The New Bad Guy: Rush Limbaugh

reply to post by Byrd

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by slicobacon
I thought Rush Limbaugh would be much too trivial a person for someone such as the President of the US to mention, much less make comment on.

Rush is an extremist, and... if you remember... he's been ragging on Obama for over 2 years. Obama makes one joke about Rush (after years of Rush making jokes about Obama) and Rush suddenly declares all-out-nuclear-war.

....and the DNC just announced they would buy space on a billboard that Rush could not avoid seeing everyday...

Democrats take the fight to Limbaugh's doorstep (buying billboard space in West Palm Beach)

The left has found its new Boogeyman.

Perhaps the conservatives are doing it?

See above.

I don't know how it is in Canada, but here in the US, I want our politicians working on the issues that affect our country. Not attacking private citizens.

But the Dems are using Limbaugh as a distraction while they spend our country into oblivion.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

....and the DNC just announced they would buy space on a billboard that Rush could not avoid seeing everyday...

Democrats take the fight to Limbaugh's doorstep (buying billboard space in West Palm Beach)

Thanks for the "heads up." I'm going to write 'em and say, "as a True Texas Democrat (I'm a registered Democrat and have been for about 30 years), I want you to quit wasting money on billboards and newsletters and GET THE ECONOMY FIXED."

In fact, I think I'll go tell them now because I'm an Uppity Woman.

Originally posted by jsobecky
....and the DNC just announced they would buy space on a billboard that Rush could not avoid seeing everyday...
Democrats take the fight to Limbaugh's doorstep (buying billboard space in West Palm Beach)

Fab -- so, if someone were to put a sign up near houses, with a swastika, demonstrating their feelings in general, it's "hate speech" and an individual could sue (he may or may not win, depending); but if someone merely puts a sign up near an individual's house with actual hateful intent toward them, it's freedom of speech! I think I almost have this down yet.

Actually that isn't fair as I have no idea what the sign's going to say.

Well, it's also unfair because Rush can't live in glass houses; he has been more than public with his blasting of others, so he's just going to have to have thick skin about others blasting him.

I agree though that a little more attention on THE ECONOMY and a little less attention on CHRIS BROWN HIT HIS GIRLFRIEND AND RUSH LIMBAUGH IS THE DEVIL would be great. But that would be asking for news, not propaganda, so I don't have high expectations.

PJ

I agree that the billboard thing is stupid.

They've had their fun with the Rush thing and made their point, we all need to get back to the real issues now, the election's over.

Originally posted by semperfortis

I too hope Obama's policies fail as I am convinced that if he succeeds in all of his endeavors, we will not recognize the United States as a free nation anymore.

That's a valid criticism, but again, that's not what Rush meant or said, and projecting a new meaning onto his original intent doesn't change his intent. With what you've said above, I support your right to say it.

I can not speak for ONE Republican and do not consider a single politician to be representative of the entire party.

ONE republican? Dude, that's the leader of the RNC! He IS representative of the party as a whole, that's his job.

Key word Opinion

Where does this statement get us? Not everything is an attack on free speech, Semper. I'm aware people have opinions, no one's debating the right to have them. But there are constructive ones, and non-constructive ones. Rush can say whatever the heck he wants, I support his right to do so, so long as he supports my right to call his on their destructive nature.

When did representation become synonymous with attack?

We are talking about politics right? The DNC and RNC don't "represent anyone. They get their people elected. They raise money. That's their job.

Typical Strawman

Defend an action in response to another action..

The response to the original "action" was for many Repubs to criticize the leading conservative of their own party... And then apologize to him like cowards. Which was more damaging? Emanuel's opening salvo starting this whole thing, or the republican missteps that kept it alive for days and days and days? I'm not looking at this through party eyes, I'm looking at it through tactical ones. Repubs wounded themselves. There's nothing to defend there. Call the spade.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand

It absolutely IS relevant, because an opinion or statement formed on top of hypocrisy invalidates itself. It exposes whether someone's thoughts are coming from a place of integrity or a place of partisan talking points. I would respect and yield to the opinion of anyone that has the integrity to be even-handed despite party.

reply to post by tommy_boy


The only thing relevant to your post is that we are talking about a Private Citizen exercising his First Amendment rights and Elected Politicians placed in office by US to do something other than bicker with a Private Citizen..

