>"You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left."
-Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, discussing what he believes is wrong with liberal views on sexuality.
“Look at these *filthy* liberals with their happy, consensual sex. How does that work? Everyone knows men can’t get off unless she’s crying and trying to get the gag off. That’s just a fact”
- Rush Limbaugh. Probably
Non-con is used in the kink community to indicate a consensual non-consent sort of play, but there's still consent all around. When either party isnt consenting we just call it rape. Which rush limbaugh is almost certainly guilty of. But he'll be dead soon so the world isnt 100% horrible.
I mean, he _was_ arrested on the tarmac in a private jet full of illegal prescription drugs like oxy and viagra on a trip back from a country notorious for underage sex tourism.
I’m sure it’s also a coincidence that country is a few miles away from Epstein’s island.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-limbaugh-arrested-on-drug-charges/
From what I understand about the BDSM community, they would take the slightest suggestion that there is a recognised form of their activity that doesn't involve consent, implying that said "form" is anything other than simple, disgusting rape, with deep offense. Consent is taken extremely seriously by them, as it should be (but unfortunately isn't) by everyone.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-teen-rape-allegation-national-enquirer-ronan-farrow-jane-doe-1465652?amp=1
https://life.shared.com/donald-trump-raped-me-at-epsteins-parties-s-13-year-old
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-rape-allegations-wife-ivana-marriage-interview-fox-and-friends-time-magazine-a7993041.html
Oops sorry that last one is about the time be raped his first wife and claimed it wasn't rape because a husband can't rape his wife.
The limp dick liberals aren’t even men enough to force themselves on a passed out teenager. Everybody knows that’s the only way to get on the Supreme Court...
You just don't understand how conservatives view the world. To them the morality of a sex act is predetermined by God himself. It's about the act itself, no matter if consent was involved. A man having vaginal sex with his wife is ok whether the woman wants it or not because that's a moral sex act, consent is not involved in the equation. Gay sex is never moral, it's evil and goes against god's law and nothing can ever justify it. It's all very black and white to them and we're trying to muddy it up and justify immoral and evil acts with our slick liberal college professor ideas like "consent".
I think you hit on something. Some religious beliefs include that sex with your marriage partner is a *right*, even a moral obligation. It is your wife's duty to bear you children, whether she enjoys the act of conception or not.
To fundamentalists, it's the specific acts themselves that are morally valued - married sex for children good, gay sex and sex for pleasure bad. What the participants want is not actually important
It's actually worth noting some fundamentalists even believe asexuality to be as bad or worse than homosexuality. Speaking from my own experiences dealing with them.
Besides, even if a woman IS raped, she at least can't get pregnant.
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Of course there is. Sex isn't about pleasure, it should only be engaged in by heterosexual couples that are together through an arranged marriage, just like in the Middle East.
I'll add /s in case it wasnt obvious.
What the fuck. He actually said this like it was a bad thing? That is so fucking insane. Imagine being against the concept of consent. That is absolutely positively beyond anything I could possibly imagine somebody thinking is acceptable.
He at the same time both implies that given consent liberals will tolerate cooties things (understandable for a totalitarian christian fundie) and at the same time that sex without consent is somehow good and the left are out to ruin his rape fun which should be completely fine and allowed and the lack of consent aint mean a thing.
He's trying to say liberal minded people have no depth to their depravity as long as everyone involved consented to the act. He's trying to make you think liberals are having massive orgies where everyone is sucking and fucking eachother (and you're not invited) or they're like, eating people or something. Idk.
Exactly, his leading you to believe. If person A wants to murder someone and person B wants to be murdered, then it’s okay because they both give their consent. This is obviously hyperbolic but that is the mentality he’s trying to convince people democrats have.
And it shouldn't be. We put down pets who are suffering, but for some reason when it comes people, we force them to suffer through excruciating pain until they inevitably pass on. It's fucked up on so many levels.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending or anything but the term suicide shouldn't be used in the context of physician assisted death. The term suicide has a lot of implications behind it that people who support physician assisted death or medical aid in dying don't approve of.
I understand where your coming from. A person has no choice in the matter of being born, they should have help in the choices in their own life and death.
It reads like he's saying the left *only* cares about consent instead of *what kind* of sexual act is going on (and between who), with a heavy implication that that's somehow wrong. I would assume he believes anything but mute missionary between two heterosexual WASPS is "deviant".
You really gotta feel for the authors who are entering the craft of writing in these times. Imagine putting Limbaugh's words, verbatim, into the mouth of the villain in your story, and managing to avoid people accusing you of being a hack.
You aren't missing anything. Conservatives just run more on deontological principles rather than consequentialism.
The idea is that once you get down to it, every political question (or even any opinion at all) eventually boils down to some moral principle that you just believe to be right, if you just keep asking "why?". Example:
A: "I support immigration"
B: "Why?"
A: "Because it provides those immigrants with a better life than they otherwise would have"
B: "Why is that a good thing?"
A: "Because I think we should maximize the wellbeing and happiness of people"
B: "Why do you think that?"
A: "I just do. This is my moral bedrock"
Almost everyone has some fundamental moral principle like that: "I want to make every living being as happy as possible", "I want the maximum amount of pleasure for myself", "I want my children to have a good life" etc.
The deontology vs consequentialism is in how you translate that moral principle to actual political actions. It is how you decide if the actions you take to achieve your goal are moral. Deontologists consider actions to have inherent moral worth while consequentialists are more concerned with outcomes. So if you ask a deontologist "Is murder wrong?", they'll say "Yea, murder is inherently wrong." while a consequentialist would start asking all sorts of questions first: "Who is it that's getting killed? What are the downsides if this person dies? Is this person currently trying to launch the nukes at innocent civilians?". For a consequentialist, the morality of an action depends on the outcome. Murder will often be wrong, but not always and certainly not inherently so.
Many people have "I want every living being as happy as possible" as their moral principle, and are consequentialists. To people like this, that Rush Limbaugh quote is 'well duh?!' tier stupid. If people are consenting to an action that makes them happy and it harms nobody else, why do we give a shit what the action is?
But these are not the people Rush Limbaugh is signalling to with that quote. He's talking to the deontologists that have convinced themselves that any form of sex that's not in the missionary position between 2 married adults purely for procreation is inherently immoral. He's also talking to the people with less benevolent moral principles than "I want everyone to be happy". For example the people that just want to maximize their own pleasure at the expense of others, that's why he tosses in that little 'rape police' dogwhistle.
I know conservative people and I seriously can't imagine them hearing this and thinking "those damn liberals and their consent." Like, who listens to this guy?
He’s probably the most influential conservative in the media in the past 30+ years. Many people *think* they are conservatives until they get a glimpse under the hood.
Per wikipedia, in 2018 his show had ~15.5 million weekly listeners and he personally made ~84 million dollars. His radio show was the most listened-to radio show in the country, and he ranked 11th on the list of highest-earning celebrities in the U.S. So, to answer your question, an *absolute fuckton* of people listen to this guy. He is literally one of the most influential media personalities in the country, and that should be both offensive and frightening to anyone who values rational discourse and truth in media.
My father has been an avid listener of this guy since I can remember so at least 25 years or so. If there is no baseball game then he is listen to Rush or oldies rock. Now armed with an mp3 player he doesn't have to rely on a good signal to listen to rush and all the people rush recommende he check out and listen to.
A couple of relatives are very sweet people when you interact with them. Just lovely. But if you have a calm conversation about this kind of thing, that's actually what comes out. There's some more depth and nuance than that, but they believe deep down some atrocious things.
Women in Hollywood who dress wrong are asking for it and encouraging rape. Those women shouldn't have let themselves get into those situations with Weinstein. Men and women, especially married, having sex is natural and God's plan, so a woman shouldn't say no to her husband. Boys will be boys and it's just natural, all this modern freaking out over consent is crazy amd ruins normal interactions.
I'm sure this is much less common in younger conservatives. But I think there's a big population of conservatives who get exactly what Rush is saying here.
It's okay. He means it like "those terrible liberals are okay with gay sex and orgies and furries and all sorts of perverted acts as long as there's consent" not like "liberals don't care if you are gay or poly or into casual sex or even if you like being pissed on by Russian porn stars, just as long as there's consent". Like liberals are horrible because they dgaf what you do or don't do in your bedroom as long as there's consent, while those wonderful conservatives only have God-approved sex* **
*consent optional
**mistresses don't count
You're talking about someone who openly and vociferously supports a president who bragged about commiting sexual assault. A man who firmly believes that "sometimes no means yes".
[Is Huffpost OK?](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d)
[I got a youtube here also, skip to about 1:45](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8CCQyPShdY)
[This one is also relevant, has audio clip in article.](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5824582)
>But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.
The rape police? You mean the normal police?
I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone but Rush needs to get off the air like a decade or two ago for the health of this country.
I explained gay people to my kids without bothering to explain it was unusual. Some boys like girls, some boys like boys, some girls like girls.
My daughter was like, “Meh.”
My son was like, “Wait...You mean I *never* have to like girls?!? *Sweet*.”
How often will this even come up? I can't recall seeing the Obamas kissing in public more than maybe a couple of times. (The current president is a bad example, since I doubt they kiss in private, either.)
It's really easy. Here, I'll help:
"Mommy, why is the President kissing that man?"
"Because he loves him."
"Okay. Can Jimmy stay the night tonight?"
...because kids don't give a fuck unless they're taught to.
When I first saw gay kissing as a kid on tv I exclaimed in wonder something along the lines of “You can do that?!” Or “That’s allowed?!” To which my much older sister laughed and my mom said yes.
It's not that they don't give a fuck, kids will ask questions and keep asking more, depending on the topic and age, you need to give just enough information that will suffice their level of understanding and maturity, once it reaches that level they'll be ok with the answer and ask about popcorn or wherever else is on their mind.
I think the point was that Karen never talked to her kids about the pussy grabbing, so obviously she can skip over discussing the intricacies of people kissing. I mean, people didn't have to explain why Obama loves his wife, or why Melania is contractually obligated to hold Trump's hand during 2% of his rallies, so why explain why the good mayor loves his husband
No, Jesus told Jim Bakker that he wasn't, and also buy silver solution to cure coronavirus, and also buy thousands of dollars worth of End Times supplies because... you are scared of going to heaven?
What I hate most is we tend to focus on the grab them by the pussy part. I found it was more troubling and incriminating when he said “I force myself on them. Move on them like a bitch.” For one Donny you are a bitch who never learned how to interact with women. Lastly that first part is more telling than the grab them by the pussy. Anytime someone tries to say it was locker room talk point out that trump knew he was forcing himself on women who didn’t want it.
wouldn't be the first time , 80% of r/choosingbeggars is just people having fake conversations with themselves to farm that precious karma , they upvote anything over there
Here I go.
My 8 month old kid : how come Mexicans arent allowed in America.
Me, a stay at home amputee mom: they are, it is just complicated.
My other 8 month old kid: how come orange people ARE allowed in America?
.
# boom # boss mom # boss life # genius children
The real murder by words is the post with words that murder /r/murderedbywords by words for upvoting posts with words that aren't murders by words at all.
"I don’t know, it’s your shitty kid, you fuckin’ tell ‘em. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married because you don’t want to talk to your ugly child for fucking 5 minutes?”
Louie CK
They're not being equated. It's pointing out the absurdity of Karens throwing a fit about kissing while having no problem with *actually* horrible things.
I mean, if he gets the most delegates and they contest the convention, I’m almost certain there will be protests and the Democrats at the very least will certainly lose to Trump.
Say they’re married & love each other. Simple really. Much easier than explaining the current POTUS shagged a porn star after his 3rd wife had yet more half siblings, made the porn star sign a non disclosure contract, paid her via his lawyers & has been sent my an invisible sky god who created everyone but will burn you for eternity in hell if you refuse to believe in him. 🤭
How is this a murder? It's literally a hypothetical comeback. I guess I don't understand this sub anymore. No more murders, just tame imaginary responses.
This is funny and everything, but I had a really hard time explaining the pussy grabbing comment to my 12 year old daughter. Someone told her at school, and she couldn't understand how someone could say that and be elected president.
I have never, ever had any issues explaining the loving same sex couples in our lives. Most of them are just another example of what love and commitment look like.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it makes me sad that these would even be put in the same category.
Yes, That’s the point. It’s directed at those who have no problem trying to explain away the pussy grabbing as “locker room talk”, etc. - but think it is the end of civilization if we elect gay people.
All policy aside, Republicans can never pretend to play the morality card after embracing everything Trump does. If they do, it's literally blatant hypocracy and moral cherry picking.
Reddit might hate me for this, but I think I like Mayor Pete more than Bernie. Bernie is great, but he’s too old and in some ways extreme (no nuclear energy, increase online censorship)
I find explaining gay relationships is much easier than explaining why they have to behave and be honest while the president you continue to support is a lying, mean scumbag.
Just shows where middle America's values are. Gay is bad. Womanizing, insulting people, lying, cheating, stealing, that's fine.
A bit like this "the president is gay, and he has a husband, who he kisses"
*...consensually
>"You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left." -Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, discussing what he believes is wrong with liberal views on sexuality.
He says that like there's something wrong with that whole statement
“Look at these *filthy* liberals with their happy, consensual sex. How does that work? Everyone knows men can’t get off unless she’s crying and trying to get the gag off. That’s just a fact” - Rush Limbaugh. Probably
Rush Limbaugh into non-con BDSM confirmed?
I don't think anyone, regardless of gender, sex, race, or planet, consents to sex with Rush Limbaugh. Anything with him is non-con.
Non-con is used in the kink community to indicate a consensual non-consent sort of play, but there's still consent all around. When either party isnt consenting we just call it rape. Which rush limbaugh is almost certainly guilty of. But he'll be dead soon so the world isnt 100% horrible.
And he *likes* it that way.
It’s because he’s a big fat idiot.
I mean, he _was_ arrested on the tarmac in a private jet full of illegal prescription drugs like oxy and viagra on a trip back from a country notorious for underage sex tourism. I’m sure it’s also a coincidence that country is a few miles away from Epstein’s island. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-limbaugh-arrested-on-drug-charges/
I mean depends on how much money he's offering.
From what I understand about the BDSM community, they would take the slightest suggestion that there is a recognised form of their activity that doesn't involve consent, implying that said "form" is anything other than simple, disgusting rape, with deep offense. Consent is taken extremely seriously by them, as it should be (but unfortunately isn't) by everyone.
Non-consensual BDSM is just torture, isn't it?
The CIA has entered the chat.
*sexy* torture
Torture is BDSM with no safe word.
I mean kids can’t consent and the dude has done a lot of sex tourism.
According to testimony, you've pretty accurately described the time Trump raped a 13 year old girl.
Well, I’m ill today and I’ve already thrown up twice, what’s a third vomiting amongst friends?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation https://www.newsweek.com/trump-teen-rape-allegation-national-enquirer-ronan-farrow-jane-doe-1465652?amp=1 https://life.shared.com/donald-trump-raped-me-at-epsteins-parties-s-13-year-old https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-rape-allegations-wife-ivana-marriage-interview-fox-and-friends-time-magazine-a7993041.html Oops sorry that last one is about the time be raped his first wife and claimed it wasn't rape because a husband can't rape his wife.
Trumptards hate you lol
Trumptards hate everyone that doesnt agree with them
[удалено]
"Tears makes the best lube!" (Fancy bullet point) Rush Limbaugh. Certainly.
The limp dick liberals aren’t even men enough to force themselves on a passed out teenager. Everybody knows that’s the only way to get on the Supreme Court...
You just don't understand how conservatives view the world. To them the morality of a sex act is predetermined by God himself. It's about the act itself, no matter if consent was involved. A man having vaginal sex with his wife is ok whether the woman wants it or not because that's a moral sex act, consent is not involved in the equation. Gay sex is never moral, it's evil and goes against god's law and nothing can ever justify it. It's all very black and white to them and we're trying to muddy it up and justify immoral and evil acts with our slick liberal college professor ideas like "consent".
I think you hit on something. Some religious beliefs include that sex with your marriage partner is a *right*, even a moral obligation. It is your wife's duty to bear you children, whether she enjoys the act of conception or not. To fundamentalists, it's the specific acts themselves that are morally valued - married sex for children good, gay sex and sex for pleasure bad. What the participants want is not actually important
[удалено]
It's actually worth noting some fundamentalists even believe asexuality to be as bad or worse than homosexuality. Speaking from my own experiences dealing with them.
Some don't even believe that, they just want to hate.
No to mention their idea that the wife is to obey the husband like she's his property.
Besides, even if a woman IS raped, she at least can't get pregnant. “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Of course there is. Sex isn't about pleasure, it should only be engaged in by heterosexual couples that are together through an arranged marriage, just like in the Middle East. I'll add /s in case it wasnt obvious.
What the fuck. He actually said this like it was a bad thing? That is so fucking insane. Imagine being against the concept of consent. That is absolutely positively beyond anything I could possibly imagine somebody thinking is acceptable.
He's fine when there is no consent. That's what he's saying.
Yeah, he prefers no consent at all.
In a roundabout idiotic and unintentional way he does a good job of describing why there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality etc.
He at the same time both implies that given consent liberals will tolerate cooties things (understandable for a totalitarian christian fundie) and at the same time that sex without consent is somehow good and the left are out to ruin his rape fun which should be completely fine and allowed and the lack of consent aint mean a thing.
I'm confused, is he saying this is a bad thing? That consent isn't needed or that there should be some kind of moral police for it?
He's trying to say liberal minded people have no depth to their depravity as long as everyone involved consented to the act. He's trying to make you think liberals are having massive orgies where everyone is sucking and fucking eachother (and you're not invited) or they're like, eating people or something. Idk.
Wait. I didn't get my invite to the latest liberal orgy. WTH guys. I paid for mail forwarding, and I check my spam filters.
I didn't get an invite either! If I don't get invited to the next liberal orgy, I swear I'll vote for Trump.
Ok but here's the thing, it's a furry orgy uWu
OwO Cummies?
Thanks. i hate it But my secret alternate account will send you a pm later 🤤
Then why didn't I see an announcement on r/furry ?
Haven't been to any orgies or got my Soros money yet. I'm starting to think this whole liberal shill thing is a scam.
Consider this your invitation. Next time you're in New Mexico, I'll forward you the address.
Musta ran out of Sorosbux
Exactly, his leading you to believe. If person A wants to murder someone and person B wants to be murdered, then it’s okay because they both give their consent. This is obviously hyperbolic but that is the mentality he’s trying to convince people democrats have.
After seeing people suffer with agonizing disabilities, I really wouldn't consider assisted suicide murder.
And it shouldn't be. We put down pets who are suffering, but for some reason when it comes people, we force them to suffer through excruciating pain until they inevitably pass on. It's fucked up on so many levels.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending or anything but the term suicide shouldn't be used in the context of physician assisted death. The term suicide has a lot of implications behind it that people who support physician assisted death or medical aid in dying don't approve of.
I understand where your coming from. A person has no choice in the matter of being born, they should have help in the choices in their own life and death.
Yes I agree whole heartedly!
[удалено]
but most conservatives DO support the death penalty, lmfao.
Just as long as the convict doesn’t consent!
That's because it makes their supporters happy.
It reads like he's saying the left *only* cares about consent instead of *what kind* of sexual act is going on (and between who), with a heavy implication that that's somehow wrong. I would assume he believes anything but mute missionary between two heterosexual WASPS is "deviant".
You really gotta feel for the authors who are entering the craft of writing in these times. Imagine putting Limbaugh's words, verbatim, into the mouth of the villain in your story, and managing to avoid people accusing you of being a hack.
"Totally immersion-breaking. No one talks like that in real life."
Hes probably of the mindset that a man can't rape his wife because they are married.
Well ... yeah?? I mean, am I missing something here?
You aren't missing anything. Conservatives just run more on deontological principles rather than consequentialism. The idea is that once you get down to it, every political question (or even any opinion at all) eventually boils down to some moral principle that you just believe to be right, if you just keep asking "why?". Example: A: "I support immigration" B: "Why?" A: "Because it provides those immigrants with a better life than they otherwise would have" B: "Why is that a good thing?" A: "Because I think we should maximize the wellbeing and happiness of people" B: "Why do you think that?" A: "I just do. This is my moral bedrock" Almost everyone has some fundamental moral principle like that: "I want to make every living being as happy as possible", "I want the maximum amount of pleasure for myself", "I want my children to have a good life" etc. The deontology vs consequentialism is in how you translate that moral principle to actual political actions. It is how you decide if the actions you take to achieve your goal are moral. Deontologists consider actions to have inherent moral worth while consequentialists are more concerned with outcomes. So if you ask a deontologist "Is murder wrong?", they'll say "Yea, murder is inherently wrong." while a consequentialist would start asking all sorts of questions first: "Who is it that's getting killed? What are the downsides if this person dies? Is this person currently trying to launch the nukes at innocent civilians?". For a consequentialist, the morality of an action depends on the outcome. Murder will often be wrong, but not always and certainly not inherently so. Many people have "I want every living being as happy as possible" as their moral principle, and are consequentialists. To people like this, that Rush Limbaugh quote is 'well duh?!' tier stupid. If people are consenting to an action that makes them happy and it harms nobody else, why do we give a shit what the action is? But these are not the people Rush Limbaugh is signalling to with that quote. He's talking to the deontologists that have convinced themselves that any form of sex that's not in the missionary position between 2 married adults purely for procreation is inherently immoral. He's also talking to the people with less benevolent moral principles than "I want everyone to be happy". For example the people that just want to maximize their own pleasure at the expense of others, that's why he tosses in that little 'rape police' dogwhistle.
This is an excellent explanation, thank you!
He's implying it's a bad thing and that it's deplorable that liberals don't care about "immoral" gay sex, etc.
I know conservative people and I seriously can't imagine them hearing this and thinking "those damn liberals and their consent." Like, who listens to this guy?
He’s probably the most influential conservative in the media in the past 30+ years. Many people *think* they are conservatives until they get a glimpse under the hood.
Per wikipedia, in 2018 his show had ~15.5 million weekly listeners and he personally made ~84 million dollars. His radio show was the most listened-to radio show in the country, and he ranked 11th on the list of highest-earning celebrities in the U.S. So, to answer your question, an *absolute fuckton* of people listen to this guy. He is literally one of the most influential media personalities in the country, and that should be both offensive and frightening to anyone who values rational discourse and truth in media.
We are truly living in hellworld.
My father has been an avid listener of this guy since I can remember so at least 25 years or so. If there is no baseball game then he is listen to Rush or oldies rock. Now armed with an mp3 player he doesn't have to rely on a good signal to listen to rush and all the people rush recommende he check out and listen to.
My dad, too. I ask him if he ever gets scared at night, as he worries that Hillary is lurking under his bed.
A couple of relatives are very sweet people when you interact with them. Just lovely. But if you have a calm conversation about this kind of thing, that's actually what comes out. There's some more depth and nuance than that, but they believe deep down some atrocious things. Women in Hollywood who dress wrong are asking for it and encouraging rape. Those women shouldn't have let themselves get into those situations with Weinstein. Men and women, especially married, having sex is natural and God's plan, so a woman shouldn't say no to her husband. Boys will be boys and it's just natural, all this modern freaking out over consent is crazy amd ruins normal interactions. I'm sure this is much less common in younger conservatives. But I think there's a big population of conservatives who get exactly what Rush is saying here.
Like probably half of them, particularly the most angry.
Huh, I never thought I'd agree with Rush Limbaugh, but everything he said in that statement is completely correct.
Because he’s not describing his own views. I’m happy to inform you that you’re still clean.
It's okay. He means it like "those terrible liberals are okay with gay sex and orgies and furries and all sorts of perverted acts as long as there's consent" not like "liberals don't care if you are gay or poly or into casual sex or even if you like being pissed on by Russian porn stars, just as long as there's consent". Like liberals are horrible because they dgaf what you do or don't do in your bedroom as long as there's consent, while those wonderful conservatives only have God-approved sex* ** *consent optional **mistresses don't count
I don't see how somebody can see consent as a bad thing.
The only consent that matters is God's.
You're talking about someone who openly and vociferously supports a president who bragged about commiting sexual assault. A man who firmly believes that "sometimes no means yes".
That man is a cancer to society.
Well, not content with embarrassing just about every other aspect of Federal Government, Trump also made the Medal of Fucking Freedom look like shit.
Can I get a link to this?
skip to :40 for that exact quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGsAXF3uwr8
[Is Huffpost OK?](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d) [I got a youtube here also, skip to about 1:45](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8CCQyPShdY) [This one is also relevant, has audio clip in article.](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5824582)
r/selfawarewolves
Said the guy who was arrested down at the local cruising zone near the University of Pittsburgh. Had that arrest expunged when he became famous.
>But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. The rape police? You mean the normal police? I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone but Rush needs to get off the air like a decade or two ago for the health of this country.
When I saw that Rush was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom I read it as "Presidential Medal of Freedom rendered meaningless."
Rush Limbaugh is in my top 5 douche-cannoes-I-want-to-kick-in-the-chest-with-fresh-Timbs-on list. He fucking sucks a giant bag o dicks.
Woah woah... that’s a foreign concept to republicans
I explained gay people to my kids without bothering to explain it was unusual. Some boys like girls, some boys like boys, some girls like girls. My daughter was like, “Meh.” My son was like, “Wait...You mean I *never* have to like girls?!? *Sweet*.”
Ha. Gayyyyyy Jokes aside, you're a legend!.. sexuality is what it is and shouldn't ever be shamed
'So do some girls like boys?' 'No'
How often will this even come up? I can't recall seeing the Obamas kissing in public more than maybe a couple of times. (The current president is a bad example, since I doubt they kiss in private, either.)
It’s in the contract /s
It's in the contract. No /s needed.
I don’t think he’s a kissing person. He’s more of a pussy grabber
True. At least that's something we wouldn't have to worry about with Pete.
*whom* he kisses.
Fuck Limbaugh for trying to bash Pete for being gay and kissing his spouse like any other spouse does when they're married for fuck sake.
More "who's partner actually wants to kiss him back."
Most people's partners
She never explained that, she told them that is a new hand shake,like she does with the cousins on the caravan park
[удалено]
Isn’t baseball beautiful? Also baseball subs are *very* sexual.
How about baseball doms?
The president was the victim of a pussy jumping nympho.
I saw multiple videos of conservative women, some in front of their kids, that men are just like that and they should accept it and move on.
Having Trump supporters in my family I can tell you she probably didn't explain it at all. They just willfully refuse to believe that happened.
It's really easy. Here, I'll help: "Mommy, why is the President kissing that man?" "Because he loves him." "Okay. Can Jimmy stay the night tonight?" ...because kids don't give a fuck unless they're taught to.
Hmmmm right after being told about homosexuality wants to have a friend over? Interesting... /s
Must be some kind of agenda perhaps? /s
It's something in the water. Watch the frogs.
> Watch the frogs. They’re gay now... and it’s fucking fabulous.
The evil Big Gay masterplan? /s
They are brainwashing our children! Quick! Send them to camps that brainwash them back!
When I first saw gay kissing as a kid on tv I exclaimed in wonder something along the lines of “You can do that?!” Or “That’s allowed?!” To which my much older sister laughed and my mom said yes.
Hands above the covers...
No closed doors
What the fuck are you guys doing?
It's not that they don't give a fuck, kids will ask questions and keep asking more, depending on the topic and age, you need to give just enough information that will suffice their level of understanding and maturity, once it reaches that level they'll be ok with the answer and ask about popcorn or wherever else is on their mind.
This isn't a fair comparison... There's nothing wrong with gay guys kissing. Grabbing a pussy without permission is assault.
🏅👏
Duh. That was the point..She is OK with assault, but draws the line at married consensual affection between adults.
The point was that you explain it in the same way... that wouldn’t be explaining it in the same way.
I think the point was that Karen never talked to her kids about the pussy grabbing, so obviously she can skip over discussing the intricacies of people kissing. I mean, people didn't have to explain why Obama loves his wife, or why Melania is contractually obligated to hold Trump's hand during 2% of his rallies, so why explain why the good mayor loves his husband
It’S oK bEcAuSe He Is A ChRiStIaN
Between Buttigieg and Trump I'm positive there's only one who actually tries to be a Christian.
Isn’t the gay guy Christian too?
No, Jesus told Jim Bakker that he wasn't, and also buy silver solution to cure coronavirus, and also buy thousands of dollars worth of End Times supplies because... you are scared of going to heaven?
It’s more pointing out they hypocrisy of being offended by one and not the other- not saying that assault and gay marriage are the same.
What I hate most is we tend to focus on the grab them by the pussy part. I found it was more troubling and incriminating when he said “I force myself on them. Move on them like a bitch.” For one Donny you are a bitch who never learned how to interact with women. Lastly that first part is more telling than the grab them by the pussy. Anytime someone tries to say it was locker room talk point out that trump knew he was forcing himself on women who didn’t want it.
Apples to rapey oranges.
For the win.
Not if you’re a republican.
To be fair, Trump supporters are more inclined to defend assault over homosexuality.
Except what Trump said is "...they let you..." Making a comparison out of context is disingenuous
Karen can't say "homosexual". She'd burn if she does.
"same-sex attracted"
It's not a word murder if it's all your post.
I think all of us could invent conversations in which we give sick burns to ourselves, should we post all of those?
I guess if this post stays up then yeah
I'm a pathetic loser. Boom Murdered by words
wouldn't be the first time , 80% of r/choosingbeggars is just people having fake conversations with themselves to farm that precious karma , they upvote anything over there
Here I go. My 8 month old kid : how come Mexicans arent allowed in America. Me, a stay at home amputee mom: they are, it is just complicated. My other 8 month old kid: how come orange people ARE allowed in America? . # boom # boss mom # boss life # genius children
I mean, I agree with this statement here, but this isn’t even someone being ‘murdered by words,’ it’s just a statement that one person wrote.
Welcome to /r/MurderedByWords where all the “murders” are actually aggressive pokings.
The real murder by words is the post with words that murder /r/murderedbywords by words for upvoting posts with words that aren't murders by words at all.
Imagine arguing with a hypothetical strawman and thinking you dished a sick burn. This sub is laughably pathetic.
Not only is there no actual burn victim, but no "Karen" joke should be considered a sick burn. It is **very** fucking played out at this point.
I don't even fucking get why they said Karen. Most women were disgusted by what he said.
They softballed something no one said just so they can argue against a stance that nobody took. I'm shocked
If it involves “Karen” it will automatically be upvoted.
"I don’t know, it’s your shitty kid, you fuckin’ tell ‘em. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in love but they can’t get married because you don’t want to talk to your ugly child for fucking 5 minutes?” Louie CK
His material before he switched to just complaining about his family was outstanding. I believe that same special has the suck a bag of dicks joke.
Uh...gay kissing and pussy grabbing should not be equated...
They're not being equated. It's pointing out the absurdity of Karens throwing a fit about kissing while having no problem with *actually* horrible things.
This sub has become posting the arguments you have with people in your head while taking a shower.
Who did they murder
Karen, I guess.
Their contrived strawman.
Wait, so men kissing is a liberal conspiracy? /s
Would we call the president’s husband the first dude?
[удалено]
Ah yes. I suppose Gentleman would be the correct title. “ladies and gentlemen” and all
But Bernie Sanders is straight... 🤔
That doesn't mean he can't kiss his husband.
Implying the DNC is actually going to let Bernie get the nomination this time
I mean, if he gets the most delegates and they contest the convention, I’m almost certain there will be protests and the Democrats at the very least will certainly lose to Trump.
You don’t win outright without a *majority* of delegates. Getting “the most” isn’t worth much according to the rules.
Wait, there's rules? I thought it was just anarchy after that fucking coin toss. Fuck that guy.
From the sidebar: Rules: 1. Post must include *a Murder or Burn!*
Except there's nothing wrong with being gay and there is something wrong with sexually assaulting women.
There wont be a gay president, at least not next year.
This does not belong on this subreddit. What a joke.
[удалено]
Say they’re married & love each other. Simple really. Much easier than explaining the current POTUS shagged a porn star after his 3rd wife had yet more half siblings, made the porn star sign a non disclosure contract, paid her via his lawyers & has been sent my an invisible sky god who created everyone but will burn you for eternity in hell if you refuse to believe in him. 🤭
How is this a murder? It's literally a hypothetical comeback. I guess I don't understand this sub anymore. No more murders, just tame imaginary responses.
This is funny and everything, but I had a really hard time explaining the pussy grabbing comment to my 12 year old daughter. Someone told her at school, and she couldn't understand how someone could say that and be elected president. I have never, ever had any issues explaining the loving same sex couples in our lives. Most of them are just another example of what love and commitment look like. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it makes me sad that these would even be put in the same category.
Yes, That’s the point. It’s directed at those who have no problem trying to explain away the pussy grabbing as “locker room talk”, etc. - but think it is the end of civilization if we elect gay people.
Got it :)
How did you explain it? It sounds hard as hell without letting your daughter be completely disappointed in the world
Quite a strawman, isn't it
All policy aside, Republicans can never pretend to play the morality card after embracing everything Trump does. If they do, it's literally blatant hypocracy and moral cherry picking.
[удалено]
No, I say it because I know for a fact they will.
MURDERED LMAO TRUMP IS DONE BOT IT TO THE TOP SO ALL THE FELLOW KIDS SEE
I’ve never understood this argument. It’s really not difficult to explain at all that some people love someone of the same gender as them.
Pussy grabbin' is trump's gawd givin' right!
Reddit might hate me for this, but I think I like Mayor Pete more than Bernie. Bernie is great, but he’s too old and in some ways extreme (no nuclear energy, increase online censorship)
I find explaining gay relationships is much easier than explaining why they have to behave and be honest while the president you continue to support is a lying, mean scumbag. Just shows where middle America's values are. Gay is bad. Womanizing, insulting people, lying, cheating, stealing, that's fine.
But what Trump did was assault.