Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh


gdcleanfun

Banned
N one more thing until they actually produce and publish a valid US birth certificate he is PEBHO, which brings us to this... Were someone to suddenly produce rock solid evidence he is not of US birth or valid a citizen what do you think would happen next???:crazy_pilot:

Simple. Joe B. would step up to the plate. Then civil war would ensue.
 

Sheldon

New member
Um, nope, I disagree, he is not correct a bunch of the time. He is rarely correct, I'd even go so far as to say that in my opinion he is not now nor has he ever been correct. (I stipulate that yours, mine, everyone's opinion can be right for them.) I do not need to provide examples. There is enough fodder on the web that everyone can see for themselves. He is NOT tolerant of anyone who is not "as white a male as he is," or as macho, or who has any other opinion contradictory to his opinion. He does not care to learn a thing from anyone who calls into his show. Never! His demeanor and attitude is small minded and immature, even juvenile when he attacks people personally rather than the ideas they phone in to present. He is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, and a liar extraordinaire. I understand that the gist of the man and his attitude, his "whack-ness!" is all for show and money. But, in my opinion, he's as uninformative, incorrect, and whacked as is Shock Jock Howard Stern, whom I similarly abhor. But neither one care what I think. I'm betting that they are both laughing all the way to the bank.

So you listened to Rush on one of his rant days and never since..... look at post #17 Rush is at his best when there is a democrat in office but if you really want to get upset with someone go give a listen to Sirius 146 "Left". I listened to them for a bit last night N they have mellowed out a heap since PEBHO took office, but they are still so misdirected that it is not funny, I did not stick around long enough to listen to them get racist.

He corectly predicted what BO would do as soon as he hit the door, he predicted a great deal of what Clinton would do and did, His record for being right about political issues, and corrupt officials has to be close to 90%, and that is money you can take to your bookie.
 

HK4U

New member
So you listened to Rush on one of his rant days and never since..... look at post #17 Rush is at his best when there is a democrat in office but if you really want to get upset with someone go give a listen to Sirius 146 "Left". I listened to them for a bit last night N they have mellowed out a heap since PEBHO took office, but they are still so misdirected that it is not funny, I did not stick around long enough to listen to them get racist.

He corectly predicted what BO would do as soon as he hit the door, he predicted a great deal of what Clinton would do and did, His record for being right about political issues, and corrupt officials has to be close to 90%, and that is money you can take to your bookie.

NPR is another good place to listen if you want to really get sick. They are so far to the left that they make Red China look right.
 

squisher

Member
If Rush isn't your fancy, try Greg Garrison (although I don't think he's syndicated outside of Indy any more, and he deals with a few more local issues) but he's a lot easier to listen to than the EIB network.

He's on WIBC in Indianapolis, and you can listen live online from their website. (9 am to noon IIRC, it's been a while honestly).

But I have to figure that Rush is doing something worthwile if they (libs) are worried about him enough to mention him by name.
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
So you listened to Rush on one of his rant days and never since..... look at post #17 Rush is at his best when there is a democrat in office but if you really want to get upset with someone go give a listen to Sirius 146 "Left". I listened to them for a bit last night N they have mellowed out a heap since PEBHO took office, but they are still so misdirected that it is not funny, I did not stick around long enough to listen to them get racist.

He corectly predicted what BO would do as soon as he hit the door, he predicted a great deal of what Clinton would do and did, His record for being right about political issues, and corrupt officials has to be close to 90%, and that is money you can take to your bookie.


Nope, he is not correct much at all. Online cites abound that show his incorrectness and fallacies. However, I think we are beating a dead horse. Can we agree to disagree?

Yet, WHAT? Where did I say that I listened to Rush on ONE of his rant days and never since? :unsure: Me thinks that you are assuming facts not in evidence. :nono: Please, try again and focus on what I really DID say. :yes4: I listened to Rush off and on and up until a few years ago because my late husband liked to listen to him. But not me. And thank goodness, not my current husband! And no, I'm not upset, I hope my post didn't come across as upset. Peace? :meeting:
 
Last edited:

gdcleanfun

Banned
Y'know, truth be told, I'm not an extremist by nature. I don't like listening to either end's agenda, Rush or Ann Coulter (SP?), nor Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakan (sp?),etc. I would much rather listen to the high school debating team any old day!!! It's been my experience that at least THEY TRY to get their facts straight!
 

Tex4oc

Patriot 1st
Well, since he has publicly stated his intention of changing the Constitution (an outdated piece of paper) his words, is it too soon to call for impeachment. I mean his inaugural oath called for him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and here it is only a week later and he wants to change it?
 

HK4U

New member
Well, since he has publicly stated his intention of changing the Constitution (an outdated piece of paper) his words, is it too soon to call for impeachment. I mean his inaugural oath called for him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and here it is only a week later and he wants to change it?


To get an impeachment you would need to have real patriots in congress. I am afraid there are not very many.
 

