 1 in 4 today.

          • montanabill says:

            Pretty simple actually. If a bill collector wants money from you, they must beg, harass or resort to the legal system which will do nothing more than give them the right to continue to try to get the money from you. If the government wants money, they can arrive at your door, claim your possessions, handcuff you, put you in jail. If you object, you will see the point of a gun.

            We disagree on the causes and the solutions to getting the people good paying jobs. I’m one of those people who have been creating good jobs over the last 30 years, so I know a little something about it.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Perhaps liberals don’t feel so strong a need to salve their consciences.

      • mikem42 says:

        Oh, my God; don’t use my money to feed hungry children. How dare you. One of the corporal works of mercy taught by our Lord on the Mount was “Feed the hungry”. Not Christian, fine, then just ignore this. Not human, pity on you Bill.

      • tax payer says:

        I thought that was the responsibility of the parents, but now it’s our responsibility, so that’s why the parents conceive them as fast as they come out since we feed them.

        • charleo1 says:

          No one here is saying parents should not be responsible for
          the care, and nurturing of their children. But when they are
          not capable of doing so, is a situation that requires you to do
          some more thinking, doesn’t it? Unless you are suggesting
          we, as a society allow two, or three of these children to starve
          to death, as a deterrent to the poor, to stop conceiving. Or, is that the solution you’re proposing?

          • tax payer says:

            When we had children we never expected anyone but us to make sure they had food to eat, so why is it so hard for others to do the same thing? Beans can go a long way by adding more water to the pot. Everyone should be capable and, if not than don’t have these children is the solution.

          • charleo1 says:

            So, why is it so hard for some people? You asked the
            question. Now answer it. We know it’s not the child’s
            fault, okay? Get out your moral compass, and see what
            it tells you.

          • tax payer says:

            If they aren’t capable of being there for their children why do they continue to breed babies and never stop? It’s hard for them because they are used to not trying too hard anymore, so to them it’s quite normal and still others like you feel they don’t have to try hard to be there for them since you, and the tax payers are willing to do it for them. I know it’s not the fault of the babies, but wouldn’t it be correct to expect these people to try much harder, but we know they won’t bother to do it as long as you are there ready to do their job.

          • charleo1 says:

            Sometimes, tax payer, it just is, what it is. It doesn’t make
            any difference what I think, or you think they should do.
            We just can’t force them. And society sure as hell shouldn’t
            get into sterilizing the poor. People are trying to work with
            them, especially the younger girls, and boys in their teens.
            But it’s complicated, it doesn’t always work, and I believe
            it is the right thing for society to make sure these kids
            are taken care of. What we do know is these people live a
            lousy life. No one would choose their lives. So we start there.
            And find the ways to enable them to make better decisions.
            But the children? We have no other decent, or sane course.

          • plc97477 says:

            There is really nothing moral about tax payer.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            Liar. You slurped up public benefits all your life, and now you come out here to whine about the poor getting fed in-between snorting up you Medicare Viagra. Do you realize that while you waste time whining and sniveling, some hungry baby is in danger of getting fed? Stop lying about being a taxpayer and get out and put a stop to this injustice!

          • tax payer says:

            I’ll tell you what he said. Ha, ha. You go look for all those babies and buy them some milk, and they won’t go hungry. If you have an extra ten dollars left go buy yourself a mask because your photo is gross.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            Why don’t you change your screen name to something honest like ‘crusty old deadbeat bastard, or ‘lying public-benefit-snorting low-life’. Be proud of the steaming turd you have become.

          • tax payer says:

            I bought a mouse trap, so I am going to place it in your front door as you crawl out and be done with you. I’ll put one slice of cheese on it, so that will be your last meal.

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            Who are you trying to fool? You are FAR too stingy to give away a perfectly good piece of cheese.

            Say, I have it: Given your penchant for snorting Medicare Viagra, why don’t you use ‘tax snorter’ as your screen name? It has a certain ring to it, and it’s not a lie like your current one.

          • tax payer says:

            You make sense, so I feel sorry for the children and won’t tell you how I feel about their parents since there is no word in the vocabulary to describe them.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Glad to see you have the vision to see Rush’s “moral depravity.”

    • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

      Limbaugh has no respect for women which is displayed in the fact that he has been married – 3 or 4 times, the names he calls a young woman because she olds a different point of view and his comments about Pope Francis was not showing respect to the head of the Catholic Church. The only “God” Limbaugh believes in is the “Almighty Dollar”. Limbaugh is on the side of moral depravity, this whale spouts hate, ignorance, intolerance, racism and bigotry through his blow hole, and that is far from the teachings of Christ.

      • montanabill says:

        If being married 3 or 4 times equates to disrespect for women, then I guess you would have to include the likes Ted Turner, Larry King and dozens of Hollywood celebrities, not to mention the ‘disrespect for men’ displayed by Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, Lisa Minnelli, Lana Turner… Wise up.

        • disqus_fsqeoY3FsG says:

          It is not just being married 3 or 4 times but the comments he makes about women that makes him disrespectful to women. As far as your examples, if they made derogatory and insulting remarks about or to women as well than they would have no respect for women. The same holds true for your female examples if they made derogatory and insulting remarks about men than they would have no respect for men.
          However, they are not the issue, your “False Prophet Limbaugh” is the issue.

