Rush nails it

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,752
1,025
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
My Advice for the Next Time You're Asked to Bake a Gay Wedding Cake

May 11, 2015

Listen to it Button

Windows Icon



Listen to it Button

Windows Icon

Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: There are rolling themes on this program. There are umbrella items under which fall a number of, oh, stories and sub-ideas, sub-topics, if you will. One of the themes of this program for its duration since we started, and actually predating this program going back to when I was in Sacramento, has been that the American left and the Democrat Party are engaged in an escalating -- and it has been escalating year after year after year -- attack on the institutions and traditions that have defined and made American greatness. Not just political institutions, but social institutions and traditions and cultural institutions and traditions.

And it's not stopped. And every so often there is a new line of attack. Some of the items that are attacked and assaulted are huge, like marriage. Marriage is an institution and tradition that has been in the crosshairs of the American left for as long as they have had a hatred of religion. They have made repeated, consistent efforts to undermine the tradition of marriage, and they've succeeded. They're well on their way to rendering the whole point of marriage new, different, and meaningless as it relates to the primary reason it even came into existence.

There are many things like this that the left is -- religion, as a giant topic and things that come underneath this, such as gay marriage...speaking of, I got an idea. I thought of something over the weekend, because the left is not through promoting gay marriage. Now, what has happened is that the resistance to gay rights and gay marriage is practically gone, so they've had to come up with a new substitute for it in order to keep the protest meme or narrative alive. And that has resulted in now a major push for equality and fairness and justice for lesbians, gays, and transgenders and bisexual people.

Since gay marriage is a fait accompli, no matter what the Supreme Court says, it's a fait accompli, up next, transgenders. They will be the next aggrieved victimhood or group of victims that will require attention, and the majority will need to be attacked as discriminatory and mean in order to pave the way for the normalcy of the transgendered status of human beings. That's just a little aside. And, in fact, we've already seen this.

But here is an idea I've got because they're not through. I mean, they never give up. To them, nothing is ever mission accomplished, because there's always gonna be some holdouts. There's always gonna be some people that oppose normalizing gay rights and agreeing to the concept of gay marriage and redefining it. There's always gonna be holdouts. There will always be religious people that own businesses that will refuse to serve or do business with people promoting activity that violate someone's religious practices. So to date we've had gay activist groups target bakeries and photography stores and similar types of things in order to prove discrimination, to show a bias and to beat down opposition.

Well, one of the things we've learned recently, and frankly I'm pleasantly surprised by this, that so many people on the left have agreed with me. We go out of our way to not offend Muslims, and we chastise anybody who does anything along the lines of, say, drawing cartoon characters of the prophet Mohammed, right? We don't permit that. We frown on that, and we condemn anybody that does that, because, why? Well, there's no need to provoke millions and millions of Islamic people, Muslims who are not terrorists. Why do it, and anybody who engages in a cartoon rendering of the prophet Mohammed is chastised and ripped to shreds and criticized because we dare not offend our Muslim brothers and sisters.

I pointed out the other day, well, then should we maybe stop flouting and flaunting gay marriage, because gay marriage is really disapproved in Islam. Gay marriage, homosexual behavior is not tolerated, it is not permitted, and it is punished severely when it is caught, when it's spied. And yet in American media all over the place we are celebrating gay marriage, we are flaunting gay marriage, and I ask, does this not also offend Muslims?

Where do we draw the line, I asked poignantly, in what aspects of Islam we will respect and others we will ignore. When it comes to pictures of the cartoon drawings of the prophet, we will absolutely obey the demands of militant Islam and we will not only refrain from drawing cartoons, we will condemn and seek to destroy anybody who does. But MSNBC, CNN, TIME magazine, the New York Times can readily, happily promote gay marriage and gay rights all day long, and the Muslims are supposed shut up about it?

Why, on the one hand, do we respect their wishes when it comes to cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed and ignore their wishes and ignore what they claim upsets them and angers them when it comes to gay marriage? Therefore I have an idea. I know that many of you out there run businesses that if a gay couple, a married gay couple came in and asked for your service, you would deny it on the basis that you disapprove, your religion does not sanction the approval of gay marriage.

My idea for you is quite simple. Don't use that as the excuse anymore. Let's say that you own the ABC wedding cake bakery. The only thing you do is you bake wedding cakes. And as such, militant gay activists target your bakery. They're gonna take you out, they're gonna take you down, they're gonna walk in there, they're gonna tell you they're gonna get married, and of all the bakeries in the world, yours has been recommended to them because that's all you do, therefore you must be better than anybody else at baking wedding cakes.

