Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Leafsnail]

Actually, the jerkass does not have a point at all.  Besides the fact that comparing the appointment of certain officials with a simple majority instead of a supermajority to rape is ridiculous, his analogy is mathematically illiterate and logically ridiculous.

“Forget the Senate for a minute,” he said on his radio show. “Let’s say, let’s take ten people in a room and they’re a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. Right? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes of the 10 to change the rule.”

So in other words, the group requires the lowest possible majority to change the rule.  IE, exactly the same as what Reid changed the rules to be.  Rush actually does not understand what a majority is.

Limbaugh continued his analogy by saying that “every now and then some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it and there was, you know, two guys.”

Ok, so six would always vote against and four would always vote for.  Ok.

“Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “He was in the majority and he said, you know what, we’re going to change the rule. Now all we need is five. And the women said, ‘you can’t do that.’ ‘Yes we are, we’re the majority, we’re changing the rule.’ And then they vote. Can the women be raped?”

This is the really WTF part.  No, the man is not in the majority - only four people out of the ten in the group are pro-rape, so he would not be able to pass this policy.  And wouldn't he need 6 people to change the rule anyway?

Leaving aside how the man would even pass this rule, this would not lead to the consequence Rush thinks it does.  5 men could vote to legalize rape, then 4 women plus one man (let's assume he made a mistake earlier about how many men are anti-rape because he can't count) would then vote to make it illegal again.  Same if the rule is changed to 3 people only.  The women could also just vote to change it back up to 6 or 7 or whatever.

To be honest his use of this analogy leads me to seriously question whether he has any idea how the Senate works at all.  Or even if he understands how numbers work at all.

e: Even if we're charitable and we adjust the numbers so they actually make sense his point is still dumb.  What it's really arguing for is a need to have human rights in place to protect minorities, not setting the bar a little higher so that it's a little harder to outvote some minorities.

[Lagslayer]

His claim is irrelevant. It has some merits, but it's irrelevant. I can tell you have a bit of a thing going on with "I don't subscribe to political theories", so bear with me as I sound ignorantly idealistic apparently.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

His argument is irrelevant, but even he is aware of it. I cited murder because it is a "safe" terrible thing to do: Villains on cartoon shows can do that, it's perfect hyperbole. Slavery is a reference to another person's ludicrous statements earlier. I could have cited kicking puppies, not because animal abuse is more or less bad then something else, but because it is a stereotypical hyperbolic statement. The thing though is about the rape comment. It is highly inflammatory to mention rape, especially something so far-fetched as people legalizing it, because it immediately brings a far more emotional response to people who are upset. Limbaugh knows this. He had millions of analogies and metaphors available to him, and he chose one which make people upset and disregard his point. He wants that. He acts as the shock spammer who occasionally comes in here does: To shock, to get angry, to impress his in-group. Any point, rhyme or reason the spammer might have is irrelevant, because it's not what he does, it's a side thing he uses to justify. Limbaugh is worse though. He is not doing this in some insane forum, but to the world, and to his viewers, whose most radical and unjustifiable instincts are allowed to speak in one hateful voice coming through him.

He and his class, the extremist populist demagogues who perversely claim reasonableness while running rough-shod upon it, are in my view one of the worst political players to ever arise, worse then a straw nihilist and much more dangerous. Everyone who holds the opinion that the senate should not have done what they did, or that changing rules can lead to them being broken for good (A point I find myself sympathetic too, I only conceded the need for the Rule change out of necessity), is spit upon by this man. He knows why rape is inflammatory, even if he believes it shouldn't be; he knows of people in far higher positions then he who have been destroyed by comments like these, but he is protected by his league of followers who see a outlet for their own demons.

To Paraphrase Tv tropes: "Jerkass has a point". Well in this case the inflammatory talking head has a point, but it doesn't make him or anything else he says any inflammatory, and it doesn't make him any more worthy of respect.

Technically speaking, his quote about Strom Thurmond isn't wrong. He just doesn't see it in the context that everybody else does.

Thurmond lives in Willowbrook Cemetary, where he has resided since his death in 2003. Oh, and he had a secret mixed-race child.

Thurmond also holds the record for longest Filibuster, of the Civil rights act, for more the 24 hours (he recited the criminal code of the states for much of it).

Finally, a straight and complete answer that actually addresses the issue.

I'm not going to claim that he is not intentionally inflammatory. I'm not going to try and defend it, either. He is trolling people. But you know what? Trolls bring out the true colors in people. Simply by being inflammatory, he provides an excuse for people to show their most hardline inner selves. It shows what they really support when the chips are down. Legions of people, that would otherwise feign being moderate or objective, will either jump on the bandwagon against him, or in favor of him. For example, certain people in this thread refuse to actually address the statement he said, and just attacked his character instead. The statement didn't matter, because they hated him so much. The same "us vs them" mentality could be applied to those who blindly follow him, as well. And since he's so inflammatory, anyone caught in the middle is hated by both sides.

[Lord Shonus]

I think it's pretty well established at this point that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

[Leafsnail]

My first post was in response to your question on why people hate Limbaugh so much (answer: he is sexist and racist and an idiot).  My second post dismantled his terrible analogy.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

For example, certain people in this thread refuse to actually address the statement he said

Have you?

[FearfulJesuit]

Immigration reform, again. Sigh.

