Rush Limbaugh

[guage]

Rush gets more air time.
Don't all our politicians have better things to do?


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/limbaugh-dems-w.html

[SwampYankee]

Originally Posted by guage

Rush gets more air time.
Don't all our politicians have better things to do?


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/limbaugh-dems-w.html

In a word, no.

[MS Fowler]

Harry Ried the defender of the US Military? Rush anti military?

Whats wrong with this picture?

[cmac2012]

Could you be a little more vague please?

[cmac2012]

Limbaugh is so obviously in thrall to spin and propo and so phobic to anything resembling truth it's a bit scary and ominous, considering someone or some large group of people in our great land pay him around $30 mil a year.

[Dee8go]

Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot . . .

[POS]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Limbaugh is so obviously in thrall to spin and propo and so phobic to anything resembling truth it's a bit scary and ominous, considering someone or some large group of people in our great land pay him around $30 mil a year.

You can label me a conservative because I hate the government and how it just screws stuff up, and therefore I support less government however and whereever possible. I've listened to Rush on and off since 1993 or so (I work so I have little "radio time" around Rush's show), and I find him to be generally honest - biased, yes, but able to back his conclusions with facts (can't say that about the commentaries in NYTimes, WashPost, CNN, Fox, and the like). Like all media figures, he does exagerate either to make his point or to confirm his own beliefs, and I can't say that I always agree with his "take" on things, but to say he's "so phobic to anything resembling truth" indicates that either (1) you don't listen to him, or (2) you don't hear what he's saying.

[SwampYankee]

Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot . . .

Many of us are

Life has gotten much more enjoyable since I gave up the politicking. Ignorance is bliss for most of my employees and I've tried to adopt that approach within reason. I quit the forums, the grass-roots efforts, listening to talk radio and watching the political shows cold turkey. Although it still slips out on ocassion. I'm not oblivious to what's going on, as much as I try to. Any career (read life-long) politician is only interested in self-preservation, regardless of party affiliation.

Serenity now, serenity now...

[Medmech]

From what i gather Limbaugh was talking about the Macbeth character that said he was a Ranger and was trained to kill civilians. Moveon and other left wing groups embraced him like he was Santa Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by POS

You can label me a conservative because I hate the government and how it just screws stuff up, and therefore I support less government however and whereever possible. I've listened to Rush on and off since 1993 or so (I work so I have little "radio time" around Rush's show), and I find him to be generally honest - biased, yes, but able to back his conclusions with facts (can't say that about the commentaries in NYTimes, WashPost, CNN, Fox, and the like). Like all media figures, he does exagerate either to make his point or to confirm his own beliefs, and I can't say that I always agree with his "take" on things, but to say he's "so phobic to anything resembling truth" indicates that either (1) you don't listen to him, or (2) you don't hear what he's saying.

It'll take me a while, but I can come up with a long list of topics on which he slanted the truth worse than the Titanic was slanted on it's way to belly up.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Howitzer

From what i gather Limbaugh was talking about the Macbeth character that said he was a Ranger and was trained to kill civilians....

That is Limbaugh's version. It might even be true, but it requires a charitable interpretation of what he said on the air.

[Medmech]

Originally Posted by dculkin

That is Limbaugh's version. It might even be true, but it requires a charitable interpretation of what he said on the air.

Maybe, personally I don't care what either talking head said. What is your interpretation?

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Maybe, personally I don't care what either talking head said. What is your interpretation?

I don't know what he meant. Limbaugh has no integrity, but that does not mean that everything he says is untrue. This is the exchange from his radio show:

...LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers...

That doesn't sound as if he is talking about one specific phony soldier, but it's hard to say much more than that. Does he consider soldiers who oppose the war to be phony? Or does he limit his comment to those who lie about their credentials and experiences? Dunno.

All I know is that he is dishonest and a clown. I would have hoped that Harry Reid would have better ways to spend his time than going after a pig like Limbaugh.

[Botnst]

Politicians always choose the easy target. Reid cannot lose. The people who are offended by Limbaugh's existence will feel positively disposed to anybody taking a shot at him. The people positively disposed toward Limbaugh already hate Reid and believe that he, like all Liberals, is dishonest.

Reid feeds the base and alienates those who hate him anyway. Win/Win.

Same with Limbaugh.

Anytime he can get the Democrats in Congress to say ugly things, he wins as people rally to him and conjoin in an orgy of leftward venom-spitting. His ratings go up, he makes money and it does his causes no harm.

They've been ardently playing this theatrical set-piece since the early 1990's. It still works.

More Bread! More Circuses!

B

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by POS

You can label me a conservative because I hate the government and how it just screws stuff up, and therefore I support less government however and whereever possible. I've listened to Rush on and off since 1993 or so (I work so I have little "radio time" around Rush's show), and I find him to be generally honest - biased, yes, but able to back his conclusions with facts (can't say that about the commentaries in NYTimes, WashPost, CNN, Fox, and the like). Like all media figures, he does exagerate either to make his point or to confirm his own beliefs, and I can't say that I always agree with his "take" on things, but to say he's "so phobic to anything resembling truth" indicates that either (1) you don't listen to him, or (2) you don't hear what he's saying.

I heard what he was saying here: "There's nothing good about drug use…It destroys individuals… families… societies, some might say this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs…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."

Can you explain how he backed that up after the discovery that Rush had clearly become one of the individuals he was discussing in that quote?