SNL Mocks Limbaugh's New Sponsors Including 'Depends for Racists'
To likely nobody’s surprise, NBC’s Saturday Night Live went after Rush Limbaugh last evening.
In the opening sketch, Taran Killam played the conservative talk radio host listing his new sponsors in the wake of the Sandra Fluke controversy including “Depends for Racists – if you pee a little every time you see a Mexican, you need Depends for Racists" (video follows with commentary):
Other mock sponsors included The Syria Tourism Board, Barney’s Butt Crack Balm, Mosquito Breeders of America, Lee’s Pencil Dullers, Misaki Dolphin Poppers, and Shroder’s Fake Rape Whistles.
Hysterical, dontcha think?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Tired writing
Submitted by Vivaldi5 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:22am.
Sounds like the rubber crutch and the submarine with a screen door must not have been available for this week's program....
Do they honestly think some
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:29am.
Do they honestly think some of that stuff is funny? Well to a liberal I guess it is. If Rush would have said Barney's Butt Crack Balm he'd be drug through the mud once again. Hey, It's comedy just like Maher and Louis CK so it is OK. Mexicans don't make me pee in my pants but having to listen to a liberal more than 30 seconds does especially if it is Colmes, Whorealdo or any of the brain dead host on MESSNBC i.e.- . They also make me want to puke. So maybe Rush should advertise barf bags for the car/truck that can be used when a liberal comes on the radion.
Barney's Butt Crack Balm?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:37am.
I listened to this skit just to see what context they had concerning Barney's Butt Crack Balm. There really wasn't any. Just trying to get a laugh, I guess. How in the world can SNL be getting on to Rush for calling someone a slut and a prostitute, when at the same time they are making fun of a gay congressman for his sexuality? Rush always says that the MSM labels him as a "homo-phobe", but this skit is the most vile stuff I have heard regarding making fun of gay people in a long time.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Good morning Kingfish
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:47am.
Down here we have Boudreaux's Butt Paste, a salve for decent uses.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Dat be great stuff, coco!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:14pm.
Highly recommended by pediatricians of' yo' babies.
I don't think that they would recommend Barney's Butt Cream for anybody except attendees at a LuGButT convention.
How about a skit
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:49am.
called, "Butt licking comics that are too chicken sh*t to go after a sitting President because they're afraid of his black half?"
Close, Tug.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:17pm.
I think that they are deathly afraid of his mooooooooooslem side.
Not sure if that's the white half, the black half, or all of him.
Funny thing is, once the RBFSOB is successful in his takeover, these "court jesters" will be some of the first to go!
Not Funny
Submitted by philkerner on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:50am.
Couldn't even finish it. Trying way too hard to be funny, and it's not.
Wasn't really funny. The
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:03pm.
Wasn't really funny. The opening sketches haven't been very good. This episode wasn't very good.
SNL
Submitted by botg on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:17pm.
SNL -- comedy for the easily fooled ignorant masses
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Jumping on the bandwagon
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:22pm.
in a totally humorless way.
SNL lost it's humor long long ago, sad that it keeps on going.
Speaking of "Sponsors"
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:24pm.
How's that Carbonite stock doing? Well, .........NOT SO GOOD!
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/carb
Check out the 52 week High/Low. Yeah, its a real doozie. Liberals are proving once again that whenever they get involved with something, it turns to utter and complete s***.
I decided to make a play on
Submitted by Tom Paine on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 6:35pm.
I decided to make a play on Carbonite stock and bought in the other day at 8.60. The other day Rush alluded to some sponsors begging to come back and I'm betting Carbonite will be one of them.
Carbonite
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 6:47pm.
CARB might be good for a quick trade. I don't think this company has ever made money. They remind me of a tech company in the dot.com era, which is spending a ton of money on advertisers to get new business, and is plowing all that new business revenue back into more advertising.
I just don't know how loyal their customers are going to be if a competitor comes out and beats them on their pricing. Their business could unravel very rapidly. Maybe a good trade, but a very questionable investment.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Agreed. My plan is to make a
Submitted by Tom Paine on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 7:02am.
Agreed. My plan is to make a quick play on the stock rather than a long term investment. If they come back as a sponsor the stock may pop for $1. Buy on the rumor - sell on the news
The Vet would not touch this stock with a 10 foot pole.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 7:02pm.
1. It don't pay a dividend.
2. It appears most of it's money goes right into advertising.
3. How hard is it to keep your important stuff in three directories - pictures, videos, documents --- and copy them to a writable DVD every so often?
Or even better...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 8:26am.
A 2T external hard drive! Duhhhh... And you don't get to share your data with Carbonite, or any of those other sheister fear-mongerers.
When more people realize this, the entire data back up industry is going to fold like a bad bluff on a Texas Hold-um.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Comes right down
Submitted by bobsmom on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:28pm.
to it though, Rush is still making boatloads of money, advertisers are lining up to get to his audience, and if it was Barney's Butt Crack Cream that he was allowing to advertise on his show, I'd still say they'd be doing a lot better financially than Sleep Train from here on in. Rush will have the last laugh, and they know it. Makes 'em crazier that sh!thouse rats.
This is liberal humor, folks!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:48pm.
This virulent, mean garbage is what passes for liberal humor today! Honestly, I don't think the left knows how to be funny...
SNL hasn't been relevent
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:50pm.
SNL hasn't been relevent since the 90's. SNL is part of the political structure of NBC to misinform the masses with subversive political commentary and vile personal attacks dressed up as comedic satire. Goebbels would be proud.
I havnt watched SNL for
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:01pm.
I havnt watched SNL for years, but last night I did tune in for lack of anything else on. Knowing for a fact that I still have a healthy sense of humor, I found none of the skits even remotely humorous, and instead was getting mildly irritated with the tone and subject matter. The only logical explanation is that I am more educated and politically aware today than in years past, knowing the backstory and the facts, I am able to see through the hypocrisy, and more easily annoyed at the false stereotypes that SNL uses for its humor.
I understand now why my parents never saw the humor in SNL.
Snappy
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:21pm.
I would probably be your parent's age, as I watched SNL when it first came on. I've seen episodes of the first few years replayed and didn't really find them funny. But the thing you always hear about the first years is that they were the funniest.
I finally figured out why that statement is always used and also why I no longer find it funny. They wrote the show for an audience that they knew would either be drunk or stoned. Most of the early skits were just really stupid, repetitive stuff. However, they had no fear of anyone or any group. Must have been the drugs.
I agree, I was watching in
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:30pm.
I agree, I was watching in the late 70's and through the 80's and remember laughing, but if I was to go back and re-watch I think I would find it no longer funny. I agree with your audience statement, but now we also know that it wasn't only the audience that was stoned during those early years.
Biggest thing I remember from SNL
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:58pm.
The biggest line I remember from SNL:
"Jane, you ignorant slut!
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Who could forget the media
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 2:42pm.
Who could forget the media backlash, sponsor drops and public condemnations and apologies that followed.
The reason the old SNL was funny
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 7:09pm.
....is because we were all trashed by the time it came on.
But much of it was pretty funny. And the music was great.
Larry the Lobster, Oh No, Mr. Bill, The Coneheads, Blues Brothers, Two Wild & CRAZY Guys, Bill Murray the Lounge Singer, Jane ~ You Magnificently Ligerate Slut (Okay, inside joke), Roseanne Rosanadanna.....that was funny stuff.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That impression sounded more
Submitted by shannon76 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:17pm.
That impression sounded more like Alex Jones.
First they tried to ignore
Submitted by Van Halen on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:32pm.
First they tried to ignore Rush. Then they said no one was listening to him. Then they mocked him. Then they fought him. Then they tried to take his advertisers away. Then they tried to take the advertisers of other programs away if they were the Rush's advertisers too. Then they mocked the new advertisers that came.
The pattern here is that Rush keeps winning and the Left keeps failing.
Next they will try
Submitted by NC Boy on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 2:19pm.
Next they will try talk shows with a liberal slant. Oh that's right. They already tried that. Err America.
Suddenly, None Of This Petty Stuff Matters
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:42pm.
H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)
HCON 107 IH
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012
Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Sorry. That resolution is garbage.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 1:50pm.
Presidents do have a right to introduce military force without prior authorization from Congress. It is kinda a Constitution thing. So no amount of concurrent resolutions will change it. You have to change the Constitution,
Sorry, Vet, but you're wrong.
Submitted by JohnP in OK on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 2:26pm.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the power to employ military force. Article I clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war. What you're thinking of is the War Powers Act, which gives the President limited authority to use force for 60 days without requiring a declaration of war by Congress.
This act is Constitutionally questionable, at best, because there is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to "hand off" powers delegated to them to anyone else. So it's really a matter of having to change the Constitution to allow the President to use military force without a declaration of war from Congress, not to prevent it.
No sir. I am not. I know exactly of what I speak.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 3:06pm.
With all due respect ---- The President is Commander in Chief. He can send troops to any spot on the Earth at any time. Congress has a check on him in that they can cut off funding for any wrongful invasions or impeach him outright.
Mark Levin agrees ---
You know, some of you aren’t going to like what I have to say because I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution,” Levin said. “I believe the Constitution is the rock of the society. All this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war – that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous. There are many occasions where we don’t have a declaration of war because a declaration of war would require that we use all of our might to destroy our enemy. So you can be involved in certain battles or military activities that would not require a declaration of war. You can look throughout American history to prove the point. You can actually look at the conduct of the Founders when they were in government, soon after the establishment of our government. Just be very careful about your arguments and think them through for a principled point of view. Don’t listen to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, unless you want to be entertained. Stick with the Constitution.”
Levin explained Congress could ultimately stop the military action against Libya if it wanted to – by defunding the war effort. However, he said neither Speaker of the House John Boehner, nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has shown any indication they want to do so.
“What amazes me is – is Congress passive, or is Congress dormant?” he said. “Congress could meet tomorrow and cut off funds – tomorrow, if that’s what Congress wants to do. Has Boehner proposed an emergency session of the House of Representatives, to cut off funds? No. Could he? Yes. Would he get the votes? I don’t know, but he could try. Could Harry Reid do the same? Yes. Will he? I don’t know. He could try. So it’s not like Congress is without recourse.”
With all due respect, I have to disagree.
Submitted by JohnP in OK on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 3:40pm.
While Levin is entitled to his own interpretation of the Constitution, the Constitution does not state that the President can send troops anywhere he wants, when he wants. It gives Congress the power to establish the rules for the use of the military and to declare war.
The Constitution says what it says. The fact that we ignored it in the past doesn't make ignoring it now Constitutional.
I understand that you're probably going to disagree with me on this. That's fine. Levin disagrees with me. That's fine. You both have that right, just as I have the right to insist that we abide by the written Constitution, not the misinterpretations and evasions of it in the past.
The Constitution is 5000 words.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 4:22pm.
Much of it dedicated to framing exactly what the federal government will look like. There is much in there that is not spelled out explicitly.
...the Constitution does not state that the President can send troops anywhere he wants.
The Constitution also does not state the President will live in a house painted white, and yet he does.
Look, I am not making this up. This is a well known privilege of the executive office. It is why President Obama got away with bombing Libya, and Yemen, and Somalia, and Pakistan without severe consequences.
Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)
By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad. See, e.g., Memorandum for Honorable Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries (May 22, 1970) (the "Rehnquist Memo"). The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has also been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that, whether the President "in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief" had met with a situation justifying treating the southern States as belligerents and instituting a blockade, was a question "to be decided by him" and which the Court could not question, but must leave to "the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted." (5)
Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.
Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.
Please read the whole thing. John C. Yoo is the author. You might recognize him.
I understand that you're probably going to disagree with me...
It is not just me, and Mark Levin, and Mr Yoo. It is every President practically since our founding. The weight of the evidence in this argument rests on my side. Such that I can make with a good certainty the statement that your argument will never go anywhere. Sorry.
You're probably right about where...
Submitted by JohnP in OK on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 4:54pm.
...my argument is going to go, but I'm stubborn about these things.
I have to admit, though, you make a compelling argument. I will read the whole thing.
In any case, the Congress still retains the power to determine the rules about how the military is employed per Article I, which means that they have the power to pass resolutions limiting what he can and can't do with it, not just being limited to defunding the action or impeaching the President.
After all, that's what the War Powers Act was passed for in the first place, to set limits on how long he can use military force without having to seek Congressional approval. I may not agree with the constitutionality of the act, but it does have precedent on its side, also.
Actually, the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:13pm.
No President has tested it is all.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973,6 forced on a weakened
President Nixon by a Congress brimming with confidence in the
wake of the Watergate scandals, was controversial from the beginning.
To its supporters, the Resolution represented a congressional
effort to exercise its constitutional prerogative to decide when to
send the nation to war.7 To opponents, the Resolution was an inexcusable
usurpation by the legislative branch of the powers of the
executive.8 To cynics, it was Congress' way of pretending that the
Vietnam War had somehow been a fast one pulled by the executive
branch, rather than a disaster jointly managed by two Presidents
and five Congresses.9
Don't forget sir. The power of the purse and the power to impeach a President is a powerful one when it comes to invading other countries. This is a powerful incentive for a President not to just send troops in anywhere on a whim.
And no President probably ever will.
Submitted by JohnP in OK on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:32pm.
After all, no President is going to deliberately attempt to define limits on his own powers.
Unfortunately, the power of the purse and the power to impeach are only effective if there are enough people in Congress with the will to use them. And we seem to have a severe lack of such people in both houses and both parties.
