Flawed analysis of Rush Limbaugh - Page 13 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #**181** 05-13-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...Unlike liberals, he does not trash America...

I would bet a dollar that we could find plenty of examples of Rush trashing America when Bill Clinton was President.

Botnst · #**182** 05-13-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

and McDonald's makes money but that doesn't make the food good for you.

I do wonder why conservative TV and radio seem to do better than liberal shows. More conservatives, conservatives watch more TV and listen to more radio?

Nancy Grace:

Welcome to the world in which we live.

Botnst · #**183** 05-13-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I suppose 'operation chaos' is his "right" though some assert that trying to muck with an election is not legal.

Whatever, it's cheap, petty, and utterly lacking in honor. Some demos voted for McCain, no doubt, but the impression I get is that they did it because they liked him.

But it makes great ratings. Ratings makes sponsorship. Sponsorship makes money.

As long as people pay attention to a particular course that Mr Limbaugh takes, he will follow that course and make money. He has an incredible instinct for staying a bit ahead of his audience and that makes money for his sponsors. I guarantee this: If you had a product that appealed to working-class conservatives you would consider advertising on Limbaugh's show if you could afford it.

B

cmac2012 · #**184** 05-13-2008, 10:51 PM

McDonalds -- now there's a topic ripe for exploration in just how limited the free market is in providing useful intelligence to the world.

"Yo, fattie, would ya'all like to super-size that? You see, our bean counters have concluded that it's in our best interests to feed you more than you really need ('need' being a concept that would come into play if we were concerned about your health, which we're not or we wouldn't be pushing this crap anyway) because it'll improve our bottom line and increase shareholder value."

Capitalism, rock on!!

Botnst · #**185** 05-13-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

McDonalds -- now there's a topic ripe for exploration in just how limited the free market is in providing useful intelligence to the world.

"Yo, fattie, would ya'all like to super-size that? You see, our bean counters have concluded that it's in our best interests to feed you more than you really need ('need' being a concept that would come into play if we were concerned about your health, which we're not or we wouldn't be pushing this crap anyway) because it'll improve our bottom line and increase shareholder value."

Capitalism, rock on!!

There should be a law against it!

MS Fowler · #**186** 05-14-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I suppose 'operation chaos' is his "right" though some assert that trying to muck with an election is not legal.

Whatever, it's cheap, petty, and utterly lacking in honor. Some demos voted for McCain, no doubt, but the impression I get is that they did it because they liked him.

I believe your memory of "some democrats" is somewhat flawed. "Some dems" along with the press got McCain enough early publicity (along with poor campaigning by the rest of the republican field) to make him the early leader.
The dems in those early primary states will no way support him against a democrat. They voted for him because he was appealing to democrat voters--as opposed to the other repubs. But when faced with the choice between a faux democrat ( McCain), and the true democrat, they will vote for the true dem.
IMO, cross-over voting should be banned. The primaries are elections used by the parties to select the party's candidates. Allowing non-party members to have a say in them is suicidal.

MS Fowler · #**187** 05-14-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I would bet a dollar that we could find plenty of examples of Rush trashing America when Bill Clinton was President.

I disagree. Rush certainly bashed President Clinton for personal failings, and for his political views. I am certain he felt ( and said), we were headed in a wrong direction.
But bashing the country? I'd have to see quotes ---in context.
It just is not in Rush's nature to bash the country.

Matt L · #**188** 05-14-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I disagree. Rush certainly bashed President Clinton for personal failings, and for his political views. I am certain he felt ( and said), we were headed in a wrong direction.
But bashing the country? I'd have to see quotes ---in context.
It just is not in Rush's nature to bash the country.

Bashing President Bush for the same reason gets you labeled as bashing America by a small contingent. Yet this same contingent was quite vocal about Clinton.

RichC · #**189** 05-14-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

IIRC, that is how you described yourself previously on this forum. Except you don't have a job.

.

I think my body mass index is down to around 4% fat now.
And I weigh in at 205.

Trust me, I could kick your ass repeatably.
But I am not that kind of guy.

I have been off all drugs for over 18 years now.
Including alcohol.

And apparently you have no idea what self centered means.

Your view of me is completely wrong.
But I would not expect much else from someone like you.
And I am glad you don't like me.
And feel you have to attack me at a personal level.

I think it is funny that your slander against me shows
so badly on you and your character.

.

RichC · #**190** 05-14-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

When they first started raiding the program back during the Johnson administration...they could have left the monies in the trust account and raised the taxes for their "new-deal" programs...but they didn't want that to occur...giving equal rights to blacks and the expanding the nanny-state were the programs that needed funding...no one wanted to pay for that (as well as the escalating conflict in 'Nam), so they took the money from SS, the taxes didn't go up that much (as they should have) and nobody was the wiser...

Except Ron Paul...that's when he decided to get into politics.

And whoever is the top party in Congress is the caretaker of the SS funding...as far as I can tell, the Reps have WAY TOO FEW YEARS to call this their problem...but they are just as guilty for not solving it, or being able to stop the bleeding.

As for giving anyone credit for SS...a Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme...leave FDR's carcass alone...just stop the damn program, give the people their money back and shut the mess down...it's only turning this country into a bunch of cry-baby sheep.

.
Let them Die in the streets ?
Your ideas are rediclous and down right evil ?

.

Honus · #**191** 05-14-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...It just is not in Rush's nature to bash the country.

It's not worth your time or mine to go back through all the mean-spirited things Rush Limbaugh has said over the years, but I would be surprised if he didn't bash many of the things the United States did under Bill Clinton's command.

davidmash · #**192** 05-14-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

One of the real freedoms in America is to make our own choices.
We can choose to eat at Mac Donalds, even though we know it is a poor choice.
We reward success. Rush is rewarded because a great many people listen--sometimes in spite of his stichk.
Unlike liberals, he does not trash America. Like it or not, many Americans like to hear good things about their country; not that America is the root of all evil in the world today.
Unlike many liberals, Rush tells his listeners that they can be successful at whatever they chose to do.
People generally choose to listen to positive stuff as opposed to negatine stuff.

We have that choice---until someone takes it away. Would we be better off without that choice?

I think there is a fine line between bashing America and saying things that are, to say the least, not supportive or not productive for the growth of America.

He and most if not all of the talking heads make a living by taking things out of context or by out right lying. While it is their right to do so, some of the things that they have said are down right ugly and counter productive.

Since we are speaking about Rush, his hypocrisy on drug use, is to say the least shameful. That is just one instance.

Hearing good things is always a nice thing. To think that this country is the best around at everything or that to speak ill if the USA is tantamount to treason are in my opinion missing the point. I have spoken ill of this country because I believe and hope that we can do better. We have not met our potential. Rush and others seem to be of a 'love it or leave it' mentality which I disagree with.

While the US is responsible for quite a bit of the good in the world, we are also responsible for some of the bad. We are the champions of freedom yet we have times in our own past when we have not lived up to that standard. We have made mistakes. There is nothing un-American about admitting that or owning up to those mistakes. That is something the people like Rush and Coulter seem unable or unwilling to do.

People are idiots. The watch Oberman, Frankin, Limbaugh, Coulter ... and think of them as legitimate news sources. They are not. These people are entertainment at best. I watched Oberman one time and that happened to be when British Airways ran a few planes across the pond with out passengers. Various Eco groups freaked out and it made the 'news'. I work for the industry and I am reasonable sure I know EXACTLY why they flew the planes. Oberman never even explored that avenue or even asked the question. Never cared for him after that, not that I really liked him before that either. The point is that if you are going to go out there and actually pretend that you are a source of information (they are on news channels after all) you damn well ought to take that job seriously and do your best to present both sides as fairly as you can. They do not and as far as I am concerned, while it may not full fill the definition of 'bashing America' it sure comes damn close and I am not sure I see the difference.

Botnst · #**193** 05-14-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.
....
Trust me, I could kick your ass repeatably.
But I am not that kind of guy.
....

.

Sweet.

Botnst · #**194** 05-14-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I think there is a fine line between bashing America and saying things that are, to say the least, not supportive or not productive for the growth of America.

He and most if not all of the talking heads make a living by taking things out of context or by out right lying. While it is their right to do so, some of the things that they have said are down right ugly and counter productive.

Since we are speaking about Rush, his hypocrisy on drug use, is to say the least shameful. That is just one instance.

Hearing good things is always a nice thing. To think that this country is the best around at everything or that to speak ill if the USA is tantamount to treason are in my opinion missing the point. I have spoken ill of this country because I believe and hope that we can do better. We have not met our potential. Rush and others seem to be of a 'love it or leave it' mentality which I disagree with.

While the US is responsible for quite a bit of the good in the world, we are also responsible for some of the bad. We are the champions of freedom yet we have times in our own past when we have not lived up to that standard. We have made mistakes. There is nothing un-American about admitting that or owning up to those mistakes. That is something the people like Rush and Coulter seem unable or unwilling to do.

People are idiots. The watch Oberman, Frankin, Limbaugh, Coulter ... and think of them as legitimate news sources. They are not. These people are entertainment at best. I watched Oberman one time and that happened to be when British Airways ran a few planes across the pond with out passengers. Various Eco groups freaked out and it made the 'news'. I work for the industry and I am reasonable sure I know EXACTLY why they flew the planes. Oberman never even explored that avenue or even asked the question. Never cared for him after that, not that I really liked him before that either. The point is that if you are going to go out there and actually pretend that you are a source of information (they are on news channels after all) you damn well ought to take that job seriously and do your best to present both sides as fairly as you can. They do not and as far as I am concerned, while it may not full fill the definition of 'bashing America' it sure comes damn close and I am not sure I see the difference.

Amen.

LaRondo · #**195** 05-14-2008, 02:17 PM

Yo!