Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Rush: Should the Left Stop Advocating Gay Marriage to Avoid Provoking Islamists?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/ ... islamists/

by Ian Hanchett6 May 20150

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh asked if the same media criticizing the Mohammed Art Exhibit would stop advocating gay marriage because that could also be provocative to radical Islamists on Wednesday.

Rush said, “the militant Islamists command us not to draw cartoons or any other kind of picture of the prophet Mohammed, and our Drive-By Media and Democrat Party readily agree, ‘Ain’t no way that should happen! It offends them, and we shouldn’t do it. And when anybody does, and they get shot at, it’s their fault.’ To which I ask, ‘Well, now, wait a minute. The same militant Islamists who do not permit the drawing of pictures of the prophet Mohammed also do not permit homosexuality and do not permit gay marriage. And we know what their attitudes toward women are. Why don’t we respect those?’ Can you imagine? If you turn on MSNBC…you’re gonna see a total devotion to the concept of gay marriage. Isn’t that insulting to the Muslims who would be watching? And isn’t it then — would it not then be understandable if the Muslims watching take some kind of action against MSNBC for offending them?” And “Where do we draw the line on this? Where do we draw the line on those aspects of Islam that we’re going to respect and not offend them, and then on the other hand say, ‘We don’t care if it offends ‘em; we’re gonna do it anyway’?”

He added, “But if the left says that Christians, despite opposition rooted in their religion, must pay for people who want to have abortions to have them — if the left says that Christians must, say, like at Hobby Lobby, must pay for any drug or whatever is necessary that facilitates an abortion, even though they have a religious opposition to it, by the same token, does it not make sense that the left should be demanding that militant Islamists pay for these conventions that have cartoon contests with the prophet Mohammed?”

Rush concluded, “my only [question is:] Where do we draw the line here in areas and various different religions in what we’ll tolerate of them and what we won’t? I’m just asking. I’m not advocating anything here.”

TheFarleys wrote:Are those pictures of the Mohammed exercising? Infidel!

and if #10 is any indication... apparently he has quite the package too!

As usual, VelbertonVineerian

Your post has nothing to do with the topic.

Try defending the double standard that is the topic. You can't do that can you? Because facts completely overwhelm the liberal mind rendering it unable to respond sensibly.

It is the typical hypocritical double standard of the left and it can not be logically defended in any way other than to offer a moronic response in an effort to dispel truth.

Badstrat wrote:Rush: Should the Left Stop Advocating Gay Marriage to Avoid Provoking Islamists?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/ ... islamists/

by Ian Hanchett6 May 20150

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh asked if the same media criticizing the Mohammed Art Exhibit would stop advocating gay marriage because that could also be provocative to radical Islamists on Wednesday.

Rush said, “the militant Islamists command us not to draw cartoons or any other kind of picture of the prophet Mohammed, and our Drive-By Media and Democrat Party readily agree, ‘Ain’t no way that should happen! It offends them, and we shouldn’t do it. And when anybody does, and they get shot at, it’s their fault.’ To which I ask, ‘Well, now, wait a minute. The same militant Islamists who do not permit the drawing of pictures of the prophet Mohammed also do not permit homosexuality and do not permit gay marriage. And we know what their attitudes toward women are. Why don’t we respect those?’ Can you imagine? If you turn on MSNBC…you’re gonna see a total devotion to the concept of gay marriage. Isn’t that insulting to the Muslims who would be watching? And isn’t it then — would it not then be understandable if the Muslims watching take some kind of action against MSNBC for offending them?” And “Where do we draw the line on this? Where do we draw the line on those aspects of Islam that we’re going to respect and not offend them, and then on the other hand say, ‘We don’t care if it offends ‘em; we’re gonna do it anyway’?”

He added, “But if the left says that Christians, despite opposition rooted in their religion, must pay for people who want to have abortions to have them — if the left says that Christians must, say, like at Hobby Lobby, must pay for any drug or whatever is necessary that facilitates an abortion, even though they have a religious opposition to it, by the same token, does it not make sense that the left should be demanding that militant Islamists pay for these conventions that have cartoon contests with the prophet Mohammed?”

Rush concluded, “my only [question is:] Where do we draw the line here in areas and various different religions in what we’ll tolerate of them and what we won’t? I’m just asking. I’m not advocating anything here.”

I am not going to be wearing shorts or playing a musical instrument if one of the 71 ISIL soldiers in America somehow find out who I am, behind my mask of anonymity.. you know they frown on music and men wearing shorts Slacker ole friend..

Nothing posted here yet is relevant to the topic. Not unusual...

This is very similar to the hypocrisy I've been pointing out in another thread. Blithering about the cartoon contest in Texas, where someone was standing up for their right to freedom of speech, while they use that same freedom to berate them for it.

And it got the same lack of intelligent response. The nonsense posted here didn't even get a good chuckle. I'm disappointed...

I think they should consider what would happen if they tried saying what they think in Iraq...because that's where this is headed. The same group that is in initiating the attacks in Texas and other places wants to establish itself worldwide and force all inhabitants of all countries to live under Sharia law. Say anything against them and you're executed. Refuse to join their religion and your head is chopped off. Not to mention the horrid treatment of women...

I've been considering some of the same things. Christianity has been under attack in this country for a while now and I don't see the liberals up in arms like this about it. Homosexuals would be executed under Islamic Sharia, but they don't seem to be slowing down their support of it, even though it might get their gay friends killed. They seem to be glad to use their freedom of speech, but don't seem to be too willing to fight for it. And of course since they are unable to formulate a logical, intelligent response, they take the low road and resort to the usual insults, put-downs and sophomoric name calling.

I'm seeing that quite often when I look through the comments section of news articles. While it's true the conservatives have a tendency to respond in the same manner, it's almost always the liberals that start the snipping sessions. Usually they degenerate into insult throwing contests, and when it starts it's not often any intelligent discourse can ensue. Try to make a logical well thought out post and it just results in more immature nonsense. And of course the never ending stupid pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic...

And what they seem to refuse to understand, even after it's been pointed out repeatedly, is that our so called leaders love seeing us bicker amongst ourselves, that means we can't put our heads together and figure out a way to get them to actually do their job and represent us, the people that put them in their positions of power. The laws and Constitution are being shredded, they just want to call people stupid names. Our economy is on the edge of a major meltdown, they bicker over whose side you're on. Our rights are being whittled away, more name calling.

No wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket...

Badstrat wrote:As usual, VelbertonVineerian

Your post has nothing to do with the topic.

Try defending the double standard that is the topic. You can't do that can you? Because facts completely overwhelm the liberal mind rendering it unable to respond sensibly.

It is the typical hypocritical double standard of the left and it can not be logically defended in any way other than to offer a moronic response in an effort to dispel truth.

Ridicule is all they seem to have when it comes to a conservative who issues a challenge to think.


This is brilliant...and sadly true.

There is one group of people in this world who will kill you for drawing a cartoon, being gay, being a christian, being a jew....heck, they are offended that your wife isn't covered in a black sack.

But no, don't dare offend the religion of peace! We should alter our Constitution to say freedom of speech stops at Mohammed!! We're so chickenshit afraid of what intolerant bloodthirsty murderers in the name of allah are going to be offended by.

Honestly...I'm ashamed to be American when I see cowards already bowing to the intimidation tactics of this violent ideology. They don't get nicer just because you're nice to them. They only understand the overwhelming use of force.

Any man not willing to use force to preserve the right for people to draw cartoons about ANY FREAKIN' THING is a coward, and doesn't deserve citizenship in the United States.

And the hypocrisy is crystal clear when their non-stop vicious humiliation and ridicule of decent people who have a disagreement with them always stops short of "offending" Mohammad.

Except for Bill Maher the entire left seems to be gutless cowards.

And it is the cowardice of their ideology that the left can't face, so they use ridicule to avoid engaging a conversation that would uncover their nakedness.

It appears we have a bunch of spammers here with out any value other than to disrupt any valid thread or conversation.

I guess that is a part of free speech... Even stupidity is covered under the first amendment... Oh well.

yod wrote:As usual, VelbertonVineerian

Your post has nothing to do with the topic.

of course it does. this a thread about double standards and rush limburger cheesehead's stretch of an analogy. vinny simply points out the hypocrisy of your posterboy who has a history of railing against dope fiends when he had (still has?) his own troubles in that regard.

Ridicule is all they seem to have when it comes to a conservative who issues a challenge to think.

[/quote]

you guys crack me up. get a clue! this is rush limbaugh we're talkin' about. have you ever listened to his show?it's NON STOP ridicule dripping w sarcasm from start to finish! same w hannity, miller, savage, or any of the other conservative puppetmasters

double standards indeed.

angelsshotgun wrote:It appears we have a bunch of spammers here with out any value other than to disrupt any valid thread or conversation.

and while we're talking about double standards....

hey glen....are sure YOU don't want to take this op to bray about Mike B. deleting your posts? oh, wait...that would be SPAMMING "with out any value other than to disrupt any valid thread or conversation."

YOU'D never do that, would you?

Planetguy wrote:you guys crack me up. get a clue! this is rush limbaugh we're talkin' about. have you ever listened to his show?it's NON STOP ridicule dripping w sarcasm from start to finish! same w hannity, miller, savage, or any of the other conservative puppetmasters

double standards indeed.

Hannity is a political hack, can't stand him. Dennis Miller is a comedian. Making jokes about people is his business, but he always has an intelligent social comment behind his sarcasm, as opposed to just being mean. Savage is a bit paranoid and sometimes unreliable. I have never been a fan, a little too close to Alex Jones who depends on producing fear to keep his audience.


But have you ever listened to Rush? I was a ditto head in the 90s but don't get a chance to listen since then....and I say that your characterization is way off. He uses absurdity to illustrate he absurdity of his subject matter, but that's different than ridicule for the sake of ridicule, which is alway a personal attack designed to humiliate. I challenge you to find a statement in that article where he ridicules a person (as opposed to the actions of a person)

You won't be able to. That's the sole territory of the leftist commentators and media.