Why Do People Listen to Rush Limbaugh?

reply to post by semperfortis


Well that certainly speaks volumes.

I trust you remove your Rush hat before you put your Mod hat on.

KK

Originally posted by kinda kurious
If my memory serves me correctly.....8. His responsibility ended when he left office.

But Bush will be blamed for everything that comes down the pike for years.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Are you saying that Clinton was responsible for 9-11?

Bush had eight months to get things fixed, Clinton had eight years. And Clinton did nothing. Not saying that Bush isn't guilty, but I think that Clinton had a much larger share of that guilt.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Factoid:

Clinton left office with an approval rating at 66%, the highest end of office rating of any president since World War II.

en.wikipedia.org...

Big deal, he'll always be known as the guy getting the BJ in the Oval Office.

I'm sooooo confused? Is this thread about 9/11? Must be

Originally posted by jerico65
Bush had eight months to get things fixed, Clinton had eight years. And Clinton did nothing. Not saying that Bush isn't guilty, but I think that Clinton had a much larger share of that guilt.

OK, fair enough.

I'll go on a limb and say that perhaps they purposely waited until Clinton was out of office to attack. Perhaps they waited for a weaker leader.

And I will be the first to point out that the first WTC bombing was 1993, on Clinton's watch.

But if you feel that because Clinton didn't take out OBL before 9-11 I would say that that would have been an outright assassination which I believe is prohibited by Executive Order 12333 reissued by President Reagan in 1981.

www.milnet.com...

But hey, I'm no lawyer.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
OK, fair enough.

I'll go on a limb and say that perhaps they purposely waited until Clinton was out of office to attack. Perhaps they waited for a weaker leader.

Weaker than Clinton? He really wasn't known as the tower of military strength, that's for sure.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
And I will be the first to point out that the first WTC bombing was 1993, on Clinton's watch.

OK.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
But if you feel that because Clinton didn't take out OBL before 9-11 I would say that that would have been an outright assassination which I believe is prohibited by Executive Order 12333 reissued by President Reagan in 1981.

www.milnet.com...

Sudan offered to arrest OBL for the US, but Clinton turned him down. No assassination necessary.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm sooooo confused? Is this thread about 9/11? Must be

No, but KK and I can hijack this thread like a couple of Somali pirates and make it one!!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Well that certainly speaks volumes.

I trust you remove your Rush hat before you put your Mod hat on.

KK

I'm not sure what volumes you are referring too. I believe that even as a Moderator, I am allowed to have my own interests and opinions. If you are not sure, please see the following thread.

Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

As for a Rush Hat, one will generally find, with an open enough mind, that interests and opinions do not control ones actions. At least for a Conservative.

I think one of the most glaring things this thread brings out, is the lack of a thread titled.. "Why do people listen to Liberals"..

That question can easily be answered by reading through this thread; so no additional threads are necessary.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Still....thread still going strongly...and the polarization is, too.

It is likely obvious, by now, where I fall in the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club scale...

Seems he just likes to poke sticks into things, purely for the reaction (and to justify his obscene...no, check that...incredibly (huge) contracts.

Well...'Bully' for him, for being wealthy. Perhaps his ego will allow him to fade away once this contract is finished, so he can retire to a beach somewhere and enjoy his leisure time with a Mai Tai and a view of the sunset every night.

The real danger of his bombastic method of delivery, in my opinion, is that not every person who hears him is as intelligent as Semper, or RRCon....

(see? I can suck up too...)

There is a new (albeit now not as much exposure) left-leaning counter-weight (and I mean that as a pun) to Rush L....his name is Ed Shultz, now on MSNBC. His delivery, tone and booming voice are similar...but, we need the pomposity to hopefully level everything out.....

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm sooooo confused? Is this thread about 9/11? Must be

Blaine, with all due respect, I am probably guilty since I responded to this post:

Originally posted by RRconservative
Why we listen...Rush quotes 4/12/09

"The simple reality is that Obama and his people cannot deal with the previous administration's success in stopping terror in America."

So sorry and to get Back On Topic:

"Why Do People Listen to RL?"

IMO, it is because he seems to validate their misguided hatred of America.

He validates their pent up anguish and loathing and provides an alternative to complaining about their miserable lives.

He lends a "brand-name" to racism and ethnocentrism.

It is for the same reason that fart jokes make those from a shallow gene pool laugh.

That more like it?

KK








[edit on 23-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by semperfortis
As for a Rush Hat, one will generally find, with an open enough mind, that interests and opinions do not control ones actions. At least for a Conservative.

I think one of the most glaring things this thread brings out, is the lack of a thread titled.. "Why do people listen to Liberals"..

That question can easily be answered by reading through this thread; so no additional threads are necessary.

Semper

Thanks for going on the record with that. I'll keep it handy the next time one of my posts are removed.

I don't subscribe to the notion that if you are not a "Conservative" your are thereby a "Liberal" by default. Sorry, those are mere labels.

I suspect like the half-filled glass of water (empty vs. full), the same argument could be made on one's objectivity / bias. And no one is exempt. Mods and Self included.

Good to know. Thanks.

Regards...KK

[edit on 23-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by semperfortis
As for a Rush Hat, one will generally find, with an open enough mind, that interests and opinions do not control ones actions. At least for a Conservative.

Semper neither of us believe that... 8 years of the bush minor presidency prove you wrong.

If that were so then why the push for a conservative court, or congress for that matter?

