How do thinking people take Rush Limbaugh seriously?

[va32h]

I would never boo the President, no matter how much I disagree with him. I might have gone to the beer line during the First Pitch, but I would not have participated in the "boo-ing".

I'd boo. I'd slap Bush in the face and spit in his eye if I had the chance.

George Bush has done nothing to earn my respect and he has tainted the presidency and our national reputation with his deceitful, ignorant and evil behavior.

Regardless of who wins the election in November, America wins because Bush will be gone forever.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Now, which one exactly do you think is the beatable candidate? I also can't help thinking that if there is an 'organized' effort, it could only benefit Hillary, who you claim to be supporting.

I'm supporting both candidates actually, because I believe either would be better for the country than a third term of GW Bush's policies.

From the tape I saw of Rush's show, his grand plan was to get Hillary a win because he views her as more beatable against McCain than Obama. There are Democrats that would agree with him on this. There is a feeling among some on both sides that the Clinton negatives are so strong, it will be easy to get the Republicans out to vote against her, even if they aren't voting for McCain. It's no secret that McCain was not the first choice of many on the Right, so having Hillary as the opponent gives those who don't like McCain a real reason to come out.

He's also been recorded as saying that even if the Chaos effort doesn't get Hillary an outright win of the nomination, it keeps the Democrats fighting with each other for a longer period. And, as we've seen, that is keeping the media focused on them, rather than on McCain's apparent inability to keep the players in Iraq straight.

 

[breezy1077]

I don't listen to Rush. My DH does, but I stopped listening about 9 yrs. ago. I was once an avid Rush fan, but after years of listening - it became too much. All it would do is get me upset and I eventually couldn't handle the negativity. With that being said - to imply that those who seriously listen to Rush could not possibly be thinking individuals, is a typical trend I see on this board by the libs. Don't like something - something or someone challenges your viewpoint (no matter how much evidence they throw to support those challenges) then you attack. That is why cons., most generally, make an argument based on logic - libs. IMO, most generally, make an argument based on emotion. (I'll sit back and give you all time to attack).................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ok I'm back. As far as the drug thing with Rush. It's a shame he has those issues, yet it never stopped him from supporting his beliefs with reference material. Also, if he were someone on the street who had a problem he would be in need of public assistance or "oh that's a shame, must be a product of his environment". It's hypocritical for your hearts to bleed for the latter only. But, is it because he's rich or because he's a cons. that inspires such lack of empathy.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

As far as the drug thing with Rush. It's a shame he has those issues, yet it never stopped him from supporting his beliefs with reference material. Also, if he were someone on the street who had a problem he would be in need of public assistance or "oh that's a shame, must be a product of his environment". It's hypocritical for your hearts to bleed for the latter only. But, is it because he's rich or because he's a cons. that inspires such lack of empathy.

Empathy? He talked tough but was doing exactly what he sneered and bellowed and ranted against. How does the deserve empathy?

 

[HakunaMatata2]

I'm supporting both candidates actually, because I believe either would be better for the country than a third term of GW Bush's policies.

From the tape I saw of Rush's show, his grand plan was to get Hillary a win because he views her as more beatable against McCain than Obama. There are Democrats that would agree with him on this. There is a feeling among some on both sides that the Clinton negatives are so strong, it will be easy to get the Republicans out to vote against her, even if they aren't voting for McCain. It's no secret that McCain was not the first choice of many on the Right, so having Hillary as the opponent gives those who don't like McCain a real reason to come out.

He's also been recorded as saying that even if the Chaos effort doesn't get Hillary an outright win of the nomination, it keeps the Democrats fighting with each other for a longer period. And, as we've seen, that is keeping the media focused on them, rather than on McCain's apparent inability to keep the players in Iraq straight.

Oh, come on, now. Do you really think that Rush or anyone could be as effective at keeping the Dems fighting as they do themselves? They provide more chaos than Rush could ever 'organize'.

 

[crcormier]

If someone is not going to "take Rush seriously" then perhaps they should get the subject that they are ridiculing correct. If one is going to post something that is blatantly untrue, rant on and on about a dialog that they couldn't have possibly heard, and then complain about Rush, then they don't have much room to rant.

You mean like posting an article about muslims and requests for women only gym use and blantantly changing the title of the article to support someone's rant?

It is the love of country that motivate most of us who do not want to see a democratic president.

And it is love of country that motivate those of us who want to see our constitution upheld and see our troops come home from invading sovereign nations and 'nation-building'.

 

[va32h]

But, is it because he's rich or because he's a cons. that inspires such lack of empathy.

Neither.

I have no empathy for Rush because he is a hypocrite. Don't gripe about unemployment insurance lasting too long when you lived off it yourself at one time. Don't tell stories about using your gas credit card to buy snack food and then complain about other people mismanaging their money, don't call someone a draft dodger when you conveniently managed to avoid the draft yourself.

And don't say this about drug use:

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.

...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks.

And then work yourself a deal and plead for sympathy when your own drug use is revealed.

**The quote above is Limbaugh verbatim from a television appearance in 1995

 

[breezy1077]

I think every drug addict at one time or another is hypocritical. THe hypocricy I'm speaking of is the leftist hypocricy of where they place their convenient sympathies (and that is only where it serves their interests or beliefs)

 

[va32h]

I think every drug addict at one time or another is hypocritical. THe hypocricy I'm speaking of is the leftist hypocricy of where they place their convenient sympathies (and that is only where it serves their interests or beliefs)

And this is entirely a leftist trait? Really?

It's not the left that claims to be against government interference in business, but begs for a government bail out when their oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke.

 

[Sir Ron]

If he was talking about having a Drug Czar, I would understand the backlash. However, since he was talking about a poverty czar, I understand his point.

It would be nice that when someone is going to question the intelligence of listeners of Limbaugh that they would have the sense to quote him correctly.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

You know, I'm sure even Attila the Hun had his share of fans and I certainly get that Rush is a bombastic jerk...it's what he does and he is what he is. IMO, the fact that some people still give Limbaugh credit and offer their precious few hours of time here on Earth listening to his radio show speaks less about the person that Rush Limbaugh is and more about the kind of people his more devout fans are...

 

[DawnCt1]

Yesterday I had Rush on in the car for comic relief. Didn't take long! He was commenting on this story around 1:30.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey moved Monday to become the third state to require companies to offer six weeks of paid leave to workers wishing to care for a new child or sick relative.

Rush's comment....


"All right, gang, six weeks unpaid leave, go adopt a baby." Some people will do that just to get six weeks off work paid, then put the baby back up for adoption after the six weeks are over."




You can't make this stuff up!

Edited to get the actual quote from the Limbaugh website

Its called hyperbole. That said, what do you think the impact on the economy will be when companies are REQUIRED to give six weeks paid leave. Most companies offer STD as a benefit but when its required, it is certainly going to impact hiring.

 

[DawnCt1]

You mean like posting an article about muslims and requests for women only gym use and blantantly changing the title of the article to support someone's rant?



And it is love of country that motivate those of us who want to see our constitution upheld and see our troops come home from invading sovereign nations and 'nation-building'.

Our Constitution is intact and the article I posted was a direct link. The OP created a post out of his imagination. Big difference.

 

[DawnCt1]

Which completley goes against everything that is fair and honest, makes a mockery of our voting system, its just plain wrong. Again my opinion.If things like this continue to happen it will hurt the entire election process. Its made a mockery of it already. Garbage like this HAS to stop.

There is no mockery at all. They are exercising their right to vote. However if as you say, "garbage like this has to stop", how would you propose to stop it. Require all voters who enter the voting booth to disclose who they voted for and why? That was actually entertained in Ohio. I would LOVE to see them do that. It would clearly be a violation of the Constitution. I haven't seen a "party loyalty pledge" since the days of Nazi Germany or the USSR.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Its called hyperbole. That said, what do you think the impact on the economy will be when companies are REQUIRED to give six weeks paid leave. Most companies offer STD as a benefit but when its required, it is certainly going to impact hiring.

Well, we're going to find out here in NJ. My CEO was supportive of it, but then he's a "family values" kind of guy. He's one of those odd folks that think people are better workers when they are able to deal with family issues and not worry about their jobs or bills.

 

[crcormier]

Our Constitution is intact and the article I posted was a direct link. The OP created a post out of his imagination. Big difference.

Not a big difference. You changed the title of the article when you put it in the title of your post to support your claims.

And our constitution has been violated by GWB with the warrantless wiretaps dating back to before 9/11. As well as the suspension of habeus corpus. And there are more.

 

[DawnCt1]

Not a big difference. You changed the title of the article when you put it in the title of your post to support your claims.

And our constitution has been violated by GWB with the warrantless wiretaps dating back to before 9/11. As well as the suspension of habeus corpus. And there are more.

No I didn't.

 

[crcormier]

No I didn't.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1746084

Article title: Harvard gym tests Muslim women-only hours

This title says that Harvard is testing hours in their gym that will be "women-only".

Your post title: Harvard gym tests "Muslim women" only hours

You're use of quotation marks around "Muslim Women" now changes the title to say that Harvard is tesing hours in their gym that will be "muslim women only".

So yes. You did. I just want to keep things honest here, you're saying the OP is changing things to fit his argument, but you've done the same thing.

 

[NYBlue1]

There is no mockery at all. They are exercising their right to vote. However if as you say, "garbage like this has to stop", how would you propose to stop it. Require all voters who enter the voting booth to disclose who they voted for and why? That was actually entertained in Ohio. I would LOVE to see them do that. It would clearly be a violation of the Constitution. I haven't seen a "party loyalty pledge" since the days of Nazi Germany or the USSR.

It is a total mockery, voting for a candidate because they want to cause strife in the party? They want to give the opponent a better chance by causing deception? Its garbage and underhanded garbage tactics. Led by a man that is a hypocritical piece of garbage. And trust me I have no love for the liberal piece of garbage hypocrites either. You can honestly tell me if the shoe was on the other foot you would have no comment and be totally ok with garbage like this? I just find that hard to believe.

 

[crcormier]

It is a total mockery, voting for a candidate because they want to cause strife in the party? They want to give the opponent a better chance by causing deception? Its garbage and underhanded garbage tactics. Led by a man that is a hypocritical piece of garbage. And trust me I have no love for the liberal piece of garbage hypocrites either. You can honestly tell me if the shoe was on the other foot you would have no comment and be totally ok with garbage like this? I just find that hard to believe.

I'm not against cross-party voting. I did it in 2000, when I voted in the republican primary for McCain because I knew my party was already settled on Gore. However, I did it because I thought McCain would be the better republican candidate and if Gore lost the man I would prefer to see, not because I was trying to screw up the republican primary.

Unfortunately I don't know a good way to tell the difference between sincere cross party voting and "we're just trying to screw up your primary" cross party voting.