More Rush...why the left is envious...

[Foxfyre]

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.

But liberals said earlier this year these guys were toast by the fall. They were losing massive amounts of stations and listeners.

You mean the liberals have been lying...again?

Naw. They're just doing what they always have done - accepting the most destructive rhetoric, policies, concepts, and talking points as gospel and putting their faith on a hope that this time, it might actually work out. They seem incapable of learning from history, reality, or experience. And so far, not one that I have asked to defend a modern day American liberal principle or concept on which policy should be based has been able to do so. And when you ask them to defend it based on real evidence, they more often than not become verbally insulting, hateful, abusive, accusatory and try to focus on somebody else's 'evils'.

Just look at Pogo's non stop hateful rhetoric re Rush Limbaugh. He stated that all he does is criticize Rush's ethics. But when I ask him to name an example of Rush's ethics that are criticizable, he can't do it. He just steps up the hate rhetoric.

 

[edthecynic]

Just look at Pogo's non stop hateful rhetoric re Rush Limbaugh. He stated that all he does is criticize Rush's ethics. But when I ask him to name an example of Rush's ethics that are criticizable, he can't do it. He just steps up the hate rhetoric.

And when I beat him to the punch, you avoided my example like the plague.

 

[Papageorgio]

I thought Rush and Hannity were off the air by this fall, why are they still on?

Reruns.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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 aggrandizement.

.

The same with Art Bell. By the way, the actor who plays psychic Ed Dames also plays many other fake guests. If you listen closely enough, you can tell that they are all"Ed Dames." When playing his other roles, he always adds a weird verbal tick to distract people from realizing who he really is. Rush is a draftdodger, so his patriotism is a scam; he's a drug addict, so his Values agenda is a lot of hot air.

 

[PrometheusBound]

"They ... resent the very existence of a program that’s been wildly successful for 24 years and spawned a powerful conservative talk industry which reaches an overall weekly audience of more than 40 million and which more than 1 in 8 Americans describe as “very credible.”

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy."

"Rather than continuing to compete in the open marketplace, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts."

"The logic seems to suggest that since we’re suffering at the moment then at least we can make you suffer too; we may not be able to help the poor but we can certainly hurt the rich.
"This reflects the similarly resentful attitude toward powerful voices in radio. There, the left argues that since we can’t get our own messages out to millions of enthusiastic fans, then the least we can do is to stop Limbaugh and colleagues from imparting their dangerous messages to an immense and eager audience. At this point, the critics of the conservative talk medium seem far more concerned with shutting up right-wing voices than with raising left-wing voices as a constructive alternative."

Rush Limbaugh: Why the Left Is Envious - The Daily Beast

I've been able to listen to Pumpkin-head a lot this year and quite frankly, I just don't get it. The guy makes these gross generalizations, he jumps to irrational conclusions, many times he doesn't explain his reasoning behind a claim

A clue to that lack of reasoning ability is his "formerly" nicotine-stained hands. How could it be "formerly" when he still smokes cigars? I'm the only one that caught that. I do that because it leads to distrust in the logic in everything else he says.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 aggrandizement.

.

The same with Art Bell. By the way, the actor who plays psychic Ed Dames also plays many other fake guests. If you listen closely enough, you can tell that they are all"Ed Dames." When playing his other roles, he always adds a weird verbal tick to distract people from realizing who he really is. Rush is a draftdodger, so his patriotism is a scam; he's a drug addict, so his Values agenda is a lot of hot air.

So a person has to be the perfect unblemished lamb--sinless and without fault - all knowing, all seeing, and have never made a mistake in order to have any credibility with you?

I would like to see the PROOF that Rush Limbaugh is a draft dodger. No such proof has EVER been produced by any leftwing hack making that claim. Yet we know that Bill Clinton WAS a draft dodger by his own admission. And yet he was qualified to be Commander in Chief and was qualified to comment on many many things, military and otherwise? Do you not see a dichotomy there?