  2. Lynda Groom says:

    Oh please Rush just give it a rest.

  3. charleo1 says:

    Poor Rush, forever 14. It seems his addictions have stunted his maturity permanently.

    • sigrid28 says:

      Two boobs, two boobs, two boobs, two boobs–try to say that fast four times in a row–and two articles about the GOP obsession with them, so Gene Lyons’s tasteless stylings on the subject, enhanced by saucy Southern regionalisms, will not be lonely. Rush Limbaugh is not the only adult in name only.

      • charleo1 says:

        I’m with you on Lyon’s, “tittin’ around.” It is not a Southern euphemism
        I am familiar with. And ever other Country song ever written, is about
        a cheatin’ something. “Your Cheatin Heart,” “The Cheatin’ Side of Town,” “She Just Started Likein’ Cheatin’ Songs.” “Slippin’ Around,”
        “Foolin’ Around,” But, “tittin’ around?” I don’t think so.

        • sigrid28 says:

          As for love, it seems Rush has been “looking” in all the wrong places. CW songwriters almost never fail to get this right, with a lot more panache: “You done stomped on ma heart, and squashed that sucker flat.” You hear that once, you never forgit.

          • charleo1 says:

            Then, there’s also the unforgettable, “I’ve Got Tears in My
            Ears, From Lyin’ on my back in Bed, Cryin’ over You.” Or
            another tear jerker entitled, “I Hate Every Bone in Your Body,
            But Mine.” Touching, very touching.

      • joe schmo says:

        You mean to tell me that the Dems are all celibate? LOL

        • sigrid28 says:

          You mean to tell me that the editors of the National Memo are NOT Democrats? Rush Limbaugh is silly, but men fascinated by breasts? With respect to political affiliations, I think that’s an equal opportunity obsession.

  4. FT66 says:

    Ha,ha,ha,that is the comedian Rush telling people what to say: “Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes”. Rush, here is my question: Do breasts nowadays have eyes? I do not know whether to laugh or cry!

  5. JDavidS says:

    After listening to comments like this, does anyone have to wonder why this fat turd has been married 4 times? Anyone?

  6. Lovefacts says:

    Why am I not surprised. The man is not only a moron but trapped in puberty. That and drugs may be why his marriages have never lasted. However on the upside, should some of Rush’s male listeners follow his suggestion there will be a lot of rich lawyers and satisfied women. I wonder if the men who follow Rush’s suggestion could then sue him.

    • plc97477 says:

      I am looking forward to slapping the first one to try.

    • NCSteve says:

      He may be trapped in a particularly puerile form of quasi-puberty, the kind that thinks prostitution is a victimless crime “date-rape” is made up thing made up by man-hating lesbians, but calling him a moron is like calling tobacco companies morons. He is a multi-millionaire who’s made an immense fortune selling an addictive toxin. He sells validation for anger and hate to people who crave it like a smoker craves nicotine. And like the tobacco industry, he sells them the quasi-respectability that comes with cheerful advertising, along with a sense of false-heroism for being a member of a persecuted community, all of which is troweled on top of a sense of misery and self-loathing that only further consumption of the product will keep from bubbling up to the surface.

      And like a tobacco company, he–along with his peers in the industry who sell the same product differentiated only by taste and price–gives not a shit for the toll of misery and pain his product causes.

  7. Allan Richardson says:

    Read this line carefully, lest you accuse me of being anti-woman:

    “A recent study showed that the larger a woman’s breasts, the lower the intelligence … OF THE MEN AROUND HER.”

    This explains a lot, like the Kardashian mania, maybe.

  8. idamag says:

    I thought in order to be a comedian, you had to be funny.

  9. LotusJoan says:

    So how much has he donated to “Save the Tatas”? Is there any redemption to be found in this immature (and based on his appearance, hopeless) preoccupation with female sexuality?

  10. tdm3624 says:

    Glance at, don’t stare.

  11. howa4x says:

    Rush is a prime example of why the republican outreach won’t work. He is on every day and so is Glenn Beck and the rest of the right wing media machine. They have made a name for themselves being sexist and racist and that’s who supports them. Good Luck
    Boehner!

    • joe schmo says:

      In a word…..Chris Matthews and Martin Bashir and Charlie Sheen….. The latter who have been fired for inappropriate behavior….Lunacy!

  12. Mark Forsyth says:

    I would pose the question whether Rush was born stupid or practices,but I know the answer is both.

  13. Elliot J. Stamler says:

    Having seen jelly belly shaking and shimmying himself in numerous tv shots of him on his show and at public events, he appears to have larger breasts (gynecomastia) than most women!

  14. Liberalism Is Nonsense says:

    In this related video, climate-scientist, media personality, and ice-age denier Leonardo DiCaprio wows us with his scientific expertise: http://youtu.be/VdioqIraSlk?t=10s

  15. Liberalism Is Nonsense says:

    Since most knowledge exists as personal insights into the ever-changing conditions each of us faces, it cannot be systematically organized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.