I don't think [the mainstream media] understand why I do it, number one. I treat it as a business. My definitions for success have nothing to do with who wins elections, but rather, Is the program growing audience-wise? Are we attracting new sponsors? ...He's having fun. Doing a radio show.
Now, in terms of the content, I just come here and I try to have fun every day. And I'm honest. I don't say outrageous things I don't believe just to get people in a tizzy....
The second thing that the media doesn't understand — and I think it's because talk radio is outside the Beltway. It's a phenomenon that attracts what I call the people who make the country work. I don't think politicians and elected officials and bureaucrats and even the media are responsible for the greatness of the country. I think it's individual Americans laboring in anonymity, not seeking fame, just trying to get by, play by the rules, work hard, ordinary people doing extraordinary things. And those are the people that listen to talk radio. And the media thinks that they're all hayseeds and hicks without minds of their own....
I've been listening to the show — over the website, without the commercials — for the last month, so I've developed my own opinions about Limbaugh. One thing I've noticed — which doesn't come up in the linked Time interview — is that he has no real affinity for social conservatism. He likes to talk about the "3 legs" to the "stool" of conservatism. (That sounds so wrong!) But this leg man is only interested in 2 legs: national security and economics. He doesn't care about family values and that sort of thing. He's constantly alluding to his interest in having his fun with women and evading any burdensome entanglements. He has absolutely no interest in children. And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
পোস্টগুলি
১৭০টি মন্তব্য:
And those are the people that listen to talk radio. And the media thinks that they're all hayseeds and hicks without minds of their own....
Ah yes. The reason they call them Dittoheads is because they're independent thinkers who wouldn't jump off a cliff if Rush told them to.
You want to know about Limbaugh? Go rent "A Face in the Crowd." The only difference between Rush and Lonesome Rhodes is that Rhodes never evaded a war he supported by way of a boil on his ass...
His fun-with-women thing is actually an expression of disappointment in (what?) three marriages. The guy doesn't get what he thought he'd be getting.
It's not the entanglement but the nagging that comes to represent it.
He's a social conservative on abortion, sacredness of life, and all that crap. His show goes terminally boring for the week he gets on that line, until he goes back to self-deprecation.
At his best he's a born prankster, and nobody takes down the postures of the opposition better. And he takes down himself as well, in the larger-than-life persona.
The shows over the period you mention are all referencing themselves around McCain doing well, he who stopped so many good ideas when they came up in the Senate, and proposed so many awful ones.
Just to say the show centers better on amusing leftist takedowns, over a longer period.
If Obama or Hillary gets elected, it will be a great show.
(dittohead comes from an abbreviation for ``love your show,'' via ``ditto what the last caller said'' ; long ago. The enemy adopted the description with another meaning.
I kept tuning in after first hearing somebody take down the Clinton assholes in 93, something I'd never heard in the media. Something for me!
Great stuff, usually. Sometimes sucks for a couple weeks.
thephantomspitter said...
Ah yes. The reason they call them Dittoheads is because they're independent thinkers who wouldn't jump off a cliff if Rush told them to.
Obviously you don't know why they're called Dittoheads.
3 legs is actually a marketing term. A good marketing plan has three legs. His show is based on it. Rush has given this same speech for many years. In some variations he claims to be an entertainer too.
If he had an epiphany tomorrow and became a liberal, within three months he would have just as large an audience as he has now. Limbaugh's show is more about Limbaugh as it is anything else.
There is all this anger against him, yet there is none against those on the other side who are just as loud and at time just as obnoxious.
I can remember, a couple of years, he was obviously enjoying Marta Birth Week, his last wife, who had more than a day every year for herself.
Which more or less expresses the love he obviously had for her, and the quests he liked being sent on.
I'd guess she stopped showing she was satisfied with him, the other part of that happy arrangement. And then the quest-sending becomes nagging, something more to be done, without the reward that the man displaces onto his task.
Just to say he liked the entanglement, at one point.
The enemy
What a charming way to talk about your fellow citizens.
"One thing I've noticed — which doesn't come up in the linked Time interview — is that he has no real affinity for social conservatism."
I think that's true for a lot of conservatives, though. I'm quite conservative on economic matters, and my positions on foreign policy, federalism and law fall well within the bracket of what's thought of as a "conservative" position on those subjects. And as a general matter of temperament, I think tradition and practice ought to be given great weight and not upset without good reason. But on the issues generally thought of as "social conservative" issues, I just don't feel that invested in those issues. (To head off the inevitable rejoinder at the pass, I think it's a serious mistake to misconceive abortion as a "social conservative issue".) I'm a moderate on social issues, which doesn't win friends on either side, I can tell you.
Similarly, I think many social conservatives have no affinity for economic conservatism. The popularity of Huckabee with social conservatives speaks to that. Huckabee is a populist, the evil arch-enemy of the economic conservative. Social conservatives may agree with economic conservatives to an extent about tax cuts, but (I think) more because they want to pay less taxes themselves than out of any macro-level view of economics. So the social conservative and the economic conservative both support cutting income taxes, for example, but the social conservative is generally diffident about the capital gains tax, and sees the death tax as a moral issue rather than an economic issue.
Justin said...
thephantomspitter said...
Ah yes. The reason they call them Dittoheads is because they're independent thinkers who wouldn't jump off a cliff if Rush told them to.
Obviously you don't know why they're called Dittoheads.
Obviously, you've never actually met any.
Ah, the Limbaugh Show. Say what you will about it, but frankly I take the opinions of say, Bill Kristol or Fred
Barnes, every bit as seriously as I do those of an unemployed truck driver who's thinking about calling El Rushbo.
Simon said... I'm quite conservative on economic matters, and my positions on foreign policy, federalism and law fall well within the bracket of what's thought of as a "conservative" position on those subjects...but on the issues generally thought of as "social conservative" issues, I just don't feel that invested in those issues.
Nothing personal, dude, but you basically just confirmed the stereotype of a libertarian, i.e., you're a Republican who likes to smoke dope and fuck hookers.
Althouse said: And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
Is that supposed to be a criticism?
Good critique...he does sound like Uncle Harry from 1910...straw hat...big cigar...gas works...colored servants dragging him to the horseless carriage after he's fallen dead drunk face first in the mud....
He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
George said...
Good critique...he does sound like Uncle Harry from 1910...straw hat...big cigar...gas works...colored servants dragging him to the horseless carriage after he's fallen dead drunk face first in the mud....
Every time I listen to the Limbaugh show I think "Damn -- Sinclair Lewis should be alive to write a novel about this asshole."
Nothing personal, dude, but you basically just confirmed the stereotype of a libertarian, i.e., you're a Republican who likes to smoke dope and fuck hookers.
Well there is a difference in not caring if someone as you so eloquently say "likes to smoke dope and fuck hookers" and actually partaking in those simple pleasures.
Personally I prefer a bourbon over a bong and never had been hard up enough to pay for some poontang but to each their own.
Ann:
You have a bit of Rush in you when you lampoon selected idiots. I think success in radio talkshow biz is more likely when the host has an element of irreverence. Holds true for bloggers too.
Newspapers and MSM should consider adding some irreverence to their current 200 year-old style.
fstopfitzgerald said...
"Nothing personal, dude, but you basically just confirmed the stereotype of a libertarian, i.e., you're a Republican who likes to smoke dope and fuck hookers."
Well, I'm not a libtertarian, I'm a conservative, albeit a moderate one. I'm just not particularly animated by what's come to be thought of as "social conservative issues" - crudely, "God, gays and guns," as the formulation goes. As I've said, "I tend to agree with Ann on libertarianism. I think it's 'good stuff to cut conservatism with, each tending to curb the other's worst impulses,' but '[t]here is something incredibly obtuse about the libertarian view, something that misses the reality of human life and that is very wedded to a stark abstraction. In pure form, it is repellent.' I'm sympathetic to the idea that the state should intervene minimally (and that the federal government should use as light a touch as possible and only ever as heavy a touch as is constitutionally permissible), but that is a far cry from saying it lacks authority to do so [in any circumstances]." The FMA provides a good example. I opposed it because I thought that the radical, sudden and total transfer of an area traditionally within the purview of the states to the federal level was bad federalism and dubious conservatism, not because I have particularly strong feelings either way on same-sex marriage (which, as I understand it, is McCain's position, too). If all the amendment had done was to constitutionalize DOMA - something to the effect of "no state shall be required to recognize any other state's marriage laws - I would probably still have opposed it on the grounds that conservatives should be innately skeptical about changing the Constitution, but only diffidently so.
I'll leave the dope and the hookers to our actual libertarian contingent to address!
I don't listen to Rush because his ceaseless chuckling at his own cleverness drives me nutso.
Still, I've lost count of the number of deeply original thinkers who've told me that I got this or that idea from Rush.
Fruitbat:
I think Sinclair Lewis would have many more political targets to write about. Why would he be interested in a talkradio icon?
Heck he could write about pols like Rahm Emanuel who left the White House, spent less than 2 years on Wall Street and made over $10 Million then returned to DC as a congress-critter, or maybe Trent Lott who is leaving the Senate to become a well-paid lobbyist like John Breaux did, or perhaps Senator Feinstein whose husband has gotten hundreds of millions in Pentagon contracts, or Rick Santorum who has just begun to pocket earnings from the K Street crowd?
So why the fluff would Lewis even consider writing about Limbaugh?
I've listened to Rush since before the first Gulf War. I used to be a fan. I was like you. I didn't think he took Social Conservatism nearly as serious as he did economics and national security. But he's been the one out there defining conservatism over the last 20 years. And his definition begins and ends with abortion. He'll talk a good game about individual responsibility, economic freedom and national security. But when it all boils down, all he really cares about is being pro-life.
By the way, I think I generally sit in Prof. Calabresi's corner on regulating drugs and prostitution.
I don't have any objection to government regulating or even proscribing those things, I just question to what extent any genuinely productive policy on those subjects can be effectively and consistently applied, and when government policy - a fortiori laws - are ineffective, they should be changed (if the policy objective is desirable and alternatives are available) or repealed. I disagree with Aquinas - I don't believe that lex malla, lex nulla, but I do think that bad law should be repealed, and the war on drugs is terrible law.
"he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, oxycodone, nifty gadgets.
Fixed.
...And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
It almost sounds like you're hot for him. Kindred spirits, and all that. You two are exactly the same age. Who'd a thunk it? You go girrrrrl!
"Huckabee is a populist, the evil arch-enemy of the economic conservative."
But Huckabee is a supporter of the so-called "FairTax," which basically converts the income tax into a consumption tax. Like all consumption taxes, it would be a disaster for the middle class and a boon for the ultra-wealthy who consume a far smaller percentage of their total income than do the middle class. So Huckabee, like all Republicans, despite populist rhetoric to confuse and deceive the masses, is merely a tool of the economic elite that populism defines itself in opposition to.
True populism died with Henry George, who based his "single tax" proposal on the timeless truth that everyone born into the world has an inalienable right to a free and equal share of the earth and the earth's natural resources. So-called economic "conservatives," insofar as they're for the status quo and not so much for equality and freedom, are the enemy of everything that is true and decent in this world. As are economic "liberals," insofar as they want the state to steal from everybody, rich and poor alike, and then hand out, alongside generous contributions to the NEA, scraps to the poor to stave off the symptoms of the abject poverty the state itself has caused.
Ditto what Simon said.
Seriously. The media, who are mostly left leaning liberal Democrats, haven't a clue about people who call themselves Conservatives. The Conservative camp, as is also true of the Liberals, are not one cohesive group that all thinks alike and walks in lockstep.
I am an economic conservative first, small government, States rights, strong on National security and sovereignty and relatively socially liberal or uncommitted on issues that the media seems to think are monolitic for the conservative right.
Abortion isn't a voting issue for me, unless it is subsidized by tax payer money. Same thing with embryonic stem cell research that is funded with government money. If private enterprise wants to do it, they can: even though the idea of using embryos makes me uneasy. Gay marriage? Who cares? Religion not a big concern. I do get annoyed with the ACLU and others who want to stamp out the rights of others who want to celebrate religious holidays or private clubs or groups to choose who to associate(with (Boy Scouts of America)
Here is an interesting test for where you might be politically. More comprehensive than just the right/left labels and pigeon method that people like to do. I end up being just about in the same quadrent as Milton Friedman: whose ideas I admire.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
AJ Lynch said...
Fruitbat:
I think Sinclair Lewis would have many more political targets to write about. Why would he be interested in a talkradio icon?
For the same reason he wrote about a phoney baloney evangelist in Elmer Gantry.
Rush is a quintessential American huckster. A fat junkie hypocrite who preaches virtue and morality to others and gets stinking rich doing it.
Lewis would have eaten him for breakfast....
"I'll leave the dope and the hookers to our actual libertarian contingent to address!"
I think prostitution is profoundly immoral. Drug use (and alcohol abuse) likewise is immoral. But it is far more immoral to lock someone in a cage for a mere vice, which both prostitution and drug use are. Two caveats: someone selling drugs to minors should be severely dealt with; and I think a local community does have the moral authority to keep prostitution and drug dealers off its actual streets.
I've heard that Morton Downey, Jr. off-air was quite different in personality and politics than he was on-air. I've often wondered the same about his current counterpart.
Here's an audio clip of Rush defining conservatism
What I wish someone would explain is why anyone would think that the "3 legs" of the conservative "stool" would be cohesive over the long haul. It was a marriage of convenience.
My understanding of conservatism is that one of the basic tenets is that free markets should rule, hence the fracture that is occuring now between the Wall St. Journal editorial page types and "movement" conservatives over immigration reform. The belief in "letting the markets rule" would seem to blow a hole in the attempts of social conservatives to regulate what private entities choose to sell and market to the public (the pornography industry, for example). Limbaugh and his ilk are walking contradictions.
It is amazing how the "movement" conservatives, supposedly so wise at articulating the views of large segments of society, can't see how they are marginalizing themselves. Conservatism, like any movement or philosophy, will need to evolve on some level or become an anachronism (see Whigs).
Yeah, there's millions that listen to the radio conservatives and agree with them. Sadly, they can't see that they are operating in an echo chamber.
In spite of all that, even though he seems to be a bit of a moral cretin, Limbaugh is an amazingly talented radio performer.
Rush is a fatass.
My neighbor had his pilonidal cyst repaired when he was in his 50s. It was no big deal. A lot of current-day conservatives sought out ways to avoid serving in Vietnam in the 60s. Some, like Quayle and W., had enough political pull to get into the National Guard. Rush used his hairy skin eruption. So what? That makes him no worse than Bill Clinton.
Keith - I think it's also important to note that conservatism will necessarily be different in every country. I'm absolutely certain I wouldn't be considered a conservative in Britain, for example.
Rush is a fatass.
I bet he has cooties too.
Rush is an entertainer, nothing more. That fact that liberals get so worked up over the guy is amusing in and of itself. Considering that most of the Rush hatred boils down to sophmoric comments about his weight says a lot.