At any rate, it's been a stimulating and enlightening discussion. But it's 4:30 and I last ate about 8:00 AM, so I'm going to sign off and go find some food.
Have a good week, Vet, and maybe we can have at it again another day.
Alright mister.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:48pm.
I guess I will go mop the kitty room now. Dang.
Allow me to weigh in
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 12:03pm.
The Vet does not need my help, but this is a big pet peeve of mine. The whole argument that the military cannot do anything until Congress declares war shows me just how poor education is in this country.
One, as far back as the Founders, the President has been the sole person to employ the military (with Congressional funding). If Congress disapproves, all they need to do is yank the funding. This owes as much to the separation of powers as it does the concept of Unity of Command. Seriously, do we REALLY want 535 people in command of the military, when they can scarcely agree on the basics of budgeting?
Two, some people simply do not understand what a Declaration of War is. It is, and is intended to be, a diplomatic tool. When the United States declared war on Japan, I am pretty sure a whole lot of people over on Oahu were saying "Yeah? No s$&#?!?" The ONLY thing a declaration of war is good for is the diplomatic realm. To see how it works, peruse the Foreign Relations of the United States sometime. In this collection of diplomatic dispatches, communications and memoranda, you will see what happens when a declaration of war is issued. Ambassadors issue statements to the Secretary of State saying things to the effect of "I have been informed by the Foreign Ministry of (insert country name here though I am thinking specifically of Germany as I looked at diplomatic communications from World War II heaviest of all) that a state of war exists between (insert country name here) and the United States of America and that as such diplomatic relations between the two nations are severed effective immediately. All ciphers and codes have been destroyed. (Insert country name here) has stated that they will ensure our safe passage to a third country effective immediately. Signed, Ambassador (insert name)."
That is the only thing a declaration of war does. I forgot where I saw it, but for this reason it was suggested back in 1980 that Congress declare war on Iran for no other reason than to force the employment of diplomatic protocols on the embassy personnel there, meaning that once war is declared, diplomatic personnel are to be protected and escorted out of the country (because in the case of a declaration of war, the belligerent's diplomatic personnel are naturally considered persona non grata). Of course, it wouldn't have worked, for Iran showed they didn't remotely care about diplomatic protocol to begin with when the U.S. embassy was seized. And they STILL do not, as the British can attest.
Three, one must consider the revolution in communications. Back in 1776, it took seven weeks for word of the Declaration of Independence to travel from Philadelphia to the court of King George III. Now, you can shower your enemies with a barrage of ICBMs in 30 minutes or less. A declaration of war isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot in that instance. Just for the reason of advanced communications alone, I think that 8 December 1941 will go down in history as the last time the United States ever formally declared war against a country. Congress can certainly do so but it accomplishes little and will accomplish even less in this day and age.
John Adams waged an undeclared war against the French on the high seas during his presidency. Thomas Jefferson ordered the Navy and Marines into action against the Barbary States in the Med in the 1801-1805 time frame, also without a declaration of war. If these guys did so without a declaration of war, to me the intent seems obvious. And yes, I know that both these men were not even in the United States when the Constitution was written, but the silence from those who DID write the document concerning their actions is deafening even today. If they objected, I don't see any written evidence that they did so.
OK. Venting over. Please continue.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Thank you Vet
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 7:09pm.
Very interesting indeed.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Wasnt funny, but at least they didnt show another GOP candidate.
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 2:41pm.
"cold" opening! Im so tired of that, and this show. However, they HAD to have a Weekend Update sketch with Samberg mocking Srah Palin, of course, with THE worst "impression" of her! And still, nothing about ANY Dems-O'Bozo aint even MENTIONED this whole season-isnt he still president, god help us?
SNL still on?
Submitted by dasher on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 3:25pm.
I haven't watched SNL since it stopped being funny... maybe 30 + years since I have watched it.
Depends for Racists?
Submitted by JohnP in OK on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 3:58pm.
Maybe Rush ought to send Chris Matthews a case or two, just to help with his Obama problem trickling down his leg.
Poor imitation
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 10:32am.
They worked hard to get the look, but they missed on the sound and feel. I appreciate a good parody as much as the next guy, but you gotta have more than a bat suit to make a good batman.
I wonder if Rush will get on them for their use of his trade-marked and copyrighted EIB logos for their own profit-making purposes.
SNL is implying Rush's
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 03/12/2012 - 6:54pm.
SNL is implying Rush's audience is a bunch of redneck bigots. Will their sponsors pull out? Will anyone condemn them for lack of incivility? Will the President phone into Rush's show and give the audience moral support?