Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's nothing to envy if you've got a public credibility rating of 12.5%.
If 100 percent of progressive death cultists hate you, then you're doing something right.
The fact that the mere mention of his name produces hysteria in the lefty masses means he's AOK. Anything that can draw leftist hatred and bigotry out into the light of day is a good thing...and that's the purpose Rush serves. For some reason, you loons are incapable of restraining all your most disgusting impulses upon the mere mention of his name.
It's hilarious. It's like showing a crucifix to nosferatu.
I don't know what you're talking about. For one, I've never met a single person who expresses anything remotely resembling hysteria, or hatred toward Rush.
Personally, I think he comes across as a buffoon, and I never listen to him. But he does have a good scam going because he acknowledges he's an entertainer. Frankly, I don't think he really gives a damn about conservative causes except as a vehicle to enrich himself (which he's definitely doing) since his involvement in politics only seems tangential when it comes to the issues themselves and seems meant primarily as a form of personal self-aggrandizement whenever he appears somewhere. I just don't take him seriously. But I admit that conservatives are afraid to cross him because he can rally people either for or against a particular conservative who crosses him publicly. I find that kind of pathetic, but it sure would be good for his ego.
Rush's relationship to the issues themselves reminds me of what pet rocks was to the long term prospects of capital investment. The point is that Rush may seem influential, but he's just a longer term version of a flash in the pan. I mean, you don't hear about anyone buying Rush CDs of his old shows or anything like that, do you? Of course not. But the Beatles still sell CDs, and people still watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver because they have longstanding popularity. What that means is this: When Rush is finally off the air one day, he'll be yesterday's news no later than tomorrow.
Limbaugh preaches to the choir. His audience ensures that he will earn enough to push for tax cuts and do whatever is necessary to preserve the tax cuts that he already benefits from. Sure that sounds cynical but he has no motivation to support those less fortunate than himself obtain affordable healthcare because he is concerned that it might raise his taxes. Therein lies the core of his appeal. He is selfish and he uses fearmongering to incite his audience into believing that the ACA will also raise their taxes.
Does Limbaugh have a right to do this? You betcha and I will be the first in line to staunchly defend his right to express himself. Doesn't mean that I agree with what he says but his right to speak is sacrosanct.
Limbaugh's influence is limited and will decline as the voting demographic continues to evolve. His misogyny, homophobia and racism will be unacceptable to the younger and more diverse voters. They don't use the radio as a source of information and if they were to listen to Limbaugh they have the means to instantly fact check his assertions.
Finally the claim that the "left is envious" because they lack someone like Limbaugh is only valid if one needs a single "voice of the party". The diversity of the left means that there will probably always be a chorus of voices harmonizing on the common goal of what is best for the American people and this nation. Even better there will also be voices of dissent to keep the chorus "honest" in those goals.
So yes, Limbaugh is successful at what he does but there is no envy on the left because there is no need for a single counterpart.
Limbaugh preaches to the choir. His audience ensures that he will earn enough to push for tax cuts and do whatever is necessary to preserve the tax cuts that he already benefits from. Sure that sounds cynical but he has no motivation to support those less fortunate than himself obtain affordable healthcare because he is concerned that it might raise his taxes. Therein lies the core of his appeal. He is selfish and he uses fearmongering to incite his audience into believing that the ACA will also raise their taxes.
Does Limbaugh have a right to do this? You betcha and I will be the first in line to staunchly defend his right to express himself. Doesn't mean that I agree with what he says but his right to speak is sacrosanct.
Limbaugh's influence is limited and will decline as the voting demographic continues to evolve. His misogyny, homophobia and racism will be unacceptable to the younger and more diverse voters. They don't use the radio as a source of information and if they were to listen to Limbaugh they have the means to instantly fact check his assertions.