Sheldon

New member
Nope, he is not correct much at all. Online cites abound that show his incorrectness and fallacies. However, I think we are beating a dead horse. Can we agree to disagree?

Yet, WHAT? Where did I say that I listened to Rush on ONE of his rant days and never since? :unsure: Me thinks that you are assuming facts not in evidence. :nono: Please, try again and focus on what I really DID say. :yes4: I listened to Rush off and on and up until a few years ago because my late husband liked to listen to him. But not me. And thank goodness, not my current husband! And no, I'm not upset, I hope my post didn't come across as upset. Peace? :meeting:

No offense taken just is Rush is like any bitter pill you have to take, it's hard going down but in the end side affects aside it will be good for you.
As to Rush if every one liked him there would be no need for other radio talk shows, they would all be redundant....
Usually however someone who has a "I hate Rush" attitude is a staunch left wing (which you are obviously not) supporter or has never truly listened to him for any period of time and just like the rest of the world Rush has his good and his bad days.
After listening to a heap of radio talk show hosts over the years Arrogance has to be the no 1 hiring criteria. As to him being right go to the library and check out a couple of his books from the Clinton era and you will see how close he nails it. N by past practice I'm betting he hits the nail on the head again.
 

Rick O'Shay

New member
Um, nope, I disagree, he is not correct a bunch of the time. He is rarely correct, I'd even go so far as to say that in my opinion he is not now nor has he ever been correct. (I stipulate that yours, mine, everyone's opinion can be right for them.) I do not need to provide examples. There is enough fodder on the web that everyone can see for themselves. He is NOT tolerant of anyone who is not "as white a male as he is," or as macho, or who has any other opinion contradictory to his opinion. He does not care to learn a thing from anyone who calls into his show. Never! His demeanor and attitude is small minded and immature, even juvenile when he attacks people personally rather than the ideas they phone in to present. He is rude, offensive, racist, sexist, and a liar extraordinaire. I understand that the gist of the man and his attitude, his "whack-ness!" is all for show and money. But, in my opinion, he's as uninformative, incorrect, and whacked as is Shock Jock Howard Stern, whom I similarly abhor. But neither one care what I think. I'm betting that they are both laughing all the way to the bank.

Bollox. Obviously you don't listen to the show.
 

astute

New member
To Good Clean Fun:

Please cite instances of Sexism, Racism, Or Lies. I'm betting you can't without a lot of contexted removal or totally only hearing what you want and not understanding all you know about it.

Again, Please cite instances and/or statements.

Like Joe Friday would say, "just the facts man".
 
Last edited:

gdcleanfun

Banned
To Good Clean Fun:

Please cite instances of Sexism, Racism, Or Lies. I'm betting you can't without a lot of contexted removal or totally only hearing what you want and not understanding all you know about it.

Again, Please cite instances and/or statements.

Like Joe Friday would say, "just the facts man".


---


Well, alrighty then, how about these:

1. From Wiki: On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to Barack Obama as a "magic negro," citing an L.A. Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters[45]. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon.[46] Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry.

2. From Link Removed : David Souter's a girl. Everybody knows that. What's the big deal? I'm talking about attitudinally, here, folks. You gotta -- you just -- Dawn [studio transcriber] agrees. She's nodding her head in agreement.

2. and Limbaugh also called Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmy Carter, a "[c]lassic example of the new castrati," claiming he "has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up."

3. From the Link Removed: ... Limbaugh went on to categorically denounce feminism, restating his famous declaration that it was established "so that unattractive women could have easier access to the mainstream of society." ...

4. From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, or FAIR:
Limbaugh vs. Reality
Bogus Economics
-LIMBAUGH: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94)
REALITY: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94).

-LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

-LIMBAUGH: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70)
REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one.

-LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84)
REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States")

-LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243)
REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985.

-LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.

-LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Every first-year law student knows there is.

-LIMBAUGH: "Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?" (Radio show, 6/28/93)
REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to "appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years...and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh." In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph's advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine.

...
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
and then there are these:

5. Weird Science

-LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)
REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."

-LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163)
REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93).

-LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135)
REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93).

-LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: "Mr. Limbaugh's claim simply isn't true," says Dr. Hugh Scully, chair of the Canadian Medical Association's Council on Healing and Finance. "The vast majority of Canadians, including physicians, receive their care here in Canada. Those few Canadians who receive health care in the U.S. most often do because they have winter homes in the States--like Arizona and Florida--and have emergent health problems there." Medical care in Canada is hardly "too expensive"; it's provided free and covered by taxes.

-LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)
REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations (Health Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2).

-LIMBAUGH: Denouncing Jeremy Rifkin of the Beyond Beef campaign as an "ecopest": "Rifkin is bent out of shape because he says the cattle consume enough grain to feed hundreds of millions of people. The reason the cattle are eating the grain is so they can be fattened and slaughtered, after which they will feed people, who need a high protein diet." (Ought To Be, p. 110)
REALITY: Sixteen pounds of grain and soy is required to produce one pound of edible food from beef (USDA Economic Research Service). As for needing a "high-protein diet," the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Agriculture recommend that from 4.5 percent to 6 percent of daily calories come from protein. The amount of calories from protein in rice is 8 percent; in wheat it's 17 percent (USDA Handbook No. 456).

-LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (The Bum's Rush, p. 136). Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.

***

I believe I've made my point with enough facts.
 
Last edited:

astute

New member
Sounds like you've cited a lot of actual truth and a lot of half truth lies from the main stream leftists. The people you want to love would disarm you in an instant if they could. I guarantee you Rush or any of the other conservative people will fight forever to maintain your 2nd. Amendment right. The Leftist that was elected President as well as the others in Congress would repeal that right tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it. I for one will stick to the right and not try to stradle the fence.

"When your COLD, HUNGRY, and OUT OF WORK, EAT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST."

This is what I call GOOD DEBATE and not meant to offend. Please understand that.:kiss3:
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
Sounds like you've cited a lot of actual truth and a lot of half truth lies from the main stream leftists. The people you want to love would disarm you in an instant if they could. I guarantee you Rush or any of the other conservative people will fight forever to maintain your 2nd. Amendment right. The Leftist that was elected President as well as the others in Congress would repeal that right tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it. I for one will stick to the right and not try to stradle the fence.

"When your COLD, HUNGRY, and OUT OF WORK, EAT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST."

This is what I call GOOD DEBATE and not meant to offend. Please understand that.:kiss3:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is Main Stream Leftest? And Wiki? And...? You asked for cites. I provided cites. I didn't look to see what side they were on, I just quoted a few that showed up from my search. There were many more that I didn't quote. Maybe I should have doubled my efforts?

GDF loves a good debate as well. No worries.
 
Last edited:

astute

New member
The "Main Stream Media is EXTREEMLY Leftist and very left Biased.

Oh well If the Dems get there way they will pass the "Fairness Doctrune" and then the left wing government views is all that will be available. When the Government controls what we listen to and not "We The People" through the free enterprise system, we can kiss our rights good-by:fie:
 
Last edited:

gdcleanfun

Banned
The "Main Stream Media is EXTREEMLY Leftist and very left Biased.

That wasn't my question, sorry, but me thinks you got me words mixed up. Let's try again: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is Main Stream Leftest? That's like saying Consumer Reports is printed in Snow White's castle. In any case, you are probably correct because I don't "see" the conservative, right-wing, pundits bashing Rush, just as I don't see Louis Farrakan bashing Jesse Jackson. That would be pretty counter-productive, me thinks. :yes4:
 

Rick O'Shay

New member
1. From Wiki: On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to Barack Obama as a "magic negro," citing an L.A. Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters[45]. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon.[46] Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry.

Sorry, but is time for bed, so I only decided to address the first instance on Rush's distortions:

Every single allegation in the song came from the Main Stream media's attempts to marginalize Obama early in the primary cycle. As I recall, the "Magic Negro" quote came from the LA Times on the editorial page.

Based on what I saw in your two posts, you have NO IDEA what Rush actually talks about on his program, but merely cite the Mainstream Media's selective editing of his comments for effect. I literally listen to him everyday, and have yet to hear the first racist comment.

Go back to the Huff Po.
 

astute

New member
Rick, I'm going to have to agree with you here. It's time for bed. One last comment, I'm still trying to figure out why Barack is hailed as eieng the first black president. His mother is white, and his father was mostly Arab Caucasian. I saw one Geneology that had him only about 6% African Black. Why isn't he White. He's more that than anything else. Quite frankly I don't care what he is racially or nationally, only that he is a US citizen and he upholds the Constitution. The later of which I doubt and that's what scares me about him. Especially with what we have for Congress now. Oh well we'll just have to "Hide and Watch".
 

Stratus41298

New member
I'm pretty in the middle when it comes to "Red Vs. Blue" politics because I think that neither are correct in the least bit. I think anyone who reserves themselves to one side of a democratic (as in democracy, not democrat) government is doing themselves a disservice. Both sides were created to provide a balance of ideas that were supposed to produce compromise among the masses. From what i've heard from all of you, not only do I think that there is a lack of open mindedness, but I think that the point is being missed. I would strongly urge everyone reading this forum to just think about how something could be for the greater good before simply tossing it aside as "leftist" or "right winged".

Please, I'm not saying this to insult. I respect each of you very much due to our common ground, but do your best to see the pro's as well as the con's. As a side topic, Obama is our new elected president. Through our long ass process he was elected. Maybe some people wanted others to win; that's not the important part. What is important is that we say, "Okay, he won. Let's see what he's made of". Give the guy a break and see if he can get some things moving for us. Hate has no place in politics.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,592
Messages
626,064
Members
74,593
Latest member
txshooter308
Top