View Full Version : Help get women-hating a-hole off the air
Natalllia
03-05-2012, 01:27 PM
Sure they can. Free speech is a two-way street and if folks are outraged enough over something that is said that they wish to vent their displeasure, then they certainly have the right to do so. There is a difference between free speech and speech without consequences. For the most part we have a right to say whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that others do not have a right to respond if they do not like what they hear.
Now I honestly believe that this will all blow over as he simply has too large and loyal a following for most radio stations to easily replace his program, and I am no fan of people trying to shut down a public voice through pressure on advertisers, but he gave them plenty of ammunition when he made those comments.
Well stated.
We could easily enter into a debate here about Free Speech vs. hate speech, and whether hate speech is/should be included in the "obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words" stipulation in the first amendment.
TarsTone
03-05-2012, 01:30 PM
He is free to espouse his ideas in the public square like the rest of us. The Constitution doesn't guarantee him a paycheck for doing so.And once again, these petitions are not about espousing your ideas in the public square; they're more about making sure that those you don't like don't get to espouse theirs. This overriding fact will not go away no matter how carefully you word your argument.
And as I said before, don't expect any sympathy when the right pulls the same tactics against someone on your side. I mean it's not like any of those christian-hating liberals are "guaranteed a paycheck" or anything.
TarsTone
03-05-2012, 01:48 PM
Sorry Tars, but there is a bit of sophistry to that. He insulted her because of her situation and stated beliefs. Since there are a number of women who are in a similar position and hold similar beliefs, logic dictates that the insults would apply equally to them as well.Of course it would. But you're forgetting that there are also a sizable number of women who disagree with Fluke's position, and neither group can claim to represent women as a whole.
So even if we agree that Rush's insult toward Fluke also insults women who think like her, that still does not qualify him as a misogynist. Just as calling someone like Santorum a backward zealot would not insult Christianity as a whole, as he does not represent all or even most Christians.
Sure they can. Free speech is a two-way street and if folks are outraged enough over something that is said that they wish to vent their displeasure, then they certainly have the right to do so. There is a difference between free speech and speech without consequences. For the most part we have a right to say whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that others do not have a right to respond if they do not like what they hear.A few things need to be clarified here.
When I condemn these petitions, I don't suggest that they don't have the right to do what they do. I'm pointing out that they cannot pretend to respect the freedom of expression when they believe people deserve to lose their jobs for expressing themselves. This is more a matter of belief than legality and is especially relevant here since the left often positions itself as the champion of free speech. Of course they are free to proceed and there are no laws standing in their way, but I don't want to hear about 'intolerance' and 'hypersensitivity' when the right responds similarly to their own rhetoric.
bem401
03-05-2012, 01:53 PM
Fluke was a liberal activist sent in to distract from the real issue and was apparently successful. The liberal media is trying to use Limbaugh's tasteless comments to facilitate this administration's attack on the First Amendment in general and the Catholic Church in particular. From a non-religious perspective, why should anybody have to subsidize another person's recreational activities? From a religious perspective, the government has no business dictating that religions must abandon their teachings to do the government's bidding.
As far as the advertisers are concerned, my bet is they're just throwing a bone to the Left for a few weeks. I don't listen to it, but Limbaugh's is far and away the most popular radio talk show.
Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Fluke was a liberal activist sent in to distract from the real issue and was apparently successful. The liberal media is trying to use Limbaugh's tasteless comments to facilitate this administration's attack on the First Amendment in general and the Catholic Church in particular. From a non-religious perspective, why should anybody have to subsidize another person's recreational activities? From a religious perspective, the government has no business dictating that religions must abandon their teachings to do the government's bidding.
As far as the advertisers are concerned, my bet is they're just throwing a bone to the Left for a few weeks. I don't listen to it, but Limbaugh's is far and away the most popular radio talk show.
Right now in another thread there is a discussion about requiring employers to cover domestic opposite sex partners and many are attacking me because I don't want to subsidize someone else's choice. That's my problem with quite a bit of this, I do not want to subsidize choices people make. Many people feel this way too, especially if they don't support birth control as many Catholic don't. Many people are offended they have to pay for birth control because they feel people shouldn't engage in premarital sex. There are many more examples but the point is people don't want to pay for things they may not support or like me feel certain things are pushing an agenda whether liberal, conservative, moderate or whatever. There are certain issues both liberal and conservative that I despise and hate supporting but oddly this isn't one of them.
While I have no problems with birth control I know many Catholics who do and they are offended they have to pay.
rickdugan
03-05-2012, 02:04 PM
The notion of using "too much" birth control, or irresponsibly using birth control certainly is interesting to say the least, if that's what you're implying here. Maybe I fell off the wagon somewhere, but I thought using birth control was responsible behavior? Doesn't birth control save money in the big picture? Or maybe if everyone has free birth control, suddenly far more people will become sexually active? This logic is difficult to follow.
Really? How many girls are going to start using Plan B, which is fairly expensive, as their primary means of birth control, rather than taking greater care in the first place, once they can get it for "free?" After all, not only will they not have to go through the trouble and expense of buying condoms, but it is also far more convenient than having to remember to take a pill every day. And how many girls who are currently relying upon condoms as a primary, and already effective, means of BC will now forego them in favor of 'free" BC? How many more girls, who have already been using other effective methods of birth control, will decide to go on expensive pills (such as Yaz) once it is "free" because, after all, why not?
We must always beware the law of unintended consequences when alter the natural costs and consequences of human actions through government subsidies and mandates. In this case, not only will we now be forced to subsidize much more widespread use of the most expensive contraception options available, but I would not be at all surprised if condom use drops as a result of completely removing pregnancy risk from the equation, which has far reaching implications beyond concerns relating to unwanted pregnancies.
I also find the "I don't want to pay for other people's activities" (in this case sex) argument extremely weak in the context of how insurance works. Maybe I don't want to pay for someone's $60,000 triple bypass heart surgery because they chose a lifestyle of poor diet and exercise. What's that Christian saying about let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Perhaps here it should be let he (or she) who has done everything humanly possible to not consume health insurance resources make decisions about about how other consume their insurance. And surely, the overweight, cigar smoking, drug addict Rush Limbaugh will be the first to sign up for that.
There is a vast difference between paying for a triple bypass and subsidizing Jill's bareback sexual adventures. In the former, the person is going to die if he does not get the treatment. In the latter, Jill might otherwise need - *gasp* - to make Joe put on a condom or use another less expensive form of BC.
Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 02:08 PM
True. If I had kids I would rather they use condoms than pills. Condoms are what I've always used and never got pregnant. Can't say the same for the pill and know many on the pill who got pregnant. Not to mention condoms prevent STDs while the pill doesn't.
bem401
03-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Anything anyone chooses to do for recreation or enjoyment should be funded by their own money, sexual escapades included. If Fluke (who was not what she presented herself to be in the first place) wants to lead a promiscuous lifestyle, that's her business, but she shouldn't count on somebody else, least of all a religious organization, to support her in her endeavors. Get a job and save some money, then buy some BC and start propositioning guys.
Swagz
03-05-2012, 02:43 PM
I hope that when people disagree with birth control as an everyday necessary expenditure, they also are pro-abortion and intent on improving the foster care system. Right?
Also I'm not sure why Christian-hating was brought up exactly, but I see the connection. However, people can attack adherence to Christian theology, which has a definite basis (The Bible). Women are not an ideology and there is no "woman bible" to disagree with.
bem401
03-05-2012, 02:57 PM
^^^Your argument makes no sense and nobody is opposing birth control. I am opposed to the notion that I must pay for somebody else's birth control. This does not mean I am pro-abortion either (nice try). It means I am pro-personal responsibility.
There is no anti-woman argument being made here, just an anti-government sponge argument (and I'm not talking about the BC sponge either)
Nobody has said anything about hating Christians either but the proposal would infringe on their adherence to Church teachings.
Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Bem you must not have gotten the memo where "personal responsibility" means hate, anti woman, etc. Instead those of us who believe in personal responsibility are evil because we don't want to support choices we disapprove of whether it's birth control or something else.
TarsTone
03-05-2012, 03:16 PM
Also I'm not sure why Christian-hating was brought up exactly, but I see the connection. However, people can attack adherence to Christian theology, which has a definite basis (The Bible). Women are not an ideology and there is no "woman bible" to disagree with.Be that as it may, the basic principle remains that in both cases, insulting one individual or a particular segment from that group is not proof of hatred toward the whole.
If anything, Christians have more room to be sensitive to such remarks based on what you outlined yourself. By your own logic, when you call a person ignorant or stupid for espousing Christian beliefs a case can actually be made that you're attacking Christianity by extension. But it's a much larger leap to suggest that insulting a man or woman for their stance on an issue is somehow an attack on their gender when there is no "sex-based belief system" and wild disagreements exist within that group on the given issue.
bem401
03-05-2012, 03:19 PM
Bem you must not have gotten the memo where "personal responsibility" means hate, anti woman, etc. Instead those of us who believe in personal responsibility are evil because we don't want to support choices we disapprove of whether it's birth control or something else.
Shame on me I guess.
I have a question too....wouldn't a rule addressing strictly heterosexual activity be shortchanging the gay community? How is it fair to the GLBT people to institute something that only benefits straight people? The Left is on the other side of the marriage coin now.
Swagz
03-05-2012, 04:51 PM
There is no anti-woman argument being made here, just an anti-government sponge argument (and I'm not talking about the BC sponge either)
Nobody has said anything about hating Christians either but the proposal would infringe on their adherence to Church teachings.
I was talking to TarsTone when I brought the Christian stuff up.
And my argument does make sense if you consider that the thread was created to discuss Limbaugh's conduct, not whether or not insurance companies should cover birth control (remember, insurance companies? not tax money). If you had actually read my responses before assuming I don't make sense, you'd notice that I haven't even stated my personal stance on the issue since that isn't really what we started talking about because that would be considered 'too political.'
You can disagree with a woman without calling her a slut on public radio.
tl;dr people think Rush Limbaugh is an asshole. so?
bem401
03-05-2012, 05:18 PM
I was talking to TarsTone when I brought the Christian stuff up.
And my argument does make sense if you consider that the thread was created to discuss Limbaugh's conduct, not whether or not insurance companies should cover birth control (remember, insurance companies? not tax money). If you had actually read my responses before assuming I don't make sense, you'd notice that I haven't even stated my personal stance on the issue since that isn't really what we started talking about because that would be considered 'too political.'
You can disagree with a woman without calling her a slut on public radio.
tl;dr people think Rush Limbaugh is an asshole. so?
The argument made no sense because you connected opposition to birth control to support for abortion to improving foster care. Government funded birth control, abortion, and foster care are all results of a lack of personal responsibility. I assume personal responsibility in my life. Why shouldn't others?
I'm no big fan of Rush's but he is no bigger an asshole than Bill Maher or essentially anyone on MSNBC. Tasteless comments abound on both sides of the aisle.
lestat1
03-05-2012, 05:25 PM
Politicians are brilliant. What we'll never know, is what awful scandal was covered up by all of this? What piece of legislation with a tiny, almost hidden, terrible sub-section was passed under our noses? In short, what has happened, will happen, or continues to be broken without attention, because media coverage, forum debates, and water cooler discussions were and are focused on some asshat who, for all we know, purposefully said this crap in order to create a distraction?
Dirty Ernie
03-05-2012, 05:29 PM
The House and Senate are divided. Nothing gets passed.
Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 06:33 PM
Shame on me I guess.
I have a question too....wouldn't a rule addressing strictly heterosexual activity be shortchanging the gay community? How is it fair to the GLBT people to institute something that only benefits straight people? The Left is on the other side of the marriage coin now.
Good question. I don't know the answer to that.
Krill_
03-05-2012, 06:37 PM
Really? How many girls are going to start using Plan B, which is fairly expensive, as their primary means of birth control, rather than taking greater care in the first place, once they can get it for "free?"
That's a good question. All you have is an expectation that suddenly every sexually active woman in the country will want to use hormonal contraceptives, as though the cost now is prohibitive, insurance doesn't already cover them, and there are no reasons to use condoms, like STD prevention or side effects from hormonal contraception.
There is a vast difference between paying for a triple bypass and subsidizing Jill's bareback sexual adventures. In the former, the person is going to die if he does not get the treatment. In the latter, Jill might otherwise need - *gasp* - to make Joe put on a condom or use another less expensive form of BC.