Semper

Originally posted by BuffaloJoe
Your statement can't be made. The opposition firmly believes that the Obama policies are making the situation worse. How can you possibly say that Rush is not concerned with the success of this country? Reverse the players in your statement and it has equal merit.

You are absolutely right! Reversing sides would most likely get you the same results. Except we have 8 years we can look back on to see if this is the case.

Dems as well VIGOROUSLY opposed President Bush, often in a mean-spirited way. No doubt. This is politics, and its a blood sport. But no one of importance (that I can recall) openly hoped failure upon President Bush. No one has the cajones to stand up on their soapbox and essentially say "because I disagree with Bush, I willfully want his policies to fail and hurt the US." Yes, speech-defenders, people have the right to say that if they wish. Doesn't make it anymore constructive or credible. Again, if you are actively rooting for th policies of a sitting president to fail, you care more about your ideology than you do the SUCCESS and well-being of this country, because those people, like Rush, are more interested in advancing their's than in a prosperous country.

The Obama side firmly believes that the previous policies made the situation worse.

Here's the difference... We have 8 years to judge Bush's policies, which culminated, to be fair, in part, in the mess we have now. Obama is less than 90 days in office. We have no idea if his policies will work.

Why is Rush wrong in stating his beliefs? Obama is implementing his ideology and Rush judges Obama's actions against his opinions. There's nothing wrong with that and thank God we live in a country where this can go on (at least for now). Its simply an educational outlet for those who care to hear it. Do you think it would be easier or harder to get screwed if the only voice you were allowed to hear was that of the ruling party?

This statement exactly illustrates the problem. Debating, even attacking, the motive, credibility, correctness, or the impact of someones words is NOT an attack on their right to say those words! Why do people always revert to this argument? His right for saying what he said is not the question. The impact, and what it says about HIM is what matters. That's what we're debating here.

I like Rush and I agree with the conservative Republican point of view (and I'm under 40). My wife is a liberal Democrat and she disagrees with the Republican point of view. We balance each other out and raise our family with an open mind and so far its working out well.

As it should be, and congrats for making it work.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by tommy_boy

 

The only thing relevant to your post is that we are talking about a Private Citizen exercising his First Amendment rights and Elected Politicians placed in office by US to do something other than bicker with a Private Citizen..

Semper

One man's "bicker" is another man's 2-sentence sound bite that did exactly as it was intended to do: pin Repubs against each other. It worked.

Originally posted by slicobacon
Right winger or left, I also hope to see Obama's socialist policies FAIL. They can not work long term in America without significantly changing what America is.

What do you propose then happen "when" they fail? How better off will we be then?

Sure - socialist policies maystabilize things for a short time however, we are not a socialist nation and the American people won't stand for socialist ideals for long.

Hate to break it to ya, but we've been a socialist country for some time, and recently not at the hands of the dems. Remember it was Bushy that practically nationalized the banks with TARP1. Social Security has been around a long time, so has Medicaid, Medicare.

Socialism may work in wome places, but no, it is not welcome here at any cost for any promise.

Why?

Socialism has NEVER worked anywhere long term.
Nowhere? Ever? Really?

Yes, really.

On the other side, democracy historically has a shelf life too alas.

PJ

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by tommy_boy
That's a difference without distinction. Even if we assume that Rush meant for Obama to fail personally, so what? This is America. People are allowed to want others to fail. The Communist party, the NBPP, the John Birch Society, are all allowed to exist.

Here we go again...

No one is arguing anyone's right to feel or say whatever they like. This argument is old and tired. But just as Rush may have the right to WANT and vocally express that he would rather the US fail under Obama than submit to Obama's policies, so do we have the right to express how utterly unpatriotic it is to say that.

If you knew Semperfortis, you'd know that he will defend your right to say something, whether or not he agreed with it.

Commendable quality.

reply to post by RedCairo


I think "success" probably needs to be defined, no? For as miserable as many say it is, I don't see Cuba toppling or crumbling under our embargo. Hardly a bastion of civil rights, but again, we probably need a definition for "success."

Europe seems to be surviving OK. Ohh yeah and there's that North American country... Right, this one, that as stated previously, is more socialist, and has been for quite sometime. We're doing ok despite this temporary downturn aren't we?

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by tommy_boy
That's a difference without distinction. Even if we assume that Rush meant for Obama to fail personally, so what? This is America. People are allowed to want others to fail. The Communist party, the NBPP, the John Birch Society, are all allowed to exist.

Here we go again...

No one is arguing anyone's right to feel or say whatever they like. This argument is old and tired. But just as Rush may have the right to WANT and vocally express that he would rather the US fail under Obama than submit to Obama's policies, so do we have the right to express how utterly unpatriotic it is to say that.

Nowhere did Rush say he wanted the US to fail. Never. He wanted the US to SURVIVE, as he reiterated during his CPAC speech.

Here is an excerpt which includes his exact quote. The full article is available for you to read:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

www.rushlimbaugh.com...

Calling him unpatriotic is an old, tired tactic. Rush is a true patriot.

Originally posted by loam
TRY and see this in another way....

If your house is on fire and someone proposes to use kerosene to dowse it out, would you use the same logic there?

Why not? If the person's intention is to save your house, what difference does it make his approach?

Isn't that the logic you are using?

mmmm....Nooo.... Not Quite...

Because knowing that kerosene will only make the situation worse is actually, pretty much, a point of fact. Saying that one wants Obama (and therefore the US) to fail because they disagree with more socialist progressive policies is usually a jaded factless attack on a fear towards the buzzword "socialist," which is not a point of fact, its an empty bias.

Where is the correlation that saying one wants Obama to fail means one wants the United States to fail?

I hate to break it to everyone but Obama is NOT the United States..

That pesky separation of powers thing is still in effect if I am not mistaken..

WE are the United States. We The People... Not some elected and corrupt politician no matter what their ideology..

And we pay those generally corrupt politicians to do the business of office and not to spend their time bickering with some private citizen ...

Semper

reply to post by jsobecky


I don't see why this is so difficult. Let's drop the party affiliations for a half second....

"Liberalism is our problem." We've been under conservative rule and policies for 20 of the last 28 or so years. How in the world is liberalism our problem?

OK, Rush wants liberalism to fail. GREAT. I got it.

We have a liberal administration for at least the next 4 years running our country. That's pretty much a given. So if "liberalism" is running our country... AND... Rush is preoccupied with liberalism failing... Stay with me... AND... If "liberalism" fails in these next 4 years... Then the US fails. Some of you are trying to parse out as differing elements the desire for failed liberalism and the failure of the US. For the next 4 years, folks, they are one in the same. Another option is to dissent constructively and not in a divisive manner.

reply to post by semperfortis


Semper, wanting Obama to fail... Finish that sentence. Fail at what? He's running the country. If he fails, the US fails. There is not only a correlation, they're the same thing.

And I'm sorry, but when you can spent 1 trillion dollars that you don't have, and saddle the taxpayers with the debt, you ARE the United States. At the very least you determine whether it succeeds or not.

As for separation of powers. The white house is liberal... The Senate is liberal... The House of Representatives is liberal... The media is notoriously liberal. Repubs have the courts... For now... Where's the separation?

To put the last point to rest, yes I agree with you that the government has better things to do than to call out a boob on the radio. But as I've been trying to convey, his comments hurt this country, whether he has a right to say them or not.

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by loam
TRY and see this in another way....

If your house is on fire and someone proposes to use kerosene to dowse it out, would you use the same logic there?

Why not? If the person's intention is to save your house, what difference does it make his approach?

Isn't that the logic you are using?

mmmm....Nooo.... Not Quite...

Because knowing that kerosene will only make the situation worse is actually, pretty much, a point of fact. Saying that one wants Obama (and therefore the US) to fail because they disagree with more socialist progressive policies is usually a jaded factless attack on a fear towards the buzzword "socialist," which is not a point of fact, its an empty bias.