Finally the claim that the "left is envious" because they lack someone like Limbaugh is only valid if one needs a single "voice of the party". The diversity of the left means that there will probably always be a chorus of voices harmonizing on the common goal of what is best for the American people and this nation. Even better there will also be voices of dissent to keep the chorus "honest" in those goals.
So yes, Limbaugh is successful at what he does but there is no envy on the left because there is no need for a single counterpart.
The left has been salivating for a quarter century now in the anticipation that "Rush's influence will decline." A quarter century! Who other than Paul Harvey has a track record like that? And yes he 'preaches to the choir' because conservative talk radio and on occasion Fox News is the ONLY media source we have to hear the conservative point of view even expressed, much less expressed honestly and accurately. It is precisely because Rush speaks what we want to hear that he is successful; not because he has any ability to influence any more than anybody else.
Again, look how the lefties come stampeding to a thread like this. They are obsessed with Rush. They can't stand that he is successful. And if there is the slightest downtick in his ratings, they are all over it. Finally, after a quarter century, they are beside themselves that they might get to finally declare Limbaugh a failure. How pathetic is that?
Yes, very occasionally, most especially during hot national debates, he will call up a key figure in the debate for a Q & A, but these are not 'guests' on his show, but people he solicits for information. He had no guests spots on his television show of years ago and he has no guests spots on his radio program. He doesn't need them. His program is pure commentary on current sociopolitics and he has the force of personality and instinct for delivery to hold a broad audience interest while he delivers it.
It is possible that talk radio will eventually fade as something else comes along--nothing stays the same forever--but meanhile the ONLY reason that the left is so obsessed with Rush Limbaugh is purely because he is so successful.
And they can't stand it. And that it is one general definition of envy - a feeling of discontent and/or resentment toward another's advantages, success, possessions, etc., most especially when they have nobody themselves that even come close to that kind of success. And such envy is often coupled with the desire to see the other stumble, fall, and/or fail.
Limbaugh preaches to the choir. His audience ensures that he will earn enough to push for tax cuts and do whatever is necessary to preserve the tax cuts that he already benefits from. Sure that sounds cynical but he has no motivation to support those less fortunate than himself obtain affordable healthcare because he is concerned that it might raise his taxes. Therein lies the core of his appeal. He is selfish and he uses fearmongering to incite his audience into believing that the ACA will also raise their taxes.
Does Limbaugh have a right to do this? You betcha and I will be the first in line to staunchly defend his right to express himself. Doesn't mean that I agree with what he says but his right to speak is sacrosanct.
Limbaugh's influence is limited and will decline as the voting demographic continues to evolve. His misogyny, homophobia and racism will be unacceptable to the younger and more diverse voters. They don't use the radio as a source of information and if they were to listen to Limbaugh they have the means to instantly fact check his assertions.
Finally the claim that the "left is envious" because they lack someone like Limbaugh is only valid if one needs a single "voice of the party". The diversity of the left means that there will probably always be a chorus of voices harmonizing on the common goal of what is best for the American people and this nation. Even better there will also be voices of dissent to keep the chorus "honest" in those goals.
So yes, Limbaugh is successful at what he does but there is no envy on the left because there is no need for a single counterpart.
The left has been salivating for a quarter century now in the anticipation that "Rush's influence will decline." A quarter century! Who other than Paul Harvey has a track record like that? And yes he 'preaches to the choir' because conservative talk radio and on occasion Fox News is the ONLY media source we have to hear the conservative point of view even expressed, much less expressed honestly and accurately. It is precisely because Rush speaks what we want to hear that he is successful; not because he has any ability to influence any more than anybody else.
Again, look how the lefties come stampeding to a thread like this. They are obsessed with Rush. They can't stand that he is successful. And if there is the slightest downtick in his ratings, they are all over it. Finally, after a quarter century, they are beside themselves that they might get to finally declare Limbaugh a failure. How pathetic is that?
Yes, very occasionally, most especially during hot national debates, he will call up a key figure in the debate for a Q & A, but these are not 'guests' on his show, but people he solicits for information. He had no guests spots on his television show of years ago and he has no guests spots on his radio program. He doesn't need them. His program is pure commentary on current sociopolitics and he has the force of personality and instinct for delivery to hold a broad audience interest while he delivers it.
It is possible that talk radio will eventually fade as something else comes along--nothing stays the same forever--but meanhile the ONLY reason that the left is so obsessed with Rush Limbaugh is purely because he is so successful.
And they can't stand it. And that it is one general definition of envy - a feeling of discontent and/or resentment toward another's advantages, success, possessions, etc., most especially when they have nobody themselves that even come close to that kind of success. And such envy is often coupled with the desire to see the other stumble, fall, and/or fail.
Once again Foxy -- feel free to post examples of anyone who's announced they "can't stand that he is successful". As opposed to simply criticizing his ethics.
Like it or not, everybody's free to express their opinions. The same right that allows Limblurb to be a schmuck also allows John Q. Public to mock him for it. That's life in these United States.
The left has been salivating for a quarter century now in the anticipation that "Rush's influence will decline." A quarter century! Who other than Paul Harvey has a track record like that? And yes he 'preaches to the choir' because conservative talk radio and on occasion Fox News is the ONLY media source we have to hear the conservative point of view even expressed, much less expressed honestly and accurately. It is precisely because Rush speaks what we want to hear that he is successful; not because he has any ability to influence any more than anybody else.
Again, look how the lefties come stampeding to a thread like this. They are obsessed with Rush. They can't stand that he is successful. And if there is the slightest downtick in his ratings, they are all over it. Finally, after a quarter century, they are beside themselves that they might get to finally declare Limbaugh a failure. How pathetic is that?
Yes, very occasionally, most especially during hot national debates, he will call up a key figure in the debate for a Q & A, but these are not 'guests' on his show, but people he solicits for information. He had no guests spots on his television show of years ago and he has no guests spots on his radio program. He doesn't need them. His program is pure commentary on current sociopolitics and he has the force of personality and instinct for delivery to hold a broad audience interest while he delivers it.
It is possible that talk radio will eventually fade as something else comes along--nothing stays the same forever--but meanhile the ONLY reason that the left is so obsessed with Rush Limbaugh is purely because he is so successful.
And they can't stand it. And that it is one general definition of envy - a feeling of discontent and/or resentment toward another's advantages, success, possessions, etc., most especially when they have nobody themselves that even come close to that kind of success. And such envy is often coupled with the desire to see the other stumble, fall, and/or fail.
Once again Foxy -- feel free to post examples of anyone who's announced they "can't stand that he is successful". As opposed to simply criticizing his ethics.
Like it or not, everybody's free to express their opinions. The same right that allows Limblurb to be a schmuck also allows John Q. Public to mock him for it. That's life in these United States.
Your words here speak for themselves Pogo. I am not going to go back through this thread and all the other MANY Limbaugh threads to find quotations to make my case. You can read them as well as I can.
The evidence is in the fact that all you lefties come stampeding into any thread that even suggests that Limbaugh might be slipping a bit and you are beside yourselves rubbing your hands with glee and salivating that you finally, after a quarter century, are exonerated in your insistance that he is failing.
The evidence is in your using hateful words to describe him, as you do here, when you don't use such words to describe leftwing commentators who are far more caustic and pointedly personal than Rush ever is. The evidence is in the fact that you allude to criticism of his ethics while providing no evidence or even examples of his ethics that are criticizable. The evidence is in your inability to find ANYTHING commendable about him even while the lefties are obsessed with him. The evidence is in your taking any sound bite you can out of context and holding it up as proof of his sins and refusing to consider the larger issue or concept that he is expressing.
I can go on and on and on. But that should make the point.
Once again Foxy -- feel free to post examples of anyone who's announced they "can't stand that he is successful". As opposed to simply criticizing his ethics.
Like it or not, everybody's free to express their opinions. The same right that allows Limblurb to be a schmuck also allows John Q. Public to mock him for it. That's life in these United States.
Your words here speak for themselves Pogo. I am not going to go back through this thread and all the other MANY Limbaugh threads to find quotations to make my case. You can read them as well as I can.
The evidence is in the fact that all you lefties come stampeding into any thread that even suggests that Limbaugh might be slipping a bit and you are beside yourselves rubbing your hands with glee and salivating that you finally, after a quarter century, are exonerated in your insistance that he is failing.
The evidence is in your using hateful words to describe him, as you do here, when you don't use such words to describe leftwing commentators who are far more caustic and pointedly personal than Rush ever is. The evidence is in the fact that you allude to criticism of his ethics while providing no evidence or even examples of his ethics that are criticizable. The evidence is in your inability to find ANYTHING commendable about him even while the lefties are obsessed with him. The evidence is in your taking any sound bite you can out of context and holding it up as proof of his sins and refusing to consider the larger issue or concept that he is expressing.
I can go on and on and on. But that should make the point.
I see. So you have nothing but loose ideas unconnected to anything. Just "they're out there" and you can "go on and on" with these ethereal unknown posters. That was exactly my point.
I put it to you that the obsession is your own projection. Your entire post is emotional bubbling.
Your words here speak for themselves Pogo. I am not going to go back through this thread and all the other MANY Limbaugh threads to find quotations to make my case. You can read them as well as I can.
The evidence is in the fact that all you lefties come stampeding into any thread that even suggests that Limbaugh might be slipping a bit and you are beside yourselves rubbing your hands with glee and salivating that you finally, after a quarter century, are exonerated in your insistance that he is failing.
The evidence is in your using hateful words to describe him, as you do here, when you don't use such words to describe leftwing commentators who are far more caustic and pointedly personal than Rush ever is. The evidence is in the fact that you allude to criticism of his ethics while providing no evidence or even examples of his ethics that are criticizable. The evidence is in your inability to find ANYTHING commendable about him even while the lefties are obsessed with him. The evidence is in your taking any sound bite you can out of context and holding it up as proof of his sins and refusing to consider the larger issue or concept that he is expressing.
I can go on and on and on. But that should make the point.
I see. So you have nothing but loose ideas unconnected to anything. Just "they're out there" and you can "go on and on" with these ethereal unknown posters. That was exactly my point.
I put it to you that the obsession is your own projection. Your entire post is emotional bubbling.
Whatever floats your boat, Pogo. Your idea of 'loose ideas' though sounds pretty arrogant as well as hypocritical to me.
I see. So you have nothing but loose ideas unconnected to anything. Just "they're out there" and you can "go on and on" with these ethereal unknown posters. That was exactly my point.
I put it to you that the obsession is your own projection. Your entire post is emotional bubbling.
Whatever floats your boat, Pogo. Your idea of 'loose ideas' though sounds pretty arrogant as well as hypocritical to me.
So it's "arrogant" and "hypocritical" to ask "where's the beef" huh?
I need a new dictionary.
Whatever floats your boat, Pogo. Your idea of 'loose ideas' though sounds pretty arrogant as well as hypocritical to me.
So it's "arrogant" and "hypocritical" to ask "where's the beef" huh?
I need a new dictionary.
You appear to be ready to chew off your own left leg if you can't find somebody else's to chew on.
Might you need a break.
and getting no answer.So it's "arrogant" and "hypocritical" to ask "where's the beef" huh?
I need a new dictionary.
You appear to be ready to chew off your own left leg if you can't find somebody else's to chew on.
Might you need a break.
Might be I exposed a simple fallacy just by going
I do that a lot. So sue me.
You appear to be ready to chew off your own left leg if you can't find somebody else's to chew on.
Might you need a break.
Might be I exposed a simple fallacy just by going
I do that a lot. So sue me.
And what about what's happening in the coffee thread?
See, - here's the thing. I'm in a good mood. I don't know what mood you're in. I hate to be rude, but I honestly don't care. But when people start giving me shit over a simple 'thank you for praying for me?' I realize whatever problem they are having isn't actually about me.
If I call them friend, I will ask them what's up. If I don't, I just walk away. So I asked. If you're gonna pretend this is all same old, same old, then /shrug. Have at it. But I'm not gonna stand here and pretend you're not showing your ass a bit today.
I thought Rush and Hannity were off the air by this fall, why are they still on?
Right! The hate monger can dish out his hate, but no one dare dish it back to your MessiahRushie or he and you will cry like babies that everyone is picking on dear sweet little him.The evidence is in your using hateful words to describe him, as you do here, when you don't use such words to describe leftwing commentators who are far more caustic and pointedly personal than Rush ever is. The evidence is in the fact that you allude to criticism of his ethics while providing no evidence or even examples of his ethics that are criticizable.
I thought Rush and Hannity were off the air by this fall, why are they still on?
Well Rush is #1 in all markets. Hannity is not far behind at #2 in all markets. Radio stations who carry them are most likely to be #1 in their respective markets. Our #1 station gained that status by adding Rush to its line up back in the late 80's and has never lost it. It gained even more market share when it added Hannity to follow Rush.
We had only two of the three hours of Hannity for many years, but this past year the station dumped the local afternoon host and replaced him with the last hour of Hannity followed by a new local host who focuses on concepts and principles within the current events as Rush and Hannity do. And voila, their slipping late afternoon ratings were restored.
Having #1 market share is a guarantee to attract advertisers willing to pay top dollar for the time. So I don't think either Rush or Sean are going anywhere as long as they want to keep doing this.
If 100 percent of progressive death cultists hate you, then you're doing something right.
The fact that the mere mention of his name produces hysteria in the lefty masses means he's AOK. Anything that can draw leftist hatred and bigotry out into the light of day is a good thing...and that's the purpose Rush serves. For some reason, you loons are incapable of restraining all your most disgusting impulses upon the mere mention of his name.
It's hilarious. It's like showing a crucifix to nosferatu.
I don't know what you're talking about. For one, I've never met a single person who expresses anything remotely resembling hysteria, or hatred toward Rush.
Personally, I think he comes across as a buffoon, and I never listen to him. But he does have a good scam going because he acknowledges he's an entertainer. Frankly, I don't think he really gives a damn about conservative causes except as a vehicle to enrich himself (which he's definitely doing) since his involvement in politics only seems tangential when it comes to the issues themselves and seems meant primarily as a form of personal self-aggrandizement whenever he appears somewhere. I just don't take him seriously. But I admit that conservatives are afraid to cross him because he can rally people either for or against a particular conservative who crosses him publicly. I find that kind of pathetic, but it sure would be good for his ego.
Rush's relationship to the issues themselves reminds me of what pet rocks was to the long term prospects of capital investment. The point is that Rush may seem influential, but he's just a longer term version of a flash in the pan. I mean, you don't hear about anyone buying Rush CDs of his old shows or anything like that, do you? Of course not. But the Beatles still sell CDs, and people still watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver because they have longstanding popularity. What that means is this: When Rush is finally off the air one day, he'll be yesterday's news no later than tomorrow.
I agree with that read. Limblob's own description of what he does is "to make you mad" so he can "charge confiscatory ad rates". He's a simple snake oil salesman using fallacious rhetoric as his bottle. The whole right-wing schtick is essential as a base for that oil (and keeping a loyal audience) but the ideological bottom line is the literal bottom line. For all his failures of ethics and integrity, Limblob does understand the psychology of what draws audience: emotion. And that he plays like a virtuoso.
I thought Rush and Hannity were off the air by this fall, why are they still on?