Not really the way I see it. Someone who eats poorly and doesn't exercise, possibly smokes or drinks heavily too for good measure, will have health problems that are expensive to manage. That lifestyle is more "fun" upfront than salads and running 5 miles a day. What about activities other than sex that have accident risk? Should someone who rides dirt bikes and will almost certainly have an accident be targeted like Jill the bareback rider for having fun and having health insurance pick up the tab? If we are to be fair there should be a very large umbrella of "optional" fun that should be excluded from health insurance. Seems very odd to me that we only go after sex, mostly focus on the female component of the equation, and it's mostly men with the strongest and loudest opinions.
eagle2
03-05-2012, 06:49 PM
And once again, these petitions are not about espousing your ideas in the public square; they're more about making sure that those you don't like don't get to espouse theirs. This overriding fact will not go away no matter how carefully you word your argument.
And as I said before, don't expect any sympathy when the right pulls the same tactics against someone on your side. I mean it's not like any of those christian-hating liberals are "guaranteed a paycheck" or anything.
The right does stuff like this all the time. Right-wing nutjobs are encouraging people to call JC Penny and ask them to replace Ellen Degeneres as their spokesperson, because she is gay.
http://onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=436
Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Yeah that's pretty pathetic too. Personally I think Ellen is cool.
UtahMike
03-06-2012, 12:37 AM
I had Rush Limbaugh castrated today.
Let me explain. My son and I had trapped three of the feral cats who hang out in our back yard and were taking them to the free neuter/spay mobile clinic. There was a place on the form for the cat's name, but this one black cat with scroungy fur did not have a name as he was new to the neighborhood. But the form had to be completely filled out, and that required that he have a name.
So I gave it some thought and remembered that Rush was against promiscuous sex and would not approve of tom catting around. So I named the cat in his honor--Rush Limbaugh.
Rush has since been castrated and has been released back into the back yard.
rickdugan
03-06-2012, 08:40 AM
That's a good question. All you have is an expectation that suddenly every sexually active woman in the country will want to use hormonal contraceptives, as though the cost now is prohibitive, insurance doesn't already cover them, and there are no reasons to use condoms, like STD prevention or side effects from hormonal contraception.
Krill, a lot of this was already addressed. For many, the cost is prohibitive now, many insurance plans either require co-pays or limit what they do cover and some plans don't cover it at all. Under the new mandates, the most expensive forms of contraceptives must be provided 'free" to everyone.
And of course there other good reasons to use condoms, but that doesn't mean that all women are going to place the same importance on the theoretical risk of avoiding an STD as they do on the very real and likely risk of getting pregnant. There are many girls who use condoms as their primary form of birth control, so if you remove that risk by giving them "free" Plan B and other oral options, it stands to reason that a certain number of them are going to be willing to take their chances on the other front.
Not really the way I see it. Someone who eats poorly and doesn't exercise, possibly smokes or drinks heavily too for good measure, will have health problems that are expensive to manage. That lifestyle is more "fun" upfront than salads and running 5 miles a day. What about activities other than sex that have accident risk? Should someone who rides dirt bikes and will almost certainly have an accident be targeted like Jill the bareback rider for having fun and having health insurance pick up the tab? If we are to be fair there should be a very large umbrella of "optional" fun that should be excluded from health insurance. Seems very odd to me that we only go after sex, mostly focus on the female component of the equation, and it's mostly men with the strongest and loudest opinions.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. You are trying to analogize the coverage of dire medical emergencies, because they are caused to some degree by bad choices, with the payment of expensive preventative drugs that exist solely to enable people to engage in riskier recreational activities with fewer consequences. It simply doesn't work. Nobody is saying that we deny coverage to those who actually do get pregnant becuase they made bad choices, just that we shouldn't all be forced to subsidize an expensive prevention regimen.
To move your examples into a more accurate analogy, should I be forced to pay so that every dirt bike rider can be provided with helmets and other safety gear? For that matter, are you claiming that dirt bike owners would/could not purchase their own safety gear if insurance didn't pick up the tab? Should I now be forced to pay for healthy fruits and vegetables for the millions of people who might otherwise eat greasy hamburgers? This is what we are being asked to do with mandatory "free" contraceptives. What makes this even worse is that we are being forced to subsidize the most expensive, and least responsible, forms of these when much cheaper options exist and which women have already been using effectively for a very long time.
cherryblossomsinspring
03-06-2012, 09:45 AM
i just read this whole thread wow.
I for one do not feel that a catholic institution should have to cover the cost of birth control when it actually goes against their religion to control birth, have premarital sex etc etc. On the same note I don't feel tax payers should pay for someone's shriveled up old dick either. Now I don't think Limbaugh should have attacked the woman with insults but you have to feel pretty dumb as a devout catholic to complain about not wanting to pay for bc pills. I mean why couldn't she ask for free maxi pads? I'm still pissed that I have to pay for them. Those are expensive and are a necessity to my body's natural function, but pay for the meds so Johhny will not knock me up before I go to confession? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Do people actually listen to things they say publicly?
Condoms have two functions : 99% effective in birth control and protection from STI/STDs. Condoms are actually free at many locations. So it's not the super thin or the one with the flavors. Big deal they're free. It's like tv , you can watch the free channels or subscribe to cable and pay for premium shit. Then again you can find a tube site that has all the shows and avoid paying for cable but that's another story.
Now I'm pro choice even though based on my sexual responsibility I've never had to act on that choice. I know shit happens and it's always nice to be able to avoid a mistake from going much further than it already has. As with most things people will abuse this right.
Plan B is also great for women that want to be extra sure a mistake didn't happen.I feel under 18 Plan B should be free. Over 18 you're an adult and I hope you know how to pay like one. If not then why are you fucking some loser that can't pay for shit?
Also with free bc pills I do think there will be some new strains of STD/STI hitting the forefront. There will be those that will stick to condoms and other that never gave bc pills a 2nd thought, but later may change this to their own form of contraceptive. Hopefully with that great insurance plan, they'll be covering their Aids cocktails too.
Eric Stoner
03-06-2012, 11:26 AM
I honestly don't believe that there is anyone in this forum that would go along with Rush Limbaugh's statement that women who use contraception are "sluts" and "prostitutes". I am not trying to stir up animosity and hate here. I am giving members of the forum that are disgusted by such statements a chance to express their views to those who are sponsoring them. Anyone who feels different is free not to sign the petition.
Did you get this upset when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "cunt" ? Or when Sgt. Schultz on MSLSD called Laura Ingraham a "slut" ? Palin is an airheaded ditz afaic but why did Bill have to get so crude ? And Bill's explanation that he can do that because he doesn't have sponsors on HBO seems rather lame.
I am NOT defending Limbaugh for nanosecond. What he said was crude, rude and worst of all unecessary. His advertisers have been leaving him in droves. Which is as it should be. On top of everything else, Limbaugh hasn't been man enough to apologize to Ms. Fluke personally. She in turn hasn't exactly been a paragon of good grace and is enjoying her martyrdom.
This is not the first time that Rush has gone off on a factually delinquent rant over an issue he knows too little about. It probably won't be the last. The answer to what he said is what we have seen: Outrage and condemnation over his language ( including from many conservatives ) and factual correctives regardless of ideology.
If you don't like Limbaugh, don't listen to him.
Eric Stoner
03-06-2012, 11:29 AM
The right does stuff like this all the time. Right-wing nutjobs are encouraging people to call JC Penny and ask them to replace Ellen Degeneres as their spokesperson, because she is gay.
http://onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=436
And some of Ellen's loudest defenders have come from the RIGHT. The silliness of the "Millionmoms" , all 40,000 of them ( as Ellen said they round up to the nearest million ), has backfired on them big time. GOOD !
Kellydancer
03-06-2012, 12:25 PM
i just read this whole thread wow.
I for one do not feel that a catholic institution should have to cover the cost of birth control when it actually goes against their religion to control birth, have premarital sex etc etc. On the same note I don't feel tax payers should pay for someone's shriveled up old dick either. Now I don't think Limbaugh should have attacked the woman with insults but you have to feel pretty dumb as a devout catholic to complain about not wanting to pay for bc pills. I mean why couldn't she ask for free maxi pads? I'm still pissed that I have to pay for them. Those are expensive and are a necessity to my body's natural function, but pay for the meds so Johhny will not knock me up before I go to confession? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Do people actually listen to things they say publicly?
Condoms have two functions : 99% effective in birth control and protection from STI/STDs. Condoms are actually free at many locations. So it's not the super thin or the one with the flavors. Big deal they're free. It's like tv , you can watch the free channels or subscribe to cable and pay for premium shit. Then again you can find a tube site that has all the shows and avoid paying for cable but that's another story.
Now I'm pro choice even though based on my sexual responsibility I've never had to act on that choice. I know shit happens and it's always nice to be able to avoid a mistake from going much further than it already has. As with most things people will abuse this right.
Plan B is also great for women that want to be extra sure a mistake didn't happen.I feel under 18 Plan B should be free. Over 18 you're an adult and I hope you know how to pay like one. If not then why are you fucking some loser that can't pay for shit?
Also with free bc pills I do think there will be some new strains of STD/STI hitting the forefront. There will be those that will stick to condoms and other that never gave bc pills a 2nd thought, but later may change this to their own form of contraceptive. Hopefully with that great insurance plan, they'll be covering their Aids cocktails too.
I'm wondering that myself about new strains of STDs. I think it's a bad mistake to have sex without condoms unless one is in a monogamous relationship and aren't concerned about the risk of pregnancy. I think too many people anymore take sex casually which is why we are seeing so many problems.
I wonder how people would feel if it required to pay for pads and tampons because yes that is a need. I suspect no one would have a problem except maybe some old geezer.
All Good Things
03-06-2012, 12:38 PM
Did you get this upset when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "cunt" ? Or when Sgt. Schultz on MSLSD called Laura Ingraham a "slut" ? Palin is an airheaded ditz afaic but why did Bill have to get so crude ? And Bill's explanation that he can do that because he doesn't have sponsors on HBO seems rather lame.
Schultz said it once, was suspended, and apologized profusely to Ingraham personally and on the air before the suspension even took place.
Maher's calling somebody a "cunt" is crude, but not a direct and repeated slur like Limbaugh's use of "slut" and "prostitute," especially when spread out and repeated over a three-day period (!!) and combined with appeals to put her sex life out on the Internet.
In Maher's case there was a joke buried in his explanation of how he's free to make comments on HBO due to being sponsor-free: His previous ABC network show -- which relied on sponsors -- was cancelled after he suggested the 9-11 terrorists might be the real heroes. The public outcry knocked him off the air.
"Not listening," as you noted, is one form of protest. However, what's being proposed in this thread is another, and that's to sustain enough of a public outcry that the offending moron's comments cause his advertisers to continue to flee, and his show is either cancelled or his career is effectively ended.
A better example in all respects is the public outrage that followed Don Imus' "nappy-haired hos" comment.
Haven't heard much from Imus lately, right? It would be a better world if we heard a whole lot less from Rush Limbaugh.
Kellydancer
03-06-2012, 12:42 PM
Sometimes though boycotts help the person/show/etc being boycotted. Years ago this woman was getting advertisers to get out of advertising a new show she (and her group)thought were offensive so many advertisers backed out. However the show became a much bigger hit because of the controversy. The show btw was Married With Children. I doubt that even if advertisers backed out of Limbaugh's show that it would lower his ratings and take him off the air.
lifetravelergirl
03-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Rush sounds like a guy who is angry because he can't get laid.
bem401
03-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Sometimes though boycotts help the person/show/etc being boycotted. Years ago this woman was getting advertisers to get out of advertising a new show she (and her group)thought were offensive so many advertisers backed out. However the show became a much bigger hit because of the controversy. The show btw was Married With Children. I doubt that even if advertisers backed out of Limbaugh's show that it would lower his ratings and take him off the air.
I'll bet anyone here these advertisers will return once the smoke clears. They are all using the term "suspending" to describe their politically correct actions.
"Married With Children" was a great show (one of my faves) that only gained in popularity after the protest.
This entire uproar is being orchestrated by the Left to distract people from the constitutional issues at hand.
All Good Things
03-06-2012, 01:09 PM
I doubt that even if advertisers backed out of Limbaugh's show that it would lower his ratings and take him off the air.
Yes, good point with the MWC story, but I think Limbaugh has hit a very bad wall on this one, something he never saw, expected or appreciated, which is how these things usually happen, and is headed for a steep fall. He's already lost 12 sponsors, and they continue to follow each other out the door.
Three reasons why this may be his swan song:
1. This scandal is dominating the news cycle in the run-up to Super Tuesday, today. The fact that it’s sucked all the political oxygen out of the room when the momentum in the race could be determined today is a true “WTF?” moment.
2. The Republican presidential candidates can’t run away from Limbaugh fast enough, so he’s even being abandoned – by his own – to die.
3. The new Arbitron rating system that uses electronic meters rather than written diaries has consistently shown that Limbaugh’s true ratings are lower – suggesting that they may have always been lower in reality. Since Arbitron is switching over the entire system over to electronic tracking means that Limbaugh faces a steep downside, even without the scandal.
Rush sounds like a guy who is angry because he can't get laid.
I know this is very hard to believe – particularly if you’ve seen recent pictures of this guy – but he is very rich, has a fanatical (if non-sentient) following that includes many women, and has in fact dated across the political spectrum. He is, after all, a performer above all else.
Kellydancer
03-06-2012, 01:13 PM
Yeah at this point he's a negative for the Reps and that is a good point. The Reps have enough problems with infighting without this issue as well. I used to work in radio myself and the new meters being talked about yes they have found most shows have lower ratings than they thought.
Eric Stoner
03-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Schultz said it once, was suspended, and apologized profusely to Ingraham personally and on the air before the suspension even took place.
Maher's calling somebody a "cunt" is crude, but not a direct and repeated slur like Limbaugh's use of "slut" and "prostitute," especially when spread out and repeated over a three-day period (!!) and combined with appeals to put her sex life out on the Internet.
In Maher's case there was a joke buried in his explanation of how he's free to make comments on HBO due to being sponsor-free: His previous ABC network show -- which relied on sponsors -- was cancelled after he suggested the 9-11 terrorists might be the real heroes. The public outcry knocked him off the air.
"Not listening," as you noted, is one form of protest. However, what's being proposed in this thread is another, and that's to sustain enough of a public outcry that the offending moron's comments cause his advertisers to continue to flee, and his show is either cancelled or his career is effectively ended.
A better example in all respects is the public outrage that followed Don Imus' "nappy-haired hos" comment.
Haven't heard much from Imus lately, right? It would be a better world if we heard a whole lot less from Rush Limbaugh.
I agree that Rush's apology was lame. To put it mildly.
That is NOT what Maher said and NOT why "Politically Incorrect" was kicked off the air by ABC. He said that people who fly planes into buildings demonstrated more physical courage than our military guys operating drones and the like. I thought it was a legitimate thought on Maher's part. He was just talking about the physical courage needed to fly a plane into a building. Pointless but legitimate.
The Imus example is a poor one. Imus, and he has admitted this , reached out to female basketball players who were NOT part of any controversy whatsoever and called them despicable and degrading names. Fluke took a controversial , political position that a CATHOLIC institution be forced to pay for her contraception. Limbaugh took her position to a crude absurdity i.e. that she wanted to be paid to have sex.
I take the view that it is precisely up to Limbaugh's listeners and sponsors as to what, if anything, should happen to him. Personally, I don't think he or anyone else should be driven off the air. Not unless we are also going to demand that people like Reverend Wright be removed from their churches ; or Jeanine Garofalo and Michael Moore be silenced etc. etc. It is ironic that it is those on the right who have been arguing for the rights of everybody to free expression.
firemaiden04
03-06-2012, 01:31 PM
I think the reason this is making such big news now, though he's always been saying shit this offensive, is because he is much more involved with the Republican party than he used to be. Used to be some radio or TV personality who was really liberal or really conservative was NOT automatically in cahoots with the respective political party, or even assumed to be in cahoots with them. In some instances, this is still the case. Bill Maher is super liberal but he definitely doesn't speak for the Democrats. He insults Obama plenty, and in truth he's probably more liberal than the majority of the Democratic party (a party which is increasingly moderate IMO, but whatever), which means that a lot of Democrats try to distance themselves from him in an effort to appeal to the moderate population. The Republican party, on the other hand, is going more and more to the right, and although I'm sure that a ton of the Republican politicians who are currently in office or running for office are truthfully more like the old-school traditional GOP, they still have to (or think they have to) appeal to the extremely vocal minority of right-wing fundamentalists like the Tea Party that has somehow taken over the entire party. And that really vocal nutty minority includes people like Rush Limbaugh. I think it's a shame, because the Republican party back in the day used to have some very valid points and was very open to bipartisanship. Nowadays, being open to negotiation is viewed as tantamount to "being a traitor" as far as that minority is concerned. People like Rush Limbaugh totally have control over the party right now, at a time where all the candidates are falling over themselves to out-crazy each other in an effort to gain their blessing and/or endorsement, even though they may not actually agree with them. I exclude Rick Santorum from this because I really think he's sincere about his beliefs, which is somehow more terrifying.
Kellydancer
03-06-2012, 02:04 PM
It get weirder.
Heaton is a known conservative, so not surprised.
All Good Things
03-06-2012, 02:16 PM
That is NOT what Maher said and NOT why "Politically Incorrect" was kicked off the air by ABC.
Maher himself disagrees with you, has said so publicly, and was the guy making the joke, so his opinion is what’s important. There was a huge scandal over his comments and the cancellation of his show was widely attributed to this event by pretty much everybody in the media, except ABC itself. ABC said that it was cancelled due to “declining ratings,” but as Maher himself noted, the show had trouble getting sponsors after those comments were made, so the comments were, after all, the reason for the cancellation.
The Imus example is a poor one. Imus, and he has admitted this, reached out to female basketball players who were NOT part of any controversy whatsoever and called them despicable and degrading names.
He “reached out?” Seriously? After making a degrading racial slur, Imus first ignored the public outcry, then rejected it saying “nappy-haired hos” came from the African American community, then said it was irrelevant, and then was suspended for two weeks and five days later (!!) finally reversed himself and offered an apology. It was one of the most blatant examples of “Fuck you, oh, now it’s costing me money and maybe my job? Really? OK, then, sorry about the ‘fuck you.’” Completely cynical, self-serving and disingenuous. Sound familiar to what Limbaugh has done?
I take the view that it is precisely up to Limbaugh's listeners and sponsors as to what, if anything, should happen to him. Personally, I don't think he or anyone else should be driven off the air. Not unless we are also going to demand that people like Reverend Wright be removed from their churches ; or Jeanine Garofalo and Michael Moore be silenced etc. etc. It is ironic that it is those on the right who have been arguing for the rights of everybody to free expression.
See, here’s the deal – free speech cuts both ways.
The people who are outraged by repeatedly offensive and degrading comments by a radio commentator have the right to free speech, too, up to and including sharing their views with commercial sponsors, who can exercise their free speech too by pulling their advertising, which in the free market pushes the moron off the air.