[kaenneth]

Snide comment enclosed:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Republicans are our best defense against killer robots; their illogical statements would make the robot brains explode.

in response to a comment that "Adolph Hitler would be proud of the Democrats today"

[Max White]

Something something Iran, something Obama on tv saying something something. Nuclear program something something Israel, something something.
Go!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Apparently there was a breakthrough in the thing regarding that stuff.

[Max White]

I'm so glad that they are finally able to work through all that really important stuff. The guys that do the things have really gone all out!

[scriver]

Actually, the jerkass does not have a point at all.  Besides the fact that comparing the appointment of certain officials with a simple majority instead of a supermajority to rape is ridiculous, his analogy is mathematically illiterate and logically ridiculous.

“Forget the Senate for a minute,” he said on his radio show. “Let’s say, let’s take ten people in a room and they’re a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. Right? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes of the 10 to change the rule.”

So in other words, the group requires the lowest possible majority to change the rule.  IE, exactly the same as what Reid changed the rules to be.  Rush actually does not understand what a majority is.

Limbaugh continued his analogy by saying that “every now and then some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it and there was, you know, two guys.”

Ok, so six would always vote against and four would always vote for.  Ok.

“Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “He was in the majority and he said, you know what, we’re going to change the rule. Now all we need is five. And the women said, ‘you can’t do that.’ ‘Yes we are, we’re the majority, we’re changing the rule.’ And then they vote. Can the women be raped?”

This is the really WTF part.  No, the man is not in the majority - only four people out of the ten in the group are pro-rape, so he would not be able to pass this policy.  And wouldn't he need 6 people to change the rule anyway?

Leaving aside how the man would even pass this rule, this would not lead to the consequence Rush thinks it does.  5 men could vote to legalize rape, then 4 women plus one man (let's assume he made a mistake earlier about how many men are anti-rape because he can't count) would then vote to make it illegal again.  Same if the rule is changed to 3 people only.  The women could also just vote to change it back up to 6 or 7 or whatever.

To be honest his use of this analogy leads me to seriously question whether he has any idea how the Senate works at all.  Or even if he understands how numbers work at all.

e: Even if we're charitable and we adjust the numbers so they actually make sense his point is still dumb.  What it's really arguing for is a need to have human rights in place to protect minorities, not setting the bar a little higher so that it's a little harder to outvote some minorities.

I'm fairly certain his assumption that all men would just jump on the rape-wagon tells us a thing or two about his own mindset as well.

[scriver]

Actually, the jerkass does not have a point at all.  Besides the fact that comparing the appointment of certain officials with a simple majority instead of a supermajority to rape is ridiculous, his analogy is mathematically illiterate and logically ridiculous.

“Forget the Senate for a minute,” he said on his radio show. “Let’s say, let’s take ten people in a room and they’re a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. Right? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes of the 10 to change the rule.”

So in other words, the group requires the lowest possible majority to change the rule.  IE, exactly the same as what Reid changed the rules to be.  Rush actually does not understand what a majority is.

Limbaugh continued his analogy by saying that “every now and then some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it and there was, you know, two guys.”

Ok, so six would always vote against and four would always vote for.  Ok.

“Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “He was in the majority and he said, you know what, we’re going to change the rule. Now all we need is five. And the women said, ‘you can’t do that.’ ‘Yes we are, we’re the majority, we’re changing the rule.’ And then they vote. Can the women be raped?”

This is the really WTF part.  No, the man is not in the majority - only four people out of the ten in the group are pro-rape, so he would not be able to pass this policy.  And wouldn't he need 6 people to change the rule anyway?

Leaving aside how the man would even pass this rule, this would not lead to the consequence Rush thinks it does.  5 men could vote to legalize rape, then 4 women plus one man (let's assume he made a mistake earlier about how many men are anti-rape because he can't count) would then vote to make it illegal again.  Same if the rule is changed to 3 people only.  The women could also just vote to change it back up to 6 or 7 or whatever.

To be honest his use of this analogy leads me to seriously question whether he has any idea how the Senate works at all.  Or even if he understands how numbers work at all.

e: Even if we're charitable and we adjust the numbers so they actually make sense his point is still dumb.  What it's really arguing for is a need to have human rights in place to protect minorities, not setting the bar a little higher so that it's a little harder to outvote some minorities.

I'm fairly certain his assumption that all men would just jump on the rape-wagon tells us a thing or two about his own mindset as well.

[Sirus]

Rush Limbaugh is heavily misogynistic. It's all part of the territory of being an ultra-conservative talking head.

[Leafsnail]

Well apparently two of the men would not jump on the wagon.  But the others would still be able to pass the rule change anyway because

[misko27]

Ok, going to address the Iran thing. Iran and the six World Powers have reached a deal, the first in a decade, to temporarily halt Iran's enriching of Uranium above 5% (The level required for Energy production but only 1/4 the enrichment required for a weapon) and dilute or convert uranium above the 5% mark, and not expand it's capability in any way in exchange for an easing of sanctions, for a period of six months while negotiation to halt the larger program and remove all sanctions continue.


Hardliners in all countries are mad and critical, Netanyahu predicts doom, and both Obama and new moderate president of Iran Hassan Rouhani walk away with a victory to show their friends. Congress critical, sanctions relief will be done through executive order, John Kerry achieves an aspect of his foreign policy agenda.