Of course opinions control actions. To say other wise is to deny what is blatantly obvious.

reply to post by grover


See the words...

Generally Find

Open Mind

and the Context of the post

That should clear it up for you

Thanks

Semper

today's show (4/23/09) has some guy filling in for Rush Limbaugh named Mark (dont remember his last name) but he has a very heavy British accent

anyways, this guy has said "uhhh" about 60 times in the last 25 minutes.

Which...normally wouldn't really mean much, but when contrasted with the criticism of Obama for doing the same thing....wow

The right wing has officially gone completely looney if they're allowing lunatics like Rush to run the ideologies and talking points of the GOP

Originally posted by Fremd
today's show (4/23/09) has some guy filling in for Rush Limbaugh named Mark (dont remember his last name) but he has a very heavy British accent.

Mark Stein is the guys name.

In the long run conservative vs progressive is a false dichotomy that isn't even at its core political in nature...

It boils down to who embraces change vs who is at best wary of change and at worst is afraid of or resents it.

Both sides have their positive and negatives...

The positive for conservatism is that it puts a break and slows down the rate of change so that a society can adapt...

The negative for conservatism is that at its worst it can kill all innovation... societies that have permanently adapted conservatism as their stance stagnate and die.

As for the progressive the positive is that it is constantly moving society forward trying to create a better world.

The negative is that any society that embraces change solely for changes sake eventually becomes sterile and devoid of meaning.

BUT the reason why it is a false dichotomy is that every person has aspects of both in them... even the most conservative person has things, ideals that they are progressive about and even the most progressive individual has things that the are conservative about...

It is this characteristic that makes the nonsense mush loosebowels and his ilk spew little more than a gross generalization... because no one is "the liberal" or "the conservative"

We are all a mixture of both.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by grover]

The negative for conservatism is that at its worst it can kill all innovation... societies that have permanently adapted conservatism as their stance stagnate and die.

reply to post by grover

Liberals believe that government can solve all of man's problems and conservatives want government out of their lives so we can solve our own problems (and be innovative). We do not stagnate and die with less government in our lives, we thrive and prosper because government is by nature wasteful and inefficient as Barack, Pelosi and Reid are demonstrating.

American private enterprise is by nature efficient and innovative till government gets in its way. For instance if Barack gets bull headed and makes GM make little rice burners it will probably be the kiss of death.

Liberals argue that GW suppressed stem cell innovation. All Bush did was not allow goverment support of research using Hu embryonic tissues. Any company could and did do all the Hu embryonic research it wanted and did. Not much came of it because it simply didn't work. They now are looking at other more promising sources of stem cells. But of course Barack reversed the Bush ban in spite and to spite.

Oh, and BTW America isn't going to wither and die (in spite of Obama or any other politician). We are actually the world leader economically, militarily and in innovation and will be when most of us are gone. That is in spite of what most Americans believe. LOL

reply to post by plumranch


I'm confused by your 'logic', plumranch.

R. Limbaugh seems to NEVER, ever criticsize any Republican. He carries their water for them regardless, like a good little (ahem) slave.

As to your 'claim' of conservatives and Big Government...in terms of the historical records here in the US, Government grew by leaps and bounds, beyond anything ever seen before, during the Reagan Administration. Yet, he is revered to almost god-like status by the apologists.

Clinton, a Democrat, inherited a terrible budget deficit, yet tamed it and stimulated our economy (unfortunately, he had that zipper problem, and stimulated something else as well ).

Then, Bush Jr. (Rep) comes along, builds up big government again, and destroys the economy in the process. (no, I realize he didn't single-handedly do it....it was the years of the Republican-controlled House, Senate and Executive Branch, all working together). Their short-sighted relaxing of regulations, for instance, allowed for the impression of prosperity....but, in effect, all they did was pull a giant 'Ponzi Scheme' on the country's economy. It was doomed to come crashing down....

All the while, the 'ditto-heads' and their ilk (did you know there are about 400 different far right-wing radio talk shows programs on American radio?) led by none other than the pre-imminent bastion of belicose bufoonery and bombastic bellowing (R. L.) lied, insulted, belittled and generally made a fool of himself whenever anyone from the other 'party' attempted to point out that the 'Emperor Had No Clothes'.

A bully is a bully....and THIS school-yard con artist is a crude mockery of everything Americans should hold decent. And, this oxycontin-popping oxygen-wasting hypocrite does it why?? Purely for the money.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

R. Limbaugh seems to NEVER, ever criticsize any Republican. He carries their water for them regardless, like a good little (ahem

) slave.

Did you miss the 2008 Republican primaries? Limbaugh was definately not a McCain fan. I guess you never heard of the Rush parodies of McCain.

here's one

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSJ0WzWuDAk

During the actual Presidential race Rush and many other Republicans held our noses and voted for McCain because we knew Mr. Obama would ruin the country a little more than McCain would have.








[edit on 24-4-2009 by RRconservative]

reply to post by RRconservative


OK, RR...you got me!! I fell into that age-old trap of speaking in absolutes. I forgot the cardinal rule -- "Never say "never"...'

I will NEVER, ever do that again!

Gee...you've managed to do the near impossible --- ever-so-slightly raised my appreciation of R.L., if only just a smidgeon. BTW, do you know if he (Rush) was equally disenchanted with Sarah Pain (oops, I meant 'Palin')??

reply to post by weedwhacker


Rush never had a problem with Palin. I guess it is because she is an actual conservative....unlike McCain.