Instead of telling the gay couple that you refuse to bake the cake for their wedding because you disapprove of homosexuality, you should now say you are not going to bake a cake for the gay wedding because you fear Muslim backlash. Or, due to your respect of Islam, you cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding. See how that flies. Since the left is agreeing, a bunch of people on the left have gone on TV, "I hate to say this, you know, Limbaugh's got a point. We do flaunt gay marriage at 'em, wow. Wow. That's a good point. I mean, we readily agree not to do the thing with the prophet and the pictures and the cartoons, but gay marriage, yeah, we're kind of in their face on that."

Well, just make a note. Any of you small business owners who think you're gonna get a visit from a gay couple asking you for your product or service at a gay wedding just say, "Nah, nah, nah, we refuse because of our respect of Islam. We can't." Don't say anything about your religion. Don't say anything about it's your religion that prevents you from doing it. Say it's Islam. You respect Islam or you're afraid of Muslim backlash. See how that flies. It's just an idea. Hope it works.

END TRANSCRIPT
 

fatdaddycool

Chi-TownHustler
Forum Member
Mar 26, 2001
13,738
286
83
61
Fort Worth TX usa
Not sure when marriage became an institution?
Nobody from the left has ever said he has a point. Sorry bro but this guy is a frigging wacko
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spent more than $82,000 in taxpayer money on concessions at NFL games -- a sum that Republicans later reimbursed to the state Treasury to avoid impropriety.

According to a New Jersey Watchdog analysis of records from the governor's office that was published Monday, Christie used $300,000 of his $360,000 state allowance over five years to purchase food, alcohol and desserts. Some $82,594 of that sum went to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates the concessions at MetLife Stadium, the home of both the New York Giants and Jets teams.
..............................................................................
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,561
314
83
Victory Lane
After decades as a sci-fi staple, artificial intelligence has leapt into the mainstream. Between Apple?s Siri and Amazon?s Alexa, IBM?s Watson and Google Brain, machines that understand the world and respond productively suddenly seem imminent.

The combination of immense Internet-connected networks and machine-learning algorithms has yielded dramatic advances in machines? ability to understand spoken and visual communications, capabilities that fall under the heading ?narrow? artificial intelligence. Can machines capable of autonomous reasoning?so-called general AI?be far behind? And at that point, what?s to keep them from improving themselves until they have no need for humanity?

The prospect has unleashed a wave of anxiety. ?I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race,? astrophysicist Stephen Hawking told the BBC. Tesla founder Elon Musk called AI ?our biggest existential threat.? Former Microsoft Chief Executive Bill Gates has voiced his agreement.


How realistic are such concerns? And how urgent? We assembled a panel of experts from industry, research and policy-making to consider the dangers?if any?that lie ahead. Taking part in the discussion are Jaan Tallinn, a co-founder of Skype and the think tanks Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and the Future of Life Institute; Guruduth S. Banavar, vice president of cognitive computing at IBM?s Thomas J. Watson Research Center; and Francesca Rossi, a professor of computer science at the University of Padua, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University and president of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, the main international gathering of researchers in AI.

Here are edited excerpts from their conversation.

What?s the risk?
WSJ: Does AI pose a threat to humanity?

MR. BANAVAR: Fueled by science-fiction novels and movies, popular treatment of this topic far too often has created a false sense of conflict between humans and machines. ?Intelligent machines? tend to be great at tasks that humans are not so good at, such as sifting through vast data. Conversely, machines are pretty bad at things that humans are excellent at, such as common-sense reasoning, asking brilliant questions and thinking out of the box. The combination of human and machine, which we consider the foundation of cognitive computing, is truly revolutionizing how we solve complex problems in every field.

AI-based systems are already making our lives better in so many ways: Consider automated stock-trading agents, aircraft autopilots, recommendation systems, industrial robots, fraud detectors and search engines. In the last five to 10 years, machine-learning algorithms and advanced computational infrastructure have enabled us to build many new applications.

However, it?s important to realize that those algorithms can only go so far. More complex symbolic systems are needed to achieve major progress?and that?s a tall order. Today?s neuroscience and cognitive science barely scratch the surface of human intelligence.

My personal view is that the sensationalism and speculation around general-purpose, human-level machine intelligence is little more than good entertainment.

MR. TALLINN: Today?s AI is unlikely to pose a threat. Once we shift to discussing long-term effects of general AI (which, for practical purposes, we might define as AI that?s able to do strategy, science and AI development better than humans), we run into the superintelligence control problem.

WSJ: What is the superintelligence control problem?

MR. TALLINN: Even fully autonomous robots these days have off switches that allow humans to have ultimate control. However, the off switch only works because it is outside the domain of the robot. For instance, a chess computer is specific to the domain of chess rules, so it is unaware that its opponent can pull the plug to abort the game.

However, if we consider superintelligent machines that can represent the state of the world in general and make predictions about the consequences of someone hitting their off switch, it might become very hard for humans to use that switch if the machine is programmed (either explicitly or implicitly) to prevent that from happening.

WSJ: How serious could this problem be?

MR. TALLINN: It?s a purely theoretical problem at this stage. But it would be prudent to assume that a superintelligent AI would be constrained only by the laws of physics and the initial programming given to its early ancestor.

The initial programming is likely to be a function of our knowledge of physics?and we know that?s still incomplete! Should we find ourselves in a position where we need to specify to an AI, in program code, ?Go on from here and build a great future for us,? we?d better be very certain we know how reality works.

As to your question, it could be a serious problem. It is important to retain some control over the positions of atoms in our universe [and not inadvertently give control over them to an AI].

MS. ROSSI: AI is already more ?intelligent? than humans in narrow domains, some of which involve delicate decision making. Humanity is not threatened by them, but many people could be affected by their decisions. Examples are autonomous online trading agents, health-diagnosis support systems and soon autonomous cars and weapons.

We need to assess their potential dangers in the narrow domains where they will function and make them safe, friendly and aligned with human values. This is not an easy task, since even humans are not rationally following their principles most of the time.

Affecting everyday life
WSJ: What potential dangers do you have in mind for narrow-domain AI?

MS. ROSSI: Consider automated trading systems. A bad decision in these systems may be (and has been) a financial disaster for many people. That will also be the case for self-driving cars. Some of their decisions will be critical and possibly affect lives.

WSJ: Guru, how do you view the risks?

MR. BANAVAR: Any discussion of risk has two sides: the risk of doing it and the risk of not doing it. We already know the practical risk today of decisions made with incomplete information by imperfect professionals?thousands of lives, billions of dollars and slow progress in critical fields like health care. Based on IBM?s experience with implementing Watson in multiple industries, I maintain that narrow-domain AI significantly mitigates these risks.

I will not venture into the domain of general AI, since it is anybody?s speculation. My personal opinion is that we repeatedly underestimate the complexity of implementing it. There simply are too many unknown unknowns.

WSJ: What proactive steps is International Business Machines taking to mitigate risks arising from its AI technology?

MR. BANAVAR: Cognitive systems, like other modern computing systems, are built using cloud-computing infrastructure, algorithmic code and huge amounts of data. The behavior of these systems can be logged, tracked and audited for violations of policy. These cognitive systems are not autonomous, so their code, data and infrastructure themselves need to be protected against attacks. People who access and update any of these components can be controlled.

The data can be protected through strong encryption and its integrity managed through digital signatures. The algorithmic code can be protected using vulnerability scanning and other verification techniques. The infrastructure can be protected through isolation, intrusion protection and so on.

These mechanisms are meant to support AI safety policies that emerge from a deeper analysis of the perceived risks. Such policies need to be identified by bodies like the SEC, FDA and more broadly NIST, which generally implement standards for safety and security in their respective domains.

WSJ: Watson is helping doctors with diagnoses. Can it be held responsible for a mistake that results in harm?

MR. BANAVAR: Watson doesn?t provide diagnoses. It digests huge amounts of medical data to provide insights and options to doctors in the context of specific cases. A doctor could consider those insights, as well as other factors, when evaluating treatment options. And the doctor can dig into the evidence supporting each of the options. But, ultimately, the doctor makes the final diagnostic decision.

MS. ROSSI: Doctors make mistakes all the time, not because they are bad, but because they can?t possibly know everything there is to know about a disease. Systems like Watson will help them make fewer mistakes.

MR. TALLINN: I?ve heard about research into how doctors compare to automated statistical systems when it comes to diagnosis. The conclusion was that the doctors, at least on average, were worse. What?s more, when doctors second-guessed the system, they made the result worse.

MR. BANAVAR: On the whole, I believe it is beneficial to have more complete information from Watson. I, for one, would personally prefer that anytime as a patient!

The human impact
WSJ: Some experts believe that AI is already taking jobs away from people. Do you agree?

MR. TALLINN: Technology has always had the tendency to make jobs obsolete. I?m reminded of an Uber driver whose services I used a while ago. His seat was surrounded by numerous gadgets, and he demonstrated enthusiastically how he could dictate my destination address to a tablet and receive driving instructions. I pointed out to him that, in a few years, maybe the gadgets themselves would do the driving. To which he gleefully replied that then he could sit back and relax?leaving me to quietly shake my head in the back seat. I do believe the main effect of self-driving cars will come not from their convenience but from the massive impact they will have on the job market.

In the long run, we should think about how to organize society around something other than near-universal employment.