The world's very best counselors for those mired in addiction are recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts. Why? Because they know first hand how it feels, how it works on a person, how it controls them, and how it distorts thinking, and how it twists their values. Shall we say that such people should be disqualified from teaching, counseling, or commenting on the addictions because they were addicts?

Why is it that liberals are so eager to impose qualifications and standards upon conservatives that they absolutely refuse to impose upon one of their own?

 

[Papageorgio]

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 aggrandizement.

.

The same with Art Bell. By the way, the actor who plays psychic Ed Dames also plays many other fake guests. If you listen closely enough, you can tell that they are all"Ed Dames." When playing his other roles, he always adds a weird verbal tick to distract people from realizing who he really is. Rush is a draftdodger, so his patriotism is a scam; he's a drug addict, so his Values agenda is a lot of hot air.

So a person has to be the perfect unblemished lamb--sinless and without fault - all knowing, all seeing, and have never made a mistake in order to have any credibility with you?

I would like to see the PROOF that Rush Limbaugh is a draft dodger. No such proof has EVER been produced by any leftwing hack making that claim. Yet we know that Bill Clinton WAS a draft dodger by his own admission. And yet he was qualified to be Commander in Chief and was qualified to comment on many many things, military and otherwise? Do you not see a dichotomy there?

The world's very best counselors for those mired in addiction are recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts. Why? Because they know first hand how it feels, how it works on a person, how it controls them, and how it distorts thinking, and how it twists their values. Shall we say that such people should be disqualified from teaching, counseling, or commenting on the addictions because they were addicts?

Why is it that liberals are so eager to impose qualifications and standards upon conservatives that they absolutely refuse to impose upon one of their own?

So, you want Clinton held to the same standard as a radio talk show host? How absurd, you know that conservatives are held to a much higher standard than any liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

You can.

Back when I was more conservative, I used to love Rush's show. And sometimes I find it fun to listen to.

I'll give you a great example of Rush's ethics being poor. When Sandra Fluke testified, he called this woman all sorts of vile names, saying that she wanted to be paid to have sex and calling her a slut and a prostitute, merely because she thought that when she paid for health coverage at her university, it needed to include reproductive health coverage.

Now, here's the thing. There is ALMOST a legitimate debate to be had about forcing employers/insurance providers to provide services they have moral objections to.

The problem is, the story became Rush using these horrible words to describe a young woman who merely wanted her opinion to be heard. And he kept doing it because for a couple of days, his ratings spiked as people tuned in too listen. Until his sponsors started cutting ties with him and he half-assed apologized.

 

[Dot Com]

he was amusing to me in the early- 90's until I saw the light. Now, he's a first class hypocrit.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

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.

You can.

Back when I was more conservative, I used to love Rush's show. And sometimes I find it fun to listen to.

I'll give you a great example of Rush's ethics being poor. When Sandra Fluke testified, he called this woman all sorts of vile names, saying that she wanted to be paid to have sex and calling her a slut and a prostitute, merely because she thought that when she paid for health coverage at her university, it needed to include reproductive health coverage.

Now, here's the thing. There is ALMOST a legitimate debate to be had about forcing employers/insurance providers to provide services they have moral objections to.

The problem is, the story became Rush using these horrible words to describe a young woman who merely wanted her opinion to be heard. And he kept doing it because for a couple of days, his ratings spiked as people tuned in too listen. Until his sponsors started cutting ties with him and he half-assed apologized.

He didn't keep doing it, and his ratings didn't spike until the lefties started making a federal case out it. It was another case when he should have thought before he used her as his metaphor to make his point, but the point he made got entirely lost amongst all the faux PC outrage. (We know it was phoney outrage because the same people don't become outraged or even a little miffed when somebody on their side says something far more outrageous.)

So was he guilty of poor taste? Yes he was. Should he have been censured for that. Yes he should have been. Is it an example of poor character? Not in the least.

 

[The T]

The same with Art Bell. By the way, the actor who plays psychic Ed Dames also plays many other fake guests. If you listen closely enough, you can tell that they are all"Ed Dames." When playing his other roles, he always adds a weird verbal tick to distract people from realizing who he really is. Rush is a draftdodger, so his patriