Limbaugh attacks “gay lobby” over Penn State child abuse

[useless]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/11/22/limbaugh-attacks-%E2%80%9Cgay-lobby%E2%80%9D-over-penn-state-child-abuse-scandal/

Moderator Action: Article removed- please refer to OT rule 6b, and feel free to edit back in an abridged version.

...So yeah, everyone's favourite hack is blaming the enigmatic, oft-ignored, apparently all pervasive and powerful, yet easily defeated Gay Agenda (and all LGBTers as), for the appalling pedophilic crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky and the institutional cover-up by Penn State University.

This is just blatent homophobia, and it's disgusting to see this even being contemplated, how is this even defensible?

Does anyone believe that this is a case of the "Gay Agenda" and it's multiple, fabulous tentacles somehow creating and endorsing pedophilia?

Or (as is obvious) is this just a case of obvious homophobia and scare mongering?

 

[NovaKart]

Rush should stick to sniffing oxycontin.

 

[katipunero]

Go tell them Rush!

 

[useless]

Go tell them Rush!

Wait what? How can you support him?

 

[bathsheba666]

I'm don't know which I'm more astonished by....

The reports that Moral Limbo attempted to moderate his comments...
or
Fat drug addicts can run off at the mouth.

I am also clear that not all morons listen to him.

 

[IglooDame]

Go tell them Rush!

Wait what? How can you support him?

Given your astonishment at that response, I can only wonder if this thread is simply a thinly-disguised rant thread rather than an attempt at discussion...

 

[useless]

Given your astonishment at that response, I can only wonder if this thread is simply a thinly-disguised rant thread rather than an attempt at discussion...

I cannot help it if that is what you wish to believe, even if it isn't the case, alas.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Given your astonishment at that response, I can only wonder if this thread is simply a thinly-disguised rant thread rather than an attempt at discussion...

Are you new here?

Could anyone link me to the OT-rules? So far I've been using the force, but now I'm curious about section 6b.

 

[Crezth]

Given your astonishment at that response, I can only wonder if this thread is simply a thinly-disguised rant thread rather than an attempt at discussion...

I don't think the "discussion" as you describe it has much potential when it's idiotic prejudiced talking head and worthless hack versus the inexorable forward flow of progress.

 

[Camikaze]

@useless- what would you actually like to discuss here? The questions in the OP are rather leading and don't actually provide for much in the way of productive discourse. Do you have something additional to add to the OP to allow for that? Perhaps something about the role of the media in stoking fears?

Could anyone link me to the OT-rules? So far I've been using the force, but now I'm curious about section 6b.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422895

6b. For that same link, do NOT quote entire articles. Quote a few sentences, a paragraph or two, TOPS. This avoids copyright issues and helps give some focus to your thread. Initial offenders will be closed with an opportunity to retry. Repeat offenders will receive infractions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wow. I did not know that. Copyright issues. Psah. I always found it quite rude to only post an paragraph or two, especially when the other paragraphs provide context.

Anyway, noted!

 

[useless]

God forbid i try to alert people to the latent homophobia that exists within society, the fact that such statements are considered acceptable, should produce discussion in and of itself.

I wanted to discuss how such attitudes are considered acceptable by those on the right, but apparently that doesn't lend itself to "productive discourse".

 

[Crezth]

God forbid i try to alert people to the latent homophobia that exists within society, the fact that such statements are considered acceptable, should produce discussion in and of itself.

I wanted to discuss how such attitudes are considered acceptable by those on the right, but apparently that doesn't lend itself to "productive discourse".

Hey buddy, take that trash out of here! We only allow productive discourse here in Off Topic!

On another note, is it fine if I start up a new topic about Nazism and its relative merits? I think there's a real opportunity for a pro-con list here and I want to encourage discussion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the fact that such statements are considered acceptable

By whom?

I wanted to discuss how such attitudes are considered acceptable by those on the right, but apparently that doesn't lend itself to "productive discourse".

Indeed that doesn't, since your premise is faulty. It may be accepted by some on the right, but it's not accepted by 'the right'. What you are doing here is not opening discussion but you're using a serious issue to generalise to score one against the opposition.

 

[Crezth]

By whom?

Indeed that doesn't, since your premise is faulty. It may be accepted by some on the right, but it's not accepted by 'the right'. What you are doing here is not opening discussion but you're using a serious issue to generalise to score one against the opposition.

Do you mean to say there aren't deep straits of anti-gay sentiment among the right wing?

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

...So yeah, everyone's favourite hack is blaming the enigmatic, oft-ignored, apparently all pervasive and powerful, yet easily defeated Gay Agenda (and all LGBTers as), for the appalling pedophilic crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky and the institutional cover-up by Penn State University.

You say this as if someone should be surprised? That's like being surprised when Jim Mora blames turnovers every time he loses. If you did see Rush doing something like this then you have little understanding of his views.

This is just blatent homophobia, and it's disgusting to see this even being contemplated, how is this even defensible?

Are you just begging the question here?

Does anyone believe that this is a case of the "Gay Agenda" and it's multiple, fabulous tentacles somehow creating and endorsing pedophilia?

Despite what someone with ratings may say, or someone who despises that person's ratings may believe what others think, very few people actually really believe that. It's just using an appalling crime as a platform, as many politicians and political speakers tend to do.

Or (as is obvious) is this just a case of obvious homophobia and scare mongering?

Throwing buzz words around does not add points to an argument.

 

[katipunero]

nah, i'd skin Rush if ever our paths cross.

pedophilia is not a subset of homosexuality. it would seem that way with Sandusky's case because all of his victims were male. it is easy to confuse his "sexual orientation" with his gross deviant behavior and actions towards young adults.

Rush, of course, being the expert that he is, running off at the mouth with nonsense, continues to reinforce this mistaken characterization of pedophilia as gay behavior, and idiots who know no better believe him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you mean to say there aren't deep straits of anti-gay sentiment among the right wing?

You can quite literally find the answer to this question by reading the post you replied to

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

Yes. It's cause he's gay. It has nothing at all to do with Penn State wanting to keep him in as assistant coach so they could do better in their games.

 

[kochman]

Having read his out of context comments... I really don't see the problem. He expressed an opinion, and it is rather correct. The abuser was gay... none of the victims were female.
Big deal. The media doesn't, in fact, come out and mention that (as they would if he were say... a Christian...). Big deal.