Rush Limbaugh’s inappropriate language was anything but a fluke

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*


Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Rush Limbaugh is the official spokesman of the Republican Party. Republicans have gotten lazy. Why think for yourself if Rush will do the “thinking” for you? The problem is that Rush is driving women out of the GOP and away from GOP candidates. He is destroywing the brand with his continuing attack on women. He went even further and attacked “over educated” women. Translation: those silly women insist on thinking for themselves instead of blindly following Rush. We “silly women” are busy uniting against this absurd attack on equal rights to health care.

Yadayadayada. The Left’s flagrant double standard regarding moral sensitivities is so sickening, and so outdated that it almost gets taken for granted. One quick example in passing: leftist comedian Bill Maher routinely calls women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann names using exactly the same words Limbaugh used — and more. Maher is a so-called “comedian”, Limbaugh is a so-called “entertainer”. I don’t see much difference between the two. So where is all the Left’s faux outrage directed? Why at Rush Limbaugh, of course. The Left gives every appearance of thinking that Maher’s use of the very same words is to be commended as appropriate and on point. Reason? They don’t like good-looking conservative women. Rappers “diss” the fairer gender for a living, selling millions of records in the process. Leftist outrage? Nowhere to be seen. No courteous discussion is possible with that level of intellectual dishonesty and manipulativeness.
Totally lost in the Left’s sickening — and so disgustingly manipulative as to be actually evil — double standard is the Economics-101-based point that the “innocent” young woman (a law student no less) in question thinks she has a moral right to persuade government to steal everyone’s else’s labor in the form of taxation and force everybody else to pay for her health care needs, including, of course, contraception — for her choice to engage in ostensibly premarital sex. As for all those “hater”, “misogynistic”, “racist”, “bigot”, “homophobic”, knuck-dragging Neanderthals whose primitive unsophisticated moral values just happen not to include sex outside marriage — well, to hell with them, they’re subhuman anyway.
Surely, if he looked hard enough, an ingenious fellow like Grant could find a place to put his faux double-standard outrage where the “sun don’t shine”.
As an aside, it is quite interesting to notice how radically fewer comments appear in the Sentinel now that the “show your real name” policy has been implemented. Seems to me the new policy has proven to be counter productive. I kind of liked the old freedom better than the currant paternalistic nanny-state policy of protecting me from incivility “for my own good”. I thought some of the pseudonyms were kind of amusing. I, for one, would welcome them back.

John; I agree totally with your sentiments regarding the return of anonymous commenting. As for the rest of your tome - Rush’s “ideal” woman seems to be a subservient, sperm-activated breeding machine circa 1955. The man is pathetic, and obviously knows little about women - he’s been married 4 times.



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy