Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Won Women Voters Because He Treats Them Like Vaginas

Categories: Broward News
rush limbaugh points.jpg

Pill-poppin' conservative blowfish blowhard Rush Limbaugh, like all the other GOPers in the past few days, is seriously butthurt over Barack Obama's resounding reelection this past Tuesday.

In rummaging through the Conservetard devastation handed to them (they couldn't win Ohio or Florida... nut-jab!), Rush basically came to the conclusion that when Obama sees a woman, he sees a vagina with feet, and therefore women were all like, That Barry's our guy!

Couldn't be that recent God Basically Fixes All the Rapes Tour the GOPers went on during the past few months. Couldn't be the Mittbot blowing a circuit when asked about the Lilly Ledbetter Act during a debate and all he could do was say he had women inside binders (thus creating a most excellent internet meme). Couldn't be other issues like, the economy actually getting better and unemployment actually on the decline and the Romney-Ryan ticket actually having no real plans.

It was because Obama's all "WOMENS = VAG"


From the pill popper's Thursday show:

"Women voted for Obama 55 percent to 43 percent... Massive gender gap. Unchanged from 2008. Unmarried women backed Obama 68 percent to 30 percent. They thought Romney would take away birth control pills. Obama treats them like vaginas, and they say, 'He's my man.' Go figure."

Right on, Rush! Allowing women the freedom to not only have a say in their own medical privacy as well as getting equal pay as their male counterparts is totally the president seeing them as walking vaginas with purses.

Because Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin, Richard "It's God's Will" Mourdock, and Mitt "I Would Support a Personhood Amendment" Romney don't see vaginas when they look at women. They see a Man-Seed Depository.

BIG DIFF, folks!

But, hey, Rush sees the world in 1930s cartoons, apparently, where women talk like Betty Boop and black people have giant lips and dance a jig for money. One might say these are the side effects of OxyContin abuse. But that would be an insult to drug abusers.

The reality is, it's just the side effects of a misogynist, racist asshole.




My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
smdrpepper
smdrpepper

To all the right wing, conservatives out there with a persecution complex, THIS is why you are not liked so much.  The talking heads you revere say and think completely horrible things that you end up parroting.

Here is a hint..DONT DO THAT!

ChazStevensGenius
ChazStevensGenius

When I think of Rush, I imagine a penis with ears...  So that seems about right.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

" like, the economy actually getting better, and unemployment actually on the decline,"

 

Disagree, disagree, disagree. Way too early to tell. From my perspective business is still in the starts and fits it has been for over 3 years.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

Nice article for Macro Economics.  For God's sake they quoted Paul Krugman!!  You can't spend enough money to please him.  I also liked the quote, "Companies like Solyndra fail, it hapens."  Fine, but it happened with tax payer, stimulus money.  Let the Bain Capital people lose that money, not the Government.

People, me, vote and react to self-interest.  I can verify that my business decreased by 21% in 2009, and held at that level for 2 years.  This year, compared to pre-2008 levels I will only be down 17%.  So I guess you can call that "recovery."  The wolves are at the door.  It has cost me quite a bit of my personal money to keep my employees working and my doors open.  I believed Romney could spur economic growth faster than Obama.  I still do.  But, like projections of where the economy would have been without the stimulus, we will never know. For now, it's one foot ahead of the other...one day at a time.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

@berrydtp @winsomelosesome 

"I did not say that we should pursue income equality. I said that we should reduce income inequality."Oh please. And the difference is?And what is the regulatory climate of Gerrmany? How much do they spend on National Defense. Talk about "Ref Herrings."

berrydtp
berrydtp

@winsomelosesome @berrydtp  Another red herring. I did not say that we should pursue income equality.  I said that we should reduce income inequality. 

And yes, we can keep incentives and produce less income inequality.  That goal has been accomplished in many rich countries -- in Germany, for example. Germany has a powerhouse economy and has much less income inequality than the US. And Germany has a greater overall tax bite than we do -- 37.9% of GDP vs. 29.6% of GDP.  

We tolerate a greater and growing degree of income inequality simply because it suits the needs of the ruling plutocrats.    

berrydtp
berrydtp

@winsomelosesome @berrydtp I am not impressed by your red herring.  No reasonable person, myself included, is arguing that increasing taxes on the rich will magically reduce the deficit.  It is clear that various measures will have to be implemented to control our debt -- a mix of tax increases and entitlement reform.

What I am saying is that it is neither a just nor a progressive system of taxation that permits a rich man to pay a much smaller percentage of his income as tax than someone who has a much smaller income --especially during a time of greatly increasing income inequality.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

@berrydtp 

Quick and dirty. In the 50's and 60'...and 70's and 80's. Tax shelters allowed 3 times the investment in real estate because of accelerated depreciation. Someone couldinvest  invest $50,000 and write off $150,000.                   Warren Buffett..and Mitt Romney take advantage of the tax rates on Capital gains.  I never understood Buffett bitching so much.  If he wanted tp pay a fairer taxt rate he  could have taken a salary and paid the rate for his appropriate bracket.                       

It's a given that tax rates are going up on incomes of over $250,000. It won't come near reducing the deficit.  We need serious tax reform and long range solutions to entitlement programs.  And that means raising the elligibility age to 70 over 20 years.

berrydtp
berrydtp

@winsomelosesome Let me see.  During the 50s and 60s the highest marginal tax rate for federal income tax was 90%% or greater and yet the world did not come to an end. Just saying.  

I am not advocating a return to those high marginal tax rates, but it does show that the trend for more than 40 years has been to reduce the taxes of the richest Americans to the point where Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in America, now pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary.  And that doesn't seem quite fair.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

I presume I'll get the same enjoyment out of watching "740 Park Avenue" as you would watching "2016." 

 

Suffice to say, from my point of view, we will never agree on this.  Confiscation of assets is totally against the American dream and the principle of Capitalism. 

 

The reason for accumulating wealth is the ability to keep it, and dispose of it as you wish.  Not to have it handed over to the Government to dispose of it as THEY wish.

 

Hopefully, one day, we will both be in a position where we have the opportunity to make that desision because of how rich we are. 

 

Take care.

ellen.sandbeck
ellen.sandbeck

 When I say the very rich should pay more in taxes, by the way, I mean the VERY RICH, the top .1%, the David and Charles Kochs, the ones who have skewed the entire economy in their favor by buying themselves a bunch of politicians--these people are definitely NOT paying their fair share because they spend all their time and energy making sure that they don't have to. I do not even consider the top 10%, the top 5% or even the  top 1% to be in this category at all. I have no quarrel with hardworking professionals earning  lots of money through their own hard work. You might want to watch the documentary "740 Park Avenue," THOSE are the category of people I think are not pulling their own weight.@winsomelosesome

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

 @ellen.sandbeck

 OMG You can't be serious...No, wait....you ARE.

BTW the top 10% already DOES pay  90%, or close, of the taxes.

Just so I'm clear.  You are saying that someone who took the risk and worked his ass off to make a lot of money should be required to give it all to the Government? This is so bizzare it doesn't deserve an answer other than to say, if that was the case there would BE no one with wealth; to invest, to hire, to pass to future generations, to endow colleges because there would be no incentive to have it.

 

Unbelievable.

 

ellen.sandbeck
ellen.sandbeck

If the richest Americans actually paid the percentage of taxes that equaled the percentage of income and wealth they control, that would certainly wipe out the deficit. Why shouldn't those who have 90% of the wealth pay 90% of the taxes?

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

 @smdrpepper

 No, it doesn't.  Unless you also reduce spending to draconian levels.  In order to balance the budget under the current spending trends by simply raising taxes, or restoring them to Clinton levels won't even come close.When 1/2 of the adult population  pays NO TAXES It doesn't matter what the rates are, you'll never balance the budget.  The answer has always been, and always will be, jobs, jobs, jobs.

smdrpepper
smdrpepper

 @winsomelosesome Actually if you let those taxes go back to where they should be, the deficit DOES get paid off.  Its logic, you get more cash in, you can pay off your debts.

winsomelosesome
winsomelosesome topcommenter

And raising rich people's taxes does not reduce the deficit.

 

As far as Rush goes.....He has no interest for me.  Nor does Rachel Maddow or any other whose ideology is a one way street.

 

BTW what initially attracted me to this blog was your writing.  Funny if, in my opinion, totally wrong most times.  Keep up the good/bad work.

chrisjoseph13
chrisjoseph13 writer

 @winsomelosesomeCutting rich people's taxes does not stimulate the economy Studies have proven this.Again and again. Also, Romney had no real economic plan -- none that made any math-sense, anyway. Hence Tuesday's shellacking. 

 

But that's for another blog post.

 

(let's stay on subject, Re: RUSH)

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Services

Loading...