MR. BANAVAR: From time immemorial, we have built tools to help us do things we can?t do. Each generation of tools has made us rethink the nature and types of jobs. Productivity goes up, professions are redefined, new professions are created and some professions become obsolete. Cognitive systems, which can enhance and scale the capabilities of our minds, have the potential to be even more transformative.

The key question will be how to build institutions to quickly train professionals to exploit cognitive systems as their assistants. Once learned, these skills will make every individual a better professional, and this will set a new bar for the nature of expertise.

WSJ: How should the AI community prepare?

MR. TALLINN: There is significant uncertainty about the time horizons and whether a general AI is possible at all. (Though, being a physicist, I don?t see anything in physics that would prevent it!) Crucially, though, the uncertainty does not excuse us from thinking about the control problem. Proper research into this is just getting started and might take decades, because the problem appears very hard.

MS. ROSSI: I believe we can design narrowly intelligent AI machines in a way that most undesired effects are eliminated. We need to align their values with ours and equip them with guiding principles and priorities, as well as conflict-resolution abilities that match ours. If we do that in narrowly intelligent machines, they will be the building blocks of general AI systems that will be safe enough to not threaten humanity.

MR. BANAVAR: In the early 1990s, when it became apparent the health-care industry would be computerized, patient-rights activists in multiple countries began a process that resulted in confidentiality regulations a decade later. In the U.S. as in other places, it is now technologically feasible to track HIPAA compliance, and it is possible to enforce the liability regulations for violations. Similarly, the serious question to ask in the context of narrow-domain AI is, what are the rights that could be violated, and what are the resulting liabilities?

MS. ROSSI: As we have safety checks that need to be passed by anybody who wants to sell a human-driven car, there will need to be new checks to be passed by self-driving cars. Not only will the code running in such cars need to be carefully verified and validated, but we will also need to check that the decisions will be made according to ethical and moral principles that we would agree on.

MR. BANAVAR: What are the rights of drivers, passengers, and passersby in a world with self-driving cars? Is it a consumer?s right to limit the amount of information that can be exchanged between a financial adviser and her cognitive assistant? Who is liable for the advice?the financial adviser, the financial-services organization, the builder of the cognitive assistant or the curator of the data? These are as much questions about today?s world, [about how we regulate] autonomous individuals and groups with independent goals, as they are about a future world with machine intelligence.

...........................................................................

coming soon to a theater near you
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
you boys are just jelous of rush......poor boys

:00hour:00hour

Hank jr is on his fourth wife too, just like Lush Rimbaugh.

Saaaaayy there, Hank, since you and Lush can't get along with women, maybe you two should get together.

If either of you can stay off the booze long enough to get a hard-on, he can be the top.

I can see it now.......Hank and Lush.....it ain't a purdy picture.....two hawgs, nonstop humpin' fartin' and pukin'.
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,192
132
63
berlin md
Hank jr is on his fourth wife too, just like Lush Rimbaugh.

Saaaaayy there, Hank, since you and Lush can't get along with women, maybe you two should get together.

If either of you can stay off the booze long enough to get a hard-on, he can be the top.

I can see it now.......Hank and Lush.....it ain't a purdy picture.....two hawgs, nonstop humpin' fartin' and pukin'.

Rush married four times, yet no children.

Makes you wonder :shrug:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party

You just have to question what the fatso was doing down there.
 

HankWilliamsJr

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 10, 2014
1,769
29
0
Hank jr is on his fourth wife too, just like Lush Rimbaugh.

Saaaaayy there, Hank, since you and Lush can't get along with women, maybe you two should get together.

If either of you can stay off the booze long enough to get a hard-on, he can be the top.

I can see it now.......Hank and Lush.....it ain't a purdy picture.....two hawgs, nonstop humpin' fartin' and pukin'.

hank is all man

nuff said

:0corn
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Rush married four times, yet no children.

Makes you wonder :shrug:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party

You just have to question what the fatso was doing down there.

I can tell you exactly what Limpdick was doing in the Dominican Republic, because there is no other reason to go there.

He was engaging in child prostitution, probably with young boys. That's the one and only reason to go to that shit-hole country.

Whether Lush was sucking, fucking, or being fucked, we don't know. Maybe all three, since he was apprehended with illegal Viagra.

The Dominican Republic is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. Reports indicate that Dominican women and children are subjected to sex trafficking throughout the Dominican Republic, the Caribbean, Europe, South America, the Middle East, and the United States. Additionally, child sex tourism is a problem, particularly in coastal resort areas of the Dominican Republic, with child sex tourists * arriving year-round from the United States and European countries.

*Limbaugh

And here you have it, from Breitbart, the most right-wing of the right-wingers.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-republic-rife-with-underage-sex-trafficking/



He and Hank Jr are about as "manly" as Dolly Parton.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top