Kellydancer
03-06-2012, 02:31 PM
I was watching Politically Incorrect when Maher made the comments and ironically he said it was the right who came to his defense. I think (I could be wrong)he mentioned Limbaugh supported his comments as free speech and so did Ann Coulter (who he's actually good friends with). I remember thinking it was blown out of proportion. Incidentally people keep mentioning Maher as an example of the "left" but he would always mention he despised both sides and in fact actually had some very conservative views on certain issues. He also said he voted for Bob Dole in 1996 too.
Krill_
03-06-2012, 02:56 PM
Krill, a lot of this was already addressed. For many, the cost is prohibitive now, many insurance plans either require co-pays or limit what they do cover and some plans don't cover it at all. Under the new mandates, the most expensive forms of contraceptives must be provided 'free" to everyone.
I realize now that what I said was a contradiction. I meant to specifically question how much the use of "the most expensive" contraception will rise because of this mandate. The main reason I question this is because there has not been much news on the lobbying front from the insurance industry. I also question how inexpensive a condom regime is for a large sample size given their much lower efficacy rate than hormonal options even with correct use. For example, in a sample of 10,000 sexually active couples using only condoms for one year, how many plan B's will still be used, how many abortions will there be, how much psychiatric care will result from abortions, and the elephant in the room, how many child births that were not planned for. These seem like real considerations.
To move your examples into a more accurate analogy, should I be forced to pay so that every dirt bike rider can be provided with helmets and other safety gear? For that matter, are you claiming that dirt bike owners would/could not purchase their own safety gear if insurance didn't pick up the tab? Should I now be forced to pay for healthy fruits and vegetables for the millions of people who might otherwise eat greasy hamburgers? This is what we are being asked to do with mandatory "free" contraceptives. What makes this even worse is that we are being forced to subsidize the most expensive, and least responsible, forms of these when much cheaper options exist and which women have already been using effectively for a very long time.
No, I don't believe that the insurance providers should directly subsidize safety gear or healthy food. I do believe that insurance providers, as the de facto gateway for health care in this country should provide incentives for healthy lifestyles, and many do with rate cuts for losing weight or smoking cessation. And that brings us to the central issues here. One, is sex part of a healthy, normal lifestyle and two, do women have a right to engage in this activity without pregnancy risk. I believe the religious fundamentalist driving this debate answer an emphatic no to both. Then there is an assortment of other considerations like money, and here I will agree with you on one point. If you're right and it does end up costing a great deal of money, it is exceptionally difficult for government to reverse course on popular policies that are not financially sound.
Natalllia
03-06-2012, 03:37 PM
See, here’s the deal – free speech cuts both ways.
The people who are outraged by repeatedly offensive and degrading comments by a radio commentator have the right to free speech, too, up to and including sharing their views with commercial sponsors, who can exercise their free speech too by pulling their advertising, which in the free market pushes the moron off the air.
Exactly. While I do believe that there is a gray area in the first amendment that should be examined and defined more closely (i.e.- what constitutes "hate speech", and where it fits in with the "obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words" stipulation), I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh's first amendment rights are being violated by this petition.
To my knowledge, no one is calling for Rush Limbaugh's arrest because of his on-air comments. We're not talking about a court of law here, we're talking about the court of public opinion. The first amendment grants us the freedom to say what we please, but does not protect from any and all consequences that may result from said speech. If I decided to insult and degrade my boss and was fired as a consequence, I doubt anyone would support my claim that I am entitled to keep my job because of my right to freedom of speech.
All Good Things
03-06-2012, 04:33 PM
^ Yes, quite right, it's a proscription on government action against its citizens.
When one side screams "Free Speech!" as a defense, it often means the other side is just exercising their own free speech rights in a way that could in fact have consequences.
It's the free market that is crushing Limbaugh, not the courts. And there's great poetic justice in that.
cherryblossomsinspring
03-07-2012, 05:06 AM
I'm wondering that myself about new strains of STDs. I think it's a bad mistake to have sex without condoms unless one is in a monogamous relationship and aren't concerned about the risk of pregnancy. I think too many people anymore take sex casually which is why we are seeing so many problems.
I wonder how people would feel if it required to pay for pads and tampons because yes that is a need. I suspect no one would have a problem except maybe some old geezer.
Well STD/ STI seem to mutate over time. or in some attempt to rid the earth of one disease we create a whole new one. Look at the flu. Influenza is mutating and becoming stronger to the point that people are dying ( most old/very young people).
Oh and gay marriage is another thing. Now I could care less where someone wants to put their mouth or their penis. I'm not in bed with them so how am I going to dictate how someone gets off or for that matter who a person is attracted to. But marriage was created by religious institutions. These same religious institutions that state homosexuality is a sin, that people will be dammed to hell and now after someone is having this supposed damned sex they want to go to that same institution and asked to be married? I never got that part. Now part of the problem is the issue with separating church and state. There wasn't a real division in the past. I mean ( " one nation under god ....and liberty blah blah) yeah all that good stuff. So the government mixed up church and laws and did so when it came to marriage. They also did this to keep people in line. "Well god told me to bomb those people" weighs heavier than "well I wanted to bomb them because they have some land rich in petrol". However still I would feel feel weird putting my hand on a bible with my gay lover and saying marry me by the power of god almighty while I stand in a church. Now if it's about medical decisions being made or being on someone's medical plan I feel that anyone should be able to do that. Hell I'd date a man or woman to get good medical coverage. Medical coverage is expensive and costly or maybe I should move to the UK after getting all my dental work done here.
For others I understand it's just their way of honoring their love for one another in front of their family and friends and making a life long journey together in unison. Why not call it a union? " yes last week I "united" with my partner. They can have all the same benefits of a marriage without it being called "marriage". I often wondered why it's so important to have the title "marriage".
Plus in schools children are now being required to learn around same sex parents thought books called Mommy and Mommy. Is this necessary? Or should children really know this at 8 years old?
Didn't mean to thread jack I just saw Kelly D bring it up and it was something I wondered about and just came back to wonder some more about it. Again I don't care what people do but often wonder what the motivation or outcome they are hoping to achieve. Curiosity I suppose.
cherryblossomsinspring
03-07-2012, 05:15 AM
Also at most jobs a woman gets the same sick days and time off a man gets. In other countries they are given extra days for their menstruation. Some days I messed up my clothing because I was reprimanded for taking too many bathroom breaks. In other evaluations I was compared to the guy that took less time away from his desk . Wow so he doesn't bleed monthly? lucky him. Other days I did my work hunched over in pain. So yeah screw the bc pills give us free sanitary products!
There aren't allowances for a woman's biological health since in the days of old women were at home and not out there working. I think we're again we should be focusing on allowances for what we HAVE TO DEAL WITH rather than something we'd like to do when getting home from work.
Eric Stoner
03-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Maher himself disagrees with you, has said so publicly, and was the guy making the joke, so his opinion is what’s important. There was a huge scandal over his comments and the cancellation of his show was widely attributed to this event by pretty much everybody in the media, except ABC itself. ABC said that it was cancelled due to “declining ratings,” but as Maher himself noted, the show had trouble getting sponsors after those comments were made, so the comments were, after all, the reason for the cancellation.
He “reached out?” Seriously? After making a degrading racial slur, Imus first ignored the public outcry, then rejected it saying “nappy-haired hos” came from the African American community, then said it was irrelevant, and then was suspended for two weeks and five days later (!!) finally reversed himself and offered an apology. It was one of the most blatant examples of “Fuck you, oh, now it’s costing me money and maybe my job? Really? OK, then, sorry about the ‘fuck you.’” Completely cynical, self-serving and disingenuous. Sound familiar to what Limbaugh has done?
See, here’s the deal – free speech cuts both ways.
The people who are outraged by repeatedly offensive and degrading comments by a radio commentator have the right to free speech, too, up to and including sharing their views with commercial sponsors, who can exercise their free speech too by pulling their advertising, which in the free market pushes the moron off the air.
Bill Maher ( who I like a LOT btw) was NOT making a joke. I watched the show in question and heard EXACTLY what he said. It was an OPINION that he was entitled to and his observation comparing the physical courage of fanatical , suicidal terrorists to some of our military guys who were literally just pushing buttons to launch cruise missiles was worthy of more thought than it was given at the time. Instead we got the usual knee-jerk jingoistic response instead of reasoned debate recognizing the kind of people we were up against and what THEY were willing to do and were capable of doing. In the shitstorm that followed his ratings declined and he lost sponsors. While I would have preferred to see ABC gut it out and keep a meaningful show on the air, they caved and cancelled it.
Imus "reached out " and "grabbed" Rutgers female basketball players and called them " _ _ _ ". They were NOT part of any issue or controversy of the day. He was suspended and then fired. Unlike Limbaugh , unlike Maher , unlike Schultz , unlike Olberman; Imus met with the players and apologized in person and LISTENED to them tell him how hurtful his remark was. He never tried to make excuses or weasel out of any responsibility for what he said. The proof is that his current persona is kinder and gentler and he has learned to be more careful about what he says.
I was listening last week when Limbaugh said what he said. I didn't like that he was dealing with the issue at all. I certainly didn't like his take that Ms. Fluke expected Georgetown to "pay her to have sex". I certainly didn't like or agree with his comparing her to a "prostitute" and calling her a "slut". I was very disappointed that he did so and expected the condemnation that he is getting. Like many other people in public life, Limbaugh made the mistake of worrying more about other people's personal lives than his own. His apology was LAME. I was listening Monday and yesterday when he tried to explain his bad behavior by claiming that he had gotten down in the gutter and emulated the tactics of some on the left. True though that they may be , Limbaugh has always prided himself on civility and good grace and he flunked completely on both counts. He's a big boy and he will have to take his lumps. He has lost about 9 sponsors and two stations have stopped carrying his show. It will be interesting to see how many listeners he loses; if any.
You are correct that everyone is free to express outrage up to and including boycotting sponsors and other things designed to try and get Limbuagh off the air. My question is not whether people CAN do that. Of course they can. Instead I question whether that is truly the healthiest and most constructive approach. Generally , I do not support that sort of thing because I believe in free expression for everybody.
Eric Stoner
03-07-2012, 08:45 AM
Exactly. While I do believe that there is a gray area in the first amendment that should be examined and defined more closely (i.e.- what constitutes "hate speech", and where it fits in with the "obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words" stipulation), I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh's first amendment rights are being violated by this petition.
To my knowledge, no one is calling for Rush Limbaugh's arrest because of his on-air comments. We're not talking about a court of law here, we're talking about the court of public opinion. The first amendment grants us the freedom to say what we please, but does not protect from any and all consequences that may result from said speech. If I decided to insult and degrade my boss and was fired as a consequence, I doubt anyone would support my claim that I am entitled to keep my job because of my right to freedom of speech.
Please be very careful when you talk about "hate speech", let alone mess with the First Amendment and try to proscribe it. Nothing has created more litigation than efforts to try and impose political correctness and to suppress speech. For no reason other than that somebody , somewhere : doesn't like ; doesn't agree with ; gets angry about ; feels uncomfortable with ; considers to be hostile, offensive, insulting , degrading etc. etc. something that they saw , heard or read. More mischief has been committed by colleges trying to impose " Speech Codes" and the like than almost anything else in academia. What many proponents of such overreaching ( usually on the Left ) forget is that such devices can be turned around and used to suppress speech that they like and agree with. It has led to efforts to silence speakers with controversial views ; ban books and all sorts of other mischief some of which IS barred by the First Amendment
Eric Stoner
03-07-2012, 10:37 AM
Let me be clear on something. It is possible that a radio or T.V. personality could be so disgusting and so outrageous that I could support driving them off the air. It has been done back in the 80's when there was a Klan radio show that made heavy use of the "N" word. When every sponsor bailed out and the show continued, the FCC threatened the station with loss of its license until they cancelled it. Nonetheless I am very queasy and uneasy about doing so. I prefer what Howard Stern did when he had Daniel Carver on his show and let him ridicule himself with his stupidity and ignorance. I would prefer to engage nuts like Farrakhan and Rev. Wright and SHOW everybody how hateful and ignorant they are.
As dumb as Limbaugh was in saying what he did, he does not come anywhere close to such extremes. Most of the outrage is coming from people who simply do not like what he has to say. And who envy the success of him and other right wing broadcasters like Levin , Hannity ( Yuck ! ) or Fox News.
bem401
03-07-2012, 12:04 PM
The only reason this is getting the attention it's getting is because this administration and their followers want to deflect attention from the fact that this woman, much more a liberal activist than a victimized co-ed, wants a Catholic college (and Catholics in general) to facilitate or fund an activity in direct contradiction to their teachings. This is nothing but a red herring to provide cover for this attack on the Constitution. Who really gives a shit what any of these idiots on either side of the aisle say about these other figures who they find themselves in opposition to? Personally, I don't care for any of them so I don't watch or listen to any of them. ( Well, except for Levin, but he doesn't cross the line)
Kellydancer
03-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Well STD/ STI seem to mutate over time. or in some attempt to rid the earth of one disease we create a whole new one. Look at the flu. Influenza is mutating and becoming stronger to the point that people are dying ( most old/very young people).
Oh and gay marriage is another thing. Now I could care less where someone wants to put their mouth or their penis. I'm not in bed with them so how am I going to dictate how someone gets off or for that matter who a person is attracted to. But marriage was created by religious institutions. These same religious institutions that state homosexuality is a sin, that people will be dammed to hell and now after someone is having this supposed damned sex they want to go to that same institution and asked to be married? I never got that part. Now part of the problem is the issue with separating church and state. There wasn't a real division in the past. I mean ( " one nation under god ....and liberty blah blah) yeah all that good stuff. So the government mixed up church and laws and did so when it came to marriage. They also did this to keep people in line. "Well god told me to bomb those people" weighs heavier than "well I wanted to bomb them because they have some land rich in petrol". However still I would feel feel weird putting my hand on a bible with my gay lover and saying marry me by the power of god almighty while I stand in a church. Now if it's about medical decisions being made or being on someone's medical plan I feel that anyone should be able to do that. Hell I'd date a man or woman to get good medical coverage. Medical coverage is expensive and costly or maybe I should move to the UK after getting all my dental work done here.
For others I understand it's just their way of honoring their love for one another in front of their family and friends and making a life long journey together in unison. Why not call it a union? " yes last week I "united" with my partner. They can have all the same benefits of a marriage without it being called "marriage". I often wondered why it's so important to have the title "marriage".
Plus in schools children are now being required to learn around same sex parents thought books called Mommy and Mommy. Is this necessary? Or should children really know this at 8 years old?
Didn't mean to thread jack I just saw Kelly D bring it up and it was something I wondered about and just came back to wonder some more about it. Again I don't care what people do but often wonder what the motivation or outcome they are hoping to achieve. Curiosity I suppose.
Ironically you touched on an issue that I am actually talking about on another site and that is how kids are learning about homosexuality in school. I don't support kids learning any morals left or right in school because that's the parents job. A friend of mine is pulling her kids out of the public school because they are being taught morals contrary to how she feels, such as about gays and about out of wedlock and all of that. I have to agree because while I have no problem with my kids being told (by me and my husband)about gays the schools need to be teaching my kids math and science. This is why this country is in a decline because they are being told morals and most are very left wing. I don't want my young children being taught anything regarding sexuality until later and only in sex education classes.
Regarding the church issue that does make sense and to expand on it there are many people marrying in church that are committing sins contrary to the bible. Before anyone attacks me, I'm not saying they are sins to me, but to the religion. I am Catholic and there are many issues the church doesn't support such as living together, using birth control and out of wedlock. Many priests will not marry someone who is living with their partner before marriage. At church recently a couple came to have their baby baptized and the priest told them he would but was strongly opposed to them living together and not married and was baptizing the baby so he wouldn't have sin. I will admit I am mixed on gay marriage in the church because they do not approve but since I am not gay I don't worry about it. I suppose if I was and a devout Catholic it would be a conflict. I do support marriages that are non religious though. I'm far from perfect and myself have committed sins in my past that are contrary to Catholic's teachings but intend to stick with them now. That's just me though and don't expect others to understand this at all.
Eric Stoner
03-07-2012, 12:25 PM
The only reason this is getting the attention it's getting is because this administration and their followers want to deflect attention from the fact that this woman, much more a liberal activist than a victimized co-ed, wants a Catholic college (and Catholics in general) to facilitate or fund an activity in direct contradiction to their teachings. This is nothing but a red herring to provide cover for this attack on the Constitution. Who really gives a shit what any of these idiots on either side of the aisle say about these other figures who they find themselves in opposition to? Personally, I don't care for any of them so I don't watch or listen to any of them. ( Well, except for Levin, but he doesn't cross the line)
I think you're right but that doesn't excuse what Rush said or why HE got involved with Fluke.
I listen to Levin but NOBODY on the air personalizes more than he does and NOBODY can be more vicious than he can. Bad example.
Kellydancer
03-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Please be very careful when you talk about "hate speech", let alone mess with the First Amendment and try to proscribe it. Nothing has created more litigation than efforts to try and impose political correctness and to suppress speech. For no reason other than that somebody , somewhere : doesn't like ; doesn't agree with ; gets angry about ; feels uncomfortable with ; considers to be hostile, offensive, insulting , degrading etc. etc. something that they saw , heard or read. More mischief has been committed by colleges trying to impose " Speech Codes" and the like than almost anything else in academia. What many proponents of such overreaching ( usually on the Left ) forget is that such devices can be turned around and used to suppress speech that they like and agree with. It has led to efforts to silence speakers with controversial views ; ban books and all sorts of other mischief some of which IS barred by the First Amendment
Off topic, but when you mention colleges it reminds me of my own issue with free speech. My college (an extreme left wing college, more left wing than even notorious colleges)had an open admission policy where anyone could attend. The result was everyone was in classes together except math and English and these classes could be very low and still college credit. There were kids who could barely read and write and do simple math. Because they were in classes with everyone and because there were no honors courses (something many of us pushed for)those at the bottom of the intellectual scale would struggle with projects and assignments while those at the higher end were usually done with the assignments early on. It's no exaggeration that by midterm everything was done and all I had left to do was the final.
I bring this up because years later I did an article about open admissions in a business magazine. I told flat out I was opposed to everyone attending college and why. The result? I have been banned for life from school. I can not ever attend my reunions, nor can I attend any alumni events they sponsor. This school does a lot of events in Chicago and is well known (they brag about all the celebs who attended including several Oscar winners). Now one may ask why I did this interview but the reason was I was disgusted with this problem and spoke out. I was also disgusted that this school would keep raising fees to pay for unneeded items, like buying the school president a mansion (I wish I was kidding). This school thought that by attending it I would become farther left but in reality I became farther right. A well known game show host also attended the school and he's a very well known conservative but I doubt he's banned because of who he is.