Actually, the analogy is quite good. And it is not based upon bias; it has historical precedence. FDR's New Deal was pretty much the same approach, and it failed. You cannot spend you way out of huge deficits. You can't do it at home, and you can't do it at a national level.

We have a liberal administration for at least the next 4 years running our country. That's pretty much a given. So if "liberalism" is running our country... AND... Rush is preoccupied with liberalism failing... Stay with me... AND... If "liberalism" fails in these next 4 years... Then the US fails.

Exactly. That is what we want to avoid. The hope is that a combination of public and political pressure, along with the off-chance that Obama might smarten up, will reverse the trend of larger deficit spending and more gov't growth before it is too late.

FDR's New Deal was pretty much the same approach, and it failed.

It did?

I guess that's why people kept reelecting him, because his policies failed so badly. Really, I mean I didn't know the Great Depression was still going on

I think you need to take a look at some history books written outside your ideological camp.

Both state socialism and unregulated capitalism have historically failed, it's no accident that every successful industrialized country on the planet has a mixed economy - a tame (as opposed to "free") market with a social welfare state.

Deregulating the banking system is how we got where we are now, because despite your ideological assumptions, markets do not self-regulate and never have. They can't, nor should they be expected to.

Eight years of that same right wing ideology have left us broke, our world standing diminished, our military stretched almost to the breaking point.

The facts are not on your side.

The American people have rejected your ideology because, just like Marxism, it doesn't work in the real world.

[edit on 3/6/09 by xmotex]

reply to post by xmotex

Originally posted by xmotex
Both state socialism and unregulated capitalism have historically failed, it's no accident that every successful industrialized country on the planet has a mixed economy - a tame (as opposed to "free") market with a social welfare state.

Deregulating the banking system is how we got where we are now, because despite your ideological assumptions, markets do not self-regulate and never have. They can't, nor should they be expected to.

Eight years of that same right wing ideology have left us broke, our world standing diminished, our military stretched almost to the breaking point.

The facts are not on your side.

The American people have rejected your ideology because, just like Marxism, it doesn't work in the real world.

[edit on 3/6/09 by xmotex]

First off, I agree that a mixed economy is the only solution - no ideology can cover all the possible problems thrown at it.

And deregulation is and was a problem. But you are mistaken if you think that Bushco deregulation caused this mess. In fact, he tried several times to impose more regulation, but was stymied by the Dems. And this was as far back as 2003:

Bush, McCain Tried To Reform Freddie Mac

2003 NYT article shows Bush tried to regulate the lenders, Dems shot it down

And, most telling:

Regulation

Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is quoted as the biggest regulator since President Nixon.[5] Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation.[5] Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%.[5]

Spending on regulation increased by 62% from $26.4 billion to $42.7 billion.[5] Whereas President Clinton cut the federal government's regulatory staff, President Bush expanded it by 91,196 workers between 2001 and 2007.[5]
en.wikipedia.org...

Partisanship was the real cause of problems during Bushco. Like Harry Reid proclaiming the Iraq war was lost. Like Hillary standing up and applauding at the SOTU when Bush announced that SS reform talks had ground to a halt.

The economy actually grew under Bush at a higher rate than the previous 20 years:

The truth about the booming economy under Bush and what the Democrats won't tell you!
Thu, 2006-10-19 20:04 — commit11

Here are a few things about the economy that Democrats and mainstream media won't tell you and don't want you to know. Democrats are telling stories and hope you won't check them out.

Here's a story they are telling about economic growth.

Democrats are saying that the economy is sluggish.
Nancy Pelosi has stated that if the Democrats regain control of Congress, they will jump-start the economy. Good luck!

The truth...

Since 2003, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the economy's growth rate has been better than the average of the 1980s and 1990s.

The current economic growth rate for 2006 is 3.5%

The average economic growth rate for the 1990s under Clinton was 3.3% and this was during the irrational exuberance of the dotcom bubble.

The average economic growth rate for 1980s was 3.1%

www.itsyourtimes.com.../1990

The American public is overwhelmingly conservative. The R's lost the election because they lost their conservative ideals.