I've listened to the gamut of talk radio and outside of Dennis Miller, Rush is humorous. Glen Beck is boring IMO. Laura Inghram's droning voice will have me asleep in no time. Savage I can stand for about 15 seconds.
An Obama presidency will pretty much ensure 4 more years of high ratings for el Rushbo.
A lot of current-day conservatives sought out ways to avoid serving in Vietnam in the 60s.
I don't know why thats relevant. Alot of people sought ways out. My father for one, who was finishing up law school, with a new wife and son [me] at home. We did laugh at the irony of me volunteering to join the Marine Corps to serve in a combats arms unit [I was "destined" to take over his law firm].
Some, like Quayle and W., had enough political pull to get into the National Guard.
I don't know about Qualye, but having worked for the Texas State Senate, I can tell you that congressmen are a dime-a-dozen. Bush's father didn't get him in. As is part of the record, the TANG was looking for pilots. There was a shortfall. And lets not pretend that flying air patrol along the Gulf [to inderdict the Soviet bomber threat out Cuba] is "in the rear with the gear". You could just as easily assert that Kerry chose Swift Boats because, based on their mission, it would be all skiing and sun-tanning away from the FEBA [it wasn't until Swiftboats were retasked with dangerous littoral missions that he started looking for the door]
Rush used his hairy skin eruption.
I seem to recall it was a bit more than you're making it. But like you said, so what? I don't think I would have volunteered for Nam either.
That makes him no worse than Bill Clinton.
The same Clinton who fled to England because he "loathed" the military? Hardly the same.
USed to listen to Rush when his show coincided with my drive time. I know I was listening when NAFTA was being debated in 1993. I remember being amused at how he refused to take a side regarding NAFTA. I surmised it was because his audience was split.
James Fallows wrote a thoughtful piece on Rush back in 1994.
As for Rush, its ironic the Left hates him so much. Talk radio was started as a [weaker, but] parallel venue because conservative thought and ideas were being discriminated against and censored in the MSM. We needed some place to gather and exchange ideas. So, if the Left had played fair from the start, there would be no need for AM talk radio and no Rush. You guys created him. Ha.
If the Left was smart, they'd put aside their hatred of him long enough to respectfully study his success. If only to keep Air America from going bankrupt.
So I wouldn't get too haughty about it. Rush is smarter than anyone on this board, and there are alot more similarities between his style and Ann's than most would admit.
Mr. Limbaugh thrives on people who love him; and perhaps more important, on the people who hate him--see examples on this thread for the kind of visceral hatred that El Rushbo turns into cold hard cash. As Hoosier said, Limbaugh is an entertainer who is laughing all the way to the bank by skewering the arch liberal types. Who is the bigger sucker?
DBQ - Wow. I came out almost dead center. Tiny bit right, tiny bit libertarian. I'm kind of disappointed, actually. I wanted to be a wingnut.
lanolin r fruitbat said...
Rush is a quintessential American huckster. A fat junkie hypocrite who preaches virtue and morality to others and gets stinking rich doing it.
And Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Jeaninie Garafolo, Rosie O'Donnel(fat ass), Al Franken(ugly)are?
former law student said...
A lot of current-day conservatives sought out ways to avoid serving in Vietnam in the 60s. Some, like Quayle and W., had enough political pull to get into the National Guard. Rush used his hairy skin eruption. So what? That makes him no worse than Bill Clinton.
There is a distinction. Bill Clinton’s motives were pure and saintly. It had nothing to do with interrupting his studies at Oxford (which he did not complete anyway). It was for pure ideological reasons of the highest order. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale too.
Ann, are you saying social conservatives do not (or should not) enjoy things like cigars, comfy beds or nifty gadgets? Sounds like you have a cartoon character image of what a social conservative "looks like," all Amish and stuff. Having said this, however, I agree with you but for different reasons that Rush is not particularly socially conservative. But then (are you sitting down?) neither was Ronald Reagan. People think he was because of the cartoon image the media has painted of him, but when you examine his personal life, you see he wasn't all that socially conservative at all.
By the way, I admire you for listening to Limbaugh FIRST, and then commenting on what you heard SECOND. Too many folks left of center do it the other way around, only they leave out the listening part.
Peter H,
Were you listening closely? Rush was in FAVOR Of NAFTA, and railed against it opponents in 1994 and 1996.
I've never heard him say one word against "free trade".
And IMO, Rush is at his dullest when talking about economics and tax policy. His knowledge is superficial and sides with the rich.
FAVOR Of NAFTA
You could learn about trade here , if you want to know about it.
DBQ - Wow. I came out almost dead center. Tiny bit right, tiny bit libertarian.
So did I, although a wee northeast of the center. Looks like Angela Merkel and I have a lot in common. Go figure.
Scanning the critics of Rush here, my guess is that almost none of them have listened to him for more than 20 minutes. There's more intelligent discussion on one hour of Rush's show than on a month's worth of Sunday shows and cable commentary.
But, Hoosier. How can this be? We're compassionless, right wing, facist, neo-con, war mongers. Lucky said so.
What I've noticed is that Ann herself conspicuously luxuriates in the trappings of her own success. Good food and drink, such as wines and dining out, and nifty gadgets such as iPhones and digital cameras, and that's not even getting to the Porsche cruises up the coastal California Highway 1. I'm just wondering by what means she differentiates between her indulgences and bragging about them here, and Rush's and his bragging about them on his radio show. I'm looking for the distinction and I can't find it. And that's not being critical, other than the superficial question, because there's nothing wrong with it, per se. What's the difference Ann?
Zeb: I don't think she's criticizing Rush for doing those things, she's saying that his choice to do these things is in tension with social conservatism. And Ann isn't a social conservative, of course, so there's the difference.
I came out to the right 6.45 and down in a bit into the libertarian section -1.55. Like I said. Economically conservative and socially liber(tarian).
It would be interesting to see where peoplelike spitter (and all of his various sock puppets) who want to pigeon hole us as far right wing nazis place on this scale. I doubt they fall into the center positions like most of the people who post here.
The bigger point is "And the media thinks that they're (we're) all hayseeds and hicks without minds of their own.." and it just isn't so. Life isn't that simple.
I heard Rush for a 15 to 20 minutes per day. I specifically recall him saying, after a passionate opponent of NAFTA called in, that he found the whole NAFTA thing boring, and he didn't want to spend any more time talking about it.
He's constantly alluding to his interest in having his fun with women and evading any burdensome entanglements. He has absolutely no interest in children. And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
Ben Franklin anyone? :) I was so miffed that he let Paris seduce him.
FormerLaw: My neighbor had his pilonidal cyst repaired when he was in his 50s. It was no big deal. Rush used his hairy skin eruption [to avoid service].
Hey FLS, I think I remember now. It was something about the military not wanting to deal with you post-op. The surgery was a "big deal" to the miltary, in the sense that they didn't want to deal with you until after you had taken care of it and recoverd from surgery on your own.
I don't know, what would you do if the military called your number up and then sent you home? Would you have volunteered to serve after your surgery was done?
Well, He may have BEEN an opponent in 1994, but by 1996 he was a NAFTA supporter and is to this day.
As for Althouse description of Rush, she's absolutely right to a degree. Its obvious Rush isn't a Baptist preacher, he loves the good life.
BUT he is a social conservative. I remember the vacuum bit on Abortion. The problem is what can Rush say about Abortion (or most social policy), that hasn't been said again and again. He needs people to keep people interested. And the judiciary has taken it out of the hands of the people.
RCocean - but to reiterate what I said above, it's a mistake to assume that abortion is necessarily a social conservative issue. Yes, social conservatives are mostly opposed to abortion, but it doesn't follow that someone who's opposed to abortion (or who's opposed to Roe-Casey, for that matter, which is a separate issue) is necessarily a social conservative. I'm not. Paul Begala certainly isn't.
One curious thing, when Rush announced his divorce a couple years ago, the next day he announced that Marta had asked that he say that he had been the one asking for the divorce, which he did without expansion.
This was after getting back from drug rehab, where he seems to have learned and taken to heart, not to try to please people.
Scanning the critics of Rush here, my guess is that almost none of them have listened to him for more than 20 minutes. There's more intelligent discussion on one hour of Rush's show than on a month's worth of Sunday shows and cable commentary.
I've tried listening to Rush over the years. The only time I could listen for more than 15 minutes was back when B-1 Bob Dornan would fill in. I think it's Rush: I like Larry Elder, Brian Williams, et al. and I've been listening to Paul Harvey since Rush was a piglet.
If I want to hear intelligent discussion on the radio, I'll listen to Taco Donation or Milt Rosenberg's Extension 720.
Zeb said:
"Ann luxuriates in the trappings of her success....Iphone, great food, etc"
Zeb - don't leave out the squirrel!
A fat junkie hypocrite who preaches virtue and morality to others and gets stinking rich doing it.
You obviously don't listen to Rush.
I do not understand the angst and anger over those who have more. If you have earned it, you have the right to luxuriate in the trappings of your success or not.
If you are so angry at the wealthy, then do something. Go out and find a way to create wealth. That is what the american dream is; the opportunity to create your lifestyle and live it.
If you choose to be poor or to be a working stiff, that is your choice and that is fine. There is nothing wrong with it.
I remember reading someplace that God did not create rich babies and poor babies. He created boys and girls. They created their life.
Sounds like God did create cry babies.
Hoosier Daddy said...
A fat junkie hypocrite who preaches virtue and morality to others and gets stinking rich doing it.
You obviously don't listen to Rush
Actually, I listen to him all the time.
In any case, as somebody said upstairs, if you really want to know Limbaugh, just rent "A Face in the Crowd."
Limbaugh is Lonesome Rhodes all the way and, like him, he's laughing out of his ass at the dumb rubes who've made him a gazillionaire.
That would include you, obviously.
Tavern Wench: He's constantly alluding to his interest in having his fun with women and evading any burdensome entanglements. He has absolutely no interest in children. And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
Tory: A fat junkie hypocrite who preaches virtue and morality to others and gets stinking rich doing it.
Ya know, I didn't intend to compare Rush to Franklin, but I can't ehlp but notice Rush is a modern day Pamphleteer
Pamphleteers are more of a threat than people realize, and they are only going to get more toxic. This is the new reality, says the Governor of New York, There is bad information out there in the pamphlets, and you have only hours to get ahead of it and cut it off, especially if it's juicy.
Hmmm... and just teasing with the wench attrib Ann. I needed something to dovetail with our "Tories" here.
Yay Free Speech!
I think "NY Governor" Clinton said much the same about talk radio, and the MSM about the blogosphere.
The more things change...
Middle Class Guy said...
I do not understand the angst and anger over those who have more. If you have earned it, you have the right to luxuriate in the trappings of your success or not.
Go read FDR's 'malefactors of great wealth" speech.
Very little has changed since then, alas.
This is so absurd. Of course he says he’s just interested in the ratings, because the ratings are the one metric by which he’s not an embarrassment to his species. But whatever else Rush is he’s a prolific liar. He admitted after the 2006 elections that he had been “carrying water” for a group of politicians who he (now claims) not to have liked.
And are you really surprised that he’s not big on social conservatism? The guys idea of a good time is to take a few bottles of Viagra over to Thailand to take out his frustrations on underaged prostitutes.
Fstop, my recollection is that Roosevelt's criticism was not of those who attain wealth, but of those who attain it at any cost, insensitive to all other duties and obligations, and who having obtained it, do no good with it. I think Roosevelt would have totally approved of Bill Gates, for example.
Lanolin noted: "Actually, I listen to him all the time..." I guess that makes you one of the rubes, there, Lanolin--in your words: "That would include you, obviously.' Lord you people are stupid...
Doyle, now, is it libel or slander if you post it on the internet, I can never remember...
Roger said...
Lanolin--in your words: "That would include you, obviously.' Lord you people are stupid...
Yeah, right, sure. Nice try.
Simon
I'm just using abortion as one example, since its the most "famous" social issue.
Frankly, I think Rush is kinda like me, i.e. not so much of a social conservative - as motivated by a dislike of liberal elites (and especially an unelected judiciary) pushing their beliefs on the average Joe.
For example, I was never a Boy Scout but I'm glad others are and the ACLU/Left-wing assault on them upsets me.
Simon said...
Fstop, my recollection is that Roosevelt's criticism was not of those who attain wealth, but of those who attain it at any cost, insensitive to all other duties and obligations, and who having obtained it, do no good with it.
Exactly. In contemporary terms, the people who control the Republican party.
Like I said, very little has changed, except alas that no Democrat would have the balls to give FDR's speech today, despite its obvious relevance.
I remember reading someplace that God did not create rich babies and poor babies. He created boys and girls. They created their life.
Sounds like God did create cry babies.
Now that is the quote of the week!
Actually, I listen to him all the time.
Funny so do I and I don't recall any of his lectures on morality and virtue.
Roosevelt's speech where he used the terms "economic royalists" was down there with his demagogic worst.
Hoosier Daddy said...
I don't recall any of his lectures on morality and virtue.
I particularly liked when he called Jerry Garcia "just another dead doper."
While out of his mind on Oxycontin.
Good times, people!!!!
Go read FDR's 'malefactors of great wealth" speech.
Considering that FDR was as wealthy as the Pope I'm sure it has a lot of meaning too.
I particularly liked when he called Jerry Garcia "just another dead doper."
While out of his mind on Oxycontin.
And that's your example of lecturing on morality and virtue?
Simon said...
Fstop, my recollection is that Roosevelt's criticism was not of those who attain wealth, but of those who attain it at any cost, insensitive to all other duties and obligations, and who having obtained it, do no good with it.
fstrop said Exactly. In contemporary terms, the people who control the Republican party.
Allow me to be the first to toss the bullsh** flag on that ridiculous assertation.
Yah, lets equate:
1) people who are in such chronic physical pain that they become addicted to prescription pain meds
2) to people who abuse illegal drugs for recreation.
What a moral and virtuous argument...
For example, I was never a Boy Scout but I'm glad others are and the ACLU/Left-wing assault on them upsets me.
...but their anti-gay discrimination doesn't bother you. So it's not like you're totally devoid of social conservatism.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Allow me to be the first to toss the bullsh** flag on that ridiculous assertation.
Knock yourself out, but you'll just get crap all over your face if you do.
Fen said...
Yah, lets equate:
1) people who are in such chronic physical pain that they become addicted to prescription pain meds
Bullshit. Rush was getting high for fun.
2) to people who abuse illegal drugs for recreation.
See the above.
In any case, as far as Rush's addiction to hillbilly heroin goes -- hey, my heart bleeds for the fat fuck. And that's just about as much sympathy as he's ever shown for anybody in pain....
"I don't think she's criticizing Rush for doing those things, she's saying that his choice to do these things is in tension with social conservatism."
It's sort of like "charismatic" churches that use Christian rock music to lure people in. Rush drinks adult beverages, mocks the super religious by claiming his talent is on loan from God. He not what people think a social conservative should be. But he pushes and defines conservatism on social issues. His schtick is no different than Ann Coulter's. Who says Democrats are Godless while calling John Edwards a faggot. Though Rush isn't as abrasive.
Rush just did a nice Obama ad.
I think it was a Rush production.
It was little too close to reality to be positive, but it involved a high clustering of hope change future and vote in every grammatical position.
The humor would be spotting it as a parody.
"For example, I was never a Boy Scout but I'm glad others are and the ACLU/Left-wing assault on them upsets me." said rcocean
...but their anti-gay discrimination doesn't bother you. So it's not like you're totally devoid of social conservatism whined Doyle
The reason that people who are conservatives are upset with the ACLU telling the Boy Scouts who they MUST associate with is that it eliminates the freedom of association granted in the Constitution of the US. It isn't so much about being gay for me as it is the intrusion into what is a private matter in a club.
The "upset" that I and rocoean feel (speaking out of turn for him) has nothing to do with just the fact that the Boy Scouts don't want homosexual men to go on weekend camp outings with young boys. It has to do with the government telling them that they HAVE no choice and must associate.
Supposedly we are a free society and as such if I decided that I don't want to invite any particular person to my "private" club, non public golf course or anywhere else that is a personal choice of association. In a "public" arena, we have no choice and therefore all people are given equal opportunity of association.
I would be just as offended and upset if there was a club for "gay" men and there were to be a lawsuit to force them to allow straight men and women to join the club. Right of association.
Are we equating social conservatives ipso facto with "the religious"? Are those terms necessarily interchangeable? If they are, where does Jimmy Carter fit in that calculus?
No, Limbaugh has never self-identified as a card-carrying member of the religious right, but he has never been insulting or hostile towards them (cf Neal Boortz), or even critical of them. If anything Limbaugh has been supportive of them, without ever saying that he's one of them.
While I can see a contradiction for a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian to self-indulgently partake in worldly pleasures, I don't necessarily see a contradiction for a mere social conservative to do so.
Zeb Quinn said..."What I've noticed is that Ann herself conspicuously luxuriates in the trappings of her own success. Good food and drink, such as wines and dining out, and nifty gadgets such as iPhones and digital cameras, and that's not even getting to the Porsche cruises up the coastal California Highway 1. I'm just wondering by what means she differentiates between her indulgences and bragging about them here, and Rush's and his bragging about them on his radio show. I'm looking for the distinction and I can't find it. And that's not being critical, other than the superficial question, because there's nothing wrong with it, per se. What's the difference Ann?"
Did I say there was a difference? Why is everyone assuming I'm criticizing him?! I'm just saying I don't think he has any fundamental instinct toward social conservatism other than to complete a political agenda. I don't like most aspects of social conservatism myself, and I'm willing to say so, which does set me apart from him.
So, DBQ, the discrimination does bother you but you don't want the ACLU to make a big deal out of it?
I don't think he has any fundamental instinct toward social conservatism other than to complete a political agenda.
If he isn't a social conservative but he accepts and helps the socially conservative agenda because it helps achieve his own political goals, then that's part of what makes him an asshole.
I would be just as offended and upset if there was a club for "gay" men and there were to be a lawsuit to force them to allow straight men and women to join the club. Right of association.
I would be offended too, unless that club were meeting on city-owned property at a discounted rent of say $1 a year. I support the right of people to associate in private clubs, until they want public support in the form of money, police and other city services (as in the case of Mardi Gras parading krewes, for example).
Yeah that's true the Boy Scouts get federal perks, no?
In some of the “Conservative” responses the virtue glands are pumping.
Gee, I’m a Conservative but not an extremist jerk like Limbaugh.
It’s like a parody of Hannity: “You’re a Great Conservative”. But, snigger, smirk: unlike moi, the talk radio guys are not great conservatives.
Rush is what he is. A Conservative who, as accurately described by Prof A, is most interested in Economic Conservatism & the freedom which goes with it & the need for security to protect it. And he can prick holes in the Liberal Balloon with a minimum of words & a maximum amount of wit, all the while entertaining us.
And, of course, he drives Liberals nuts as we see from the perfervid prose here.
Apparently, to non-Conservatives & faint-hearted Conservatives, Rush is deeply flawed & shallow of thought, unlike the card-carrying members of the Liberal chattering class which monopolizes the MSM.
So, bring out all the stuff we’ve tried to use to distancing ourselves from the usual Conservative suspects! We can’t have him diminishing us in the eyes of the non-Conservatives, can we now.
Simon
You’re spot-on in saying that
(1) “it's a serious mistake to misconceive abortion as a ‘social conservative issue’ ", and
(2) “many social conservatives have no affinity for economic conservatism.” Actually some of my friends who are both extreme social conservatives & extreme economic liberals see themselves as “centrists”. (Left extremism + Right extremism = centrist/moderate & independent thinking!)
I agree with you that the popularity of Huckabee [& I would add O’Reilly] with some social conservatives speaks to that. I even agree with your analysis of populists as the evil arch-enemy of the economic conservative. IMHO, some conservatives give tax-cuts a bad name since, as you note, their motive is purely personal (they want to pay less taxes themselves rather than out of any macro-level view of economics); thus they can’t answer the Leftist chant of “tax cuts for the rich” with “tax cuts for the economy”. Further, they are susceptible to Capital Gains tax demagoguery since they don’t see it as a big deal personally. And unless they have a business to pass on to their heirs, they don’t worry about the death tax & see it as a Leorna Helmsley keep-my-dog-in-style-after-I’m-gone issue.
Simon said...
RCocean - but to reiterate what I said above, it's a mistake to assume that abortion is necessarily a social conservative issue.
This is very true. Abortion is more of a personal issue that crosses all political lines. There are extreme liberal Catholics who are pro-life and I know a few extreme conservatives who could care less about the issue.
One thing that gives tax cuts a bad name is the constant repetition of the Supply Side Quackery that says lower taxes >> higher tax revenues.
If your argument requires you to lie in order to defend it, people are right to be suspicious.
If you think the ACLU hates the Boy Scouts because of their policy of No gay scoutmasters, you are a fool. The ACLU has targeted the Boy Scouts ever since their inception.
Further, if the Boy Scouts were to allow openly Gay Scoutmasters, the end result - five or ten years down the road - would be multi-million dollar lawsuits and bankruptcy of the organization. Or do I need to spell it out for you?
That quote "just another dead doper" seems to have come from Al Franken rather than Rush Limbaugh. You remember Al, don't you, late of the radio?
Or do I need to spell it out for you?
Please do.
"And that's just about as much sympathy as he's ever shown for anybody in pain...."
I've noticed that those self-identifying as compassionate really and truly love finding someone whom they have an excuse to be cruel and judgmental toward.
Liberalism seems to be about permission to hate someone without guilt for it. Fitz just about wets himself with glee over the joy of permissible hatred.
And I'll say this about the boy scouts... Doyle... while I don't think that my experience can be extrapolated to the whole organization, every adult male I know well enough to have shared this information with me who was in boy scouts as a child was sexually abused. People make very bad jokes about Catholic priests, but I've never actually met anyone abused by a priest. This is a serious problem for the boy scouts (and even the girl scouts have very strict rules about children ever *ever* being alone with only one adult) and they have a right to enforce as best they can an environment where it is *very* clear that sexual activity between boys or between scout leaders and boys is not in any way acceptable.
Now, I don't for a moment think that homosexuals are automatically or even more often abusers than straight perverts. But I don't care.
Children who are abused, particularly if they are slightly older, and particularly if they are *boys*, do no like to think of themselves as victims. The adult men I know who were abused by scout leaders considered the sexual activity consensual... and homosexual. Because 12 year olds *don't know better.*
We can explain how all good homosexuals despise NAMBLA and how some middle aged Congressman having sex with a 17 year old isn't creepy, just homosexual and we're supposed to accept that. And how a scout leader having sex with 12 year olds is completely different and not homosexual at all.
But explain that to the 12 year old who is convinced it was.
So I'm not at all sympathetic to the poor gay guys who think they have a right to force themselves on the boy scouts. I think it's selfish. I think if they were honest about the situation they could probably come up with a way to actually *help* but instead it seems to be all about them and not about the boys who are abused by predators who *are* attracted to the situation, and most certainly not about the boys who think they actually weren't abused at all and carry that "homosexual experience" with them to adulthood.
The boy scouts shouldn't be about adults and their squabbles. It should be about the boys. I think that when the boy scouts get kicked out of a public park or have their access to maritime training taken away (such as in the Bay Area) that there are people who actually congratulate themselves for doing this! I know they congratulate themselves and I'm not impressed.
I think that when the boy scouts get kicked out of a public park or have their access to maritime training taken away (such as in the Bay Area) that there are people who actually congratulate themselves for doing this!
It's really hard to square this defense of the Boy Scouts with the foregoing acknowledgment that it is a defacto child sex/molestation ring.
I was a Boy Scout for many years, and I was never abused. I wonder what was wrong with me?
Synova, you completely ignore the scouts who are gay, and driven out of their lifetime of scouting for that. And banning gay men from the scouts does nothing to stop predatory pedophiles who don't identify as gay anyway. Out gay men aren't the threat. Gay men aren't out looking for 12 year olds to rape. Sexual predators are, and they come dressed up as straight soccer dads, nothing to see here, no alarm bells to raise.
Any group that has adults working with kids should follow the Girl Scouts' lead and set sensible rules for keeping adults and kids in groups.
Maybe you weren't showing enough leg.
Thephantomspitter: "Ah yes. The reason they call them Dittoheads is because they're independent thinkers who wouldn't jump off a cliff if Rush told them to."
And what? You think the people in such a swoon over Obama wouldn't jump off a cliff if he told them to?
It's really hard to square this defense of the Boy Scouts with the foregoing acknowledgment that it is a defacto child sex/molestation ring.
I agree with Beth's comment above, but do you really beleive the motivation of ACLU types and homosexual activists is to protect the kids from pedophiles? Seems to me its more about forcing acceptance of gay men as mentors and role models.
Beyth, you may think that gay men are not looking for 12 year old boys to molest but they are attracted to them none the less. That's why the girl scouts don't send men to supervise overnight camping trips for teenage girls.
So...Limbaugh insulted Jerry Garcia....
Man, that is the last straw, Jack.
Yah, lets equate:
1) people who are in such chronic physical pain that they become addicted to prescription pain meds
2) to people who abuse illegal drugs for recreation.
Bullshit. Rush was getting high for fun.
Right back at ya:
"The radio talk show host said he first became addicted to painkillers some years ago, following spinal surgery. However, he added, the surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still experiencing that pain.
He had tried to break his dependence in the past and has checked himself into medical facilities twice before, he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/
Fen - don't you know Rush is not to be believed unless you are a true Dittohead?
There are Established Rules Of Credulity You Must Follow when dealing with Rush. Get with the program Fen- you are a smart guy.
I came out to the right 6.45 and down in a bit into the libertarian section -1.55. Like I said. Economically conservative and socially liber(tarian).
I'm at 6.62/-3.38.
A big problem with attempting a discussion of Rush Limbaugh is that so many of his detractors rely solely upon third party compiliations of Rush's alleged extreme remarks. The Jerry Garcia line is a perfect example. Who, here, actually heard that? Who listened to the show in question and experienced the context and the point? In other words, who can discuss this without the (usually loaded) baggage of their source?
So what tends to happen is that when someone like Ann attempts to discuss Limbaugh, she's soon drowned out by the pre-disposed haters with their anti-Rush crib notes provided by FAIR and/or Media Matters.
Nothing productive will come from this.
The notion that the Scouts ban homosexuals out of fear of pedophilia is obviously ridiculous. The Scouts ban homosexuals and atheists because homosexuals and atheists are, according to the BSA, morally unfit for both membership and for leadership roles. That is their stated reason. The nonsense about pedophilia is just something their defenders cooked up once open homophobia started to become socially unacceptable.
Even then, the excuse never made sense. It stops only those people who are (a) gay and (b) child molesters but (c) unwilling to pretend to be heterosexual in order to get at a fresh supply of victims. Raise your hand if you think any such people exist.
Shorter Dennis: Transcripts don't count. If you weren't actually listening to Rush you can't say whether or not he's a raging, bigoted a--hole.
I came out at - 0.51, -0.12, virtually in the center. That must mean something, although I don't know what. It would be interesting to see the scoring rubric for the test. And here I thought I was passionate about some of my beliefs! I'm just a middle of the roader.
Doyle:
You are more of a raging bigot in many ways. You are a hater pure and simple; I have read your comments for a year at least and have listened to Rush for 5-10 years. He is no bigot.
Rush had a song parody recently about the "Magic Negro". It mocked the LA Times or Newsweek or whoever in the MSM gave that nickname to Senator Obama. The parody was hilarious- no racism was needed or intended IMHO.
DBQ:
I took the Compass quiz and was one small block to the right of dead center. Guess that makes me a lunatic wingnut in Doyle's world?
No Doyle; transcripts count, but cherrypicked snippets of transcripts will simply not leave you well-informed.
Not that this seems to be a matter of concern for the Rush haters.
Alas, Doyle, you're no Lucky Old Son. Now that was a man who could do vitriol.
Elliott A said: And here I thought I was passionate about some of my beliefs! I'm just a middle of the roader.
I think I came out more "moderate" (in their terms) on the quiz than I really am. I found myself agreeing with statements in principle, but they never asked the followup question: "Do you think the heavy hand of government should enforce your views on everyone." If they had asked that, I know I'd have scored more economically conservative and libertarian.
Well, Ann. How refreshing. A debate over Rush Limbaugh.
Between this and your American Idol (Season 7) posts, I see you're keeping things on the cutting edge around here!
Guess that makes me a lunatic wingnut in Doyle's world?
It's mostly the crap you write that makes you a lunatic wingnut in my world.
No Doyle; transcripts count, but cherrypicked snippets of transcripts will simply not leave you well-informed.
Yup.
Re Cherry picking lines out of context: Doyle, I forget, was it you or Lucky who wished for my death in Somolia b/c you didn't like my political beliefs?
/sidenote to any Rush staffers lurking
My 3:48 comment points out the type of people here who are bashing Rush. So don't get too wrapped around the axle re anything they say.
It wasn't me. It does sound like Lucky.
And transcripts provide context. The "context" defense is ridiculous. At least own up to what the man says.
Rush's Obama Ad at 2:14 today.
Re: The Compass Test. -4.38/-3.95
Down there with Gandhi and Mandela.
Doyle, that's nonsense. Transcripts can provide context, but they don't necessarily.
Here is a following, frequently cited Rush quote, often hurled up by Rush haters to prove he's a racist:
"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."
Will you please explain the context, as provided by the quote?
Thanks!
Hoosier,
"Savage I can stand for about 15 seconds."
That depends on which 15 seconds you catch, doesn't it? If the first words I here when I turn on the radio is, "Red diaper doper baby", I'm outta there!
And transcripts provide context. The "context" defense is ridiculous.
That seems contradictory. I need the entire transcript to provide the context. Thats not ridiculous. You want me to analyze something he said, fine I will, but I need more than a few cherry picked quotes from a Clinton-funded front like Media Matters.
"Savage I can stand for about 15 seconds."
Levin is the one I can't stand. He goes into this rant-voice that could be a parody of the "angry white male", and cuts off & hangs up on lefty callers instead of showing where they are wrong.
Media Matters usually provides very long sections of show transcripts (for Rush, O'Reilly, and whoever).
The fact is that while not everything Rush says is offensive, he does say a lot of offensive stuff that doesn't become inoffensive once placed "in context."
Your better argument is really: Sure he's offensive and that's why we love him.
About a month ago, Saint Hillary made some real gaffe. When she was called on it by the media her response was- "you can't just listen to what I say, you have to read what I say". As ususal, the cowardly media shut up and moved on.
There are excuses for everything if you want to make them. People who claim hate is not a family value hate anyone who disagrees with them.
Just look at all the fat ass comments. I wonder what some of these people look like, wraiths? Can we refer to them has pencil necks?
Rush Limbaugh is successful. No other talk show host can match him; yet. That is the crux. People cannot believe how he can be consistently successful spouting the same opinions. If you do not like him, get your own damn radio show and go up against him.
Oh, I forgot. That was tried and failed with a lot of financial corruption thrown in. AIR AMERICA!
He likes to talk about the "3 legs" to the "stool" of conservatism. (That sounds so wrong!)
That calls for a little divertimento.
Is it okay to say that Linda’s got a nice rack?
Hey, throw in Heather Mills and his dog’s got four legs!
Now, THAT’S wrong!!!
Bissage:
Thanks for the film clip- I never heard that song before. Re the rack comment, you need to pose that cagily like Rush might.
I think Rush would wonder if Linda was against gun control - because it appears her holsters are pretty full.
Lanolin fruitcake opines: "Roger said...Lanolin--in your words: "That would include you, obviously.' Lord you people are stupid...
Yeah, right, sure. Nice try.
Lanolin, my friend: let me try this syllogism out on you.
(1)You said you listen to Rush Limbaugh
(2) you said people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are "Rubes."
(3) Therefore? You can fill the conclusion out.
Rush relies on left wing idiots like you to drive his market share up. And you come like a moth to a flame. You are, my friend, an idiot.
And for the record: I have never and never plan to listen to Rush Limbaugh. But he sure seems a lot smarter, and richer than you.
George Soros is a beloved hero by the lefties, especially the far lefties. He has bought several Democratic politicians and in one way or another he has co-opted the Democratic party through massive donations to the party and other Democratic support groups.
George Soros made his money by betting against the currencies of other countries and in some cases causing their economies to collapse. Some leaders have called him an economic terrorist. He has also not paid one red cent in US income taxes.
No one dares to criticize him as one of the wealthy fat cats who want tax breaks for themselves. No one dares criticize him for his the predatory way he made his vast fortune. No one even criticizes him for his extreme radical political views. Nope, he is one of the saintly wealthy people. He uses his money for good. Yeah. Right.
I do not care how much money people make. If I had the ability to create wealth, I would and I damn sure would keep as much of it as I could to enjoy. This hatred of the wealthy is pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Me, I hate the poor. A deceased friend of mine, a Black man born in poverty with little education spent his whole working life as a cook in bars and restaurants. He amassed a fortune in real estate holdings by buying distressed properties cheap and turning them around. He had a saying- “the only way to help the poor is not to join them”.
That was true years ago and it is true today.
Doyle said...
Media Matters
You mean the same Media Matters that was founded and funded by Hillary Clinton to defend her against "attacks"; that Media Matters?
Beth,
IIRC, the $1 building in the Philadelphia (as seen on Penn & Teller, who came down against the BSA discrimination) was donated to the city with the stipulation that they lease it back to the BSA for as long as the BSA wanted it.
That specific case seems like the city changed the rules after the fact and just wanted an excuse to break the contract.
But P&T also pointed out that the discrimination against atheists & homosexuals is relatively recent (from the '60s). Before that, the charter never talked about it.
As it should be, I think, and as it must be if they're going to use gov't money. But why they, or any other private group, should get gov't money, I don't know.
DBQ,
I've taken that test many times, and don't care for a lot of the questions. But I guess since I always end up in the lower-right quadrant, I suppose it's "accurate" to some degree.
NB, however, that there are no noteworthy politicians in that quadrant. Never have been in the--well, say, 10 years or so that I've known about that test.
Friedman's the only guy in that quadrant.
As for Rush transcripts, yeah, they don't really provide context. The Rush-haters overplayed their hand when they suggested he had maligned the troops, generally, instead of a few specific ones.
Stupid.
(Me? I watched his show for about 3 minutes in the '90s. Meh.)
"Beyth, you may think that gay men are not looking for 12 year old boys to molest but they are attracted to them none the less"
Really??? I am a big gay and have never been attracted to a 12 year old. Nor have any of my other big gay friends been attracted to 12 years old?
Their are some hot college guys from NYU who work out at my gym that I think are cute but they are a minimum of 19 years old.
I want a man, not a boy-sorry.
I don't listen to talk radio-it bores me for the most part and when I am walking on 5th avenue heading to the gym I need a song with a beat on my Ipod.
Although, hate me, I do enjoy This American Life-I know awful liberal-but some of the stories are pretty cool.
Don't you got anything more interesting in your purse Althouse? My purse is loaded with jewelry that I can dump out onto this blog if you like.
Let's go girl. Come on, give us something a little more than we can bite into-like we bite into a big juicy, cut, long, hog.
Now go.
And no story about the Beagle Uno who won Westminster? What's wrong with you? The dog was perfect and all your dog talk I would think you would of been on that one.
Now chop chop Helen.
The Rush-haters overplayed their hand when they suggested he had maligned the troops, generally, instead of a few specific ones.
I remember that. Rush was talking about how the Left always dug up these fake Army Rangers like Jesse MacBeth or fabulists like TNR's Scott Beauchamp to slam the war effort.
I want to do the jew on Project Runway. Is it Rahmi? No more draping of the dresses though Rahmi.
We would be an amazing big gay jew couple with rare dogs and cut hogs.
Today I got my hair done and my hair burner is in her 50's and looks amazing. She likes dating much younger men. I think she is 54-is that your age granny? She is like the Samantha character in Sex and the City.
Anyways, every time I go there I make her tell me her stories which are absolutely brill. She has guys she dates, guys she does for booty calls, guys she brings to family things (generally older successful gay guys) and older guys she has that "take care of her"-buy her fancy dindins, clothes, jewelry.
Really, the bitch has got it all going on.
Every time I see her I give her a hug and then grap her tits, tell them they feel fabulous, look in her blouse to see her nips and grap her ass to see how it is doing. All and all it is 2 hours of pure bliss as I leave the salon 250.00 poorer.
OMG-Bill T Jones is on the tele now-got to go.
FYI-I miss Arnie Zane for Bill T Jones/Arnie Zane dance company.
OT, sort of, but anyone who reads this can take it for what it’s worth.
I was in the Boy Scouts in the mid-70’s and I got felt up at age twelve.
I knew other scouts who got worse.
Some were younger than me.
For example, at Parvin State campground (New Jersey), I listened to a boy cry off and on for about a half hour, before I feel asleep.
He was brand new and he was sleeping in the same bunk as the scoutmaster on the other side of the cabin.
We never saw him again after that.
Does that prove gay leaders in the scouts can’t be trusted?
Of course not.
But it does mean that people like me aren’t real impressed with the argument that only bigots oppose gays in the scouts.
The question, as always, is who decides.
But it does mean that people like me aren’t real impressed with the argument that only bigots oppose gays in the scouts.
Was the scoutmaster openly gay? If not, could you explain how, exactly, you think banning openly gay scoutmasters is a solution to the problems you faced? When you're done with that explanation, please explain what rationalization you use for supporting the ban on gay Boy Scouts, since it obviously can't be fear of child molestation.
Do you think the BSA should drop its current justification for the ban on gays (i.e., the homophobic belief that gays are morally inferior to non-gays) and replace it with the one you're using (concern over the apparently rampant child molestation within Scouting)?
Finally, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to stop supporting an organization aimed at "helping" young boys, but which -- to judge from the people posting here -- apparently molests many, if not most, of those boys? We don't give tax dollars to NAMBLA, after all.
Let me see if I follow the recent entries in this thread:
Rush is not a Boy Scout.
Focus, guys.
"how, exactly, you think banning openly gay scoutmasters is a solution to the problems you faced?"
Speaking entirely for myself, the issue is the right to associate and NOT associate. If the Boy Scouts lose federal funding because of the crusade against them, I don't think it is the death knell of the organization. The moral issue is are you going to be forced by the government to associate?
And for from Inwood: the media attempts to group Rush and Conservatives with the Evangelicals and all the other permutations of conservatism as if we are all the same is the beef. They want to see everything as black and white. The world doesn't work that way. I can be a conservative who feels that abortion should be available (limited) and that religion shouldn't be taught in public schools. I can be a conservative who feels that marijuana should be legalized.
The "media" lives in an echo chamber. This is Rush's point.
Revenant, you’re a strange, annoying person.
Why you assume the things you do about me is a mystery.
Maybe you’re suffering from too much pent-up supply.
But to show you there’re no hard feelings, I’ve written a joke, just for you.
What do Damien Echols and Revenant have in common?
They’re both dead men walking.
Go ahead and laugh. You know you want to.
And when you’re done with that, don’t forget to speculate about my beliefs less and do something constructive more.
You know, like volunteer for Mr. Echols’ defense team. Or write an amicus brief. Or write a check.
No, on second thought, just write the check and keep your mouth shut so as to do no harm.
Tits
bouncing in a tight sweater
tits...
dripping, hanging, tired-a long day
passes
tits
let free from the constraint of
a
bra
tits
A hog
hangs and dangles
down the leg of a levis 501
A hog
in all its glory
the promise of a new day
The hog
is startled,
changes shape
negotiates the world.
Hark, who goes there
no, it can't be...
Hog
A Pucker
is quenched,
clean
ready for action
the pucker is hungry
looking
for
hog
in all the wrong places
the pucker
has been satisfied
I do not care how much money people make. If I had the ability to create wealth, I would and I damn sure would keep as much of it as I could to enjoy. This hatred of the wealthy is pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Me, I hate the poor.
If you don't care how much money people make, why do you hate the poor?
Anyway, the argument that (i) skepticism towards trickle-down economic policies or (ii) support of some sort of social-democratic economic policies constitutes some form of class hatred is lame and is just an attempt at changing the subject by putting others on the defensive. Actually, most affluent liberals (and aren't all liberals affluent elitists, or are we resentful class warriors -- it's so hard to keep up) are pretty good at living in the great and wild world of modern American capitalism and think it's for the most part a good, if imperfect system, as all human systems are (imperfect, I mean, not all human systems are good). We just have a pretty good idea about how things really work, and thus don't nod approvingly when people talk about how we live in a pure meritocracy or how anyone who wants to be rich can, and anyone who doesn't work hard and play by the rules will find themselves in poverty, even if they start out rich. Real life doesn't quite work that way, but if little Horatio Alger stories make one sleep better at night, dream on.
By the way, it's funny how lots of conservatives like to claim that people like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are "just entertainers", when they are called on the actual political content that such people say. For example, if Rush is just an entertainer, why did National Review do a cover story on him during his heyday during the 90s as the "Leader of the Opposition"? (As a former libertarian Republican who grew up reading this stuff, I have a good memory.)
I can realize why lots of conservatives want to distance themselves from the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Coulters of the world because they can be embarrassing if taken seriously, but the fact is, they are taken seriously, and conservatives (particularly social conservatives) made that happen.
The New York Times says Limbaugh has the number one talk radio show in the nation with 13.5 million listeners weekly. I wonder what the numbers are for Randi Rhodes or whoever the top-ranked lefty is?
Lawgiver, I think she has 13.5 listeners.
somefeller said...
By the way, it's funny how lots of conservatives like to claim that people like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are "just entertainers
Rush Limbaugh actually calls himself an entertainer. Bono is an entertainer; people take him seriously too. Jeanine Garfalo is an entertainer, some people, few, take her seriously. Rosie O'Donnell is an ?????, why people take her seriously is a mystery.
The moral issue is are you going to be forced by the government to associate?
And will it apply across the board, for example, to the Congessional Black Caucus?
Or will there be more legislation, like the 1994 Crime Bill's Sexual Harassment in the Workplace section, thats meant only to apply to non-liberals/Democrats?
somefeller --- when you see Rush hosting election coverage such as, say, Olbermann --- you'll have a point.
Rush is an entertainer. He says so himself all of the time.
And, reading back --- did anybody read his explanation for the caller abortion bit?
He specifically said he did it to generate outrage over what he did because it would demonstrate how absurd it is that playing a recorded noise was "offensive", but the actual act of performing an abortion was not nearly as offensive to the people.
And Media Matters is incapable of honesty. Plain and simple. When you're founded by a guy who admits he lied for YEARS, you don't have a solid foundation.
demonstrate how absurd it is that playing a recorded noise was "offensive", but the actual act of performing an abortion was not nearly as offensive to the people.
The the Left must have selective memeories: In the sixties, anti-war protestors burned puppies on the street to the same effect. When people expressed outrage, the protestors asked how anyone could be outraged about that but not the atrocity of war in Nam.
he is still a liar and a weasel. his ilk and his followers have polluted the airwaves and the discourse.
he is the least important of the unimportant among us.
Claiming Rush is "unimportant" is less credible than claiming he's the anti-christ.
Else, why Air America and the claims for a Fairness Doctrine?
Rush gets the cranky old fart, "Hey, you kids: Get off my lawn!" demographic. There is no comparable left-wing demographic that is able to listen to talk shows during the work day.
Thats not been my experience. His callers certainly aren't all retired kooks. And I've worked in offices where the 30-something employees who tune in at their cubicle. Even a Macy's Regional Manager who commuted between two-three stores a day, and listened to Rush/Sean while enroute.
Rush gets the cranky old fart, "Hey, you kids: Get off my lawn!" demographic. There is no comparable left-wing demographic that is able to listen to talk shows during the work day.
Considering how many in the left-wing demographic tend to be unemployed loafs --- hardly.
That is why you can find "progressives" to field protests about every issue under the sun but not conservatives.
Conservatives actually have lives to live.
he is still a liar and a weasel. his ilk and his followers have polluted the airwaves and the discourse.
And that passion for open discourse and hearing the other side of the equation is again demonstrated by a progressive.
hdhouse said...
he is still a liar and a weasel.
house, most of them are liars or at least disingenuous. Rush just makes more money at it. But I am disappointed in you. WTF have poor weasels ever done to you?
Same holds with Murdoch and Faux News. They aren't the no-spin zone. They aren't fair and balanced. They're after a particular market segment.
How anyone with half a brain can watch Faux or listen to Rush's repetitive verbal blathering is a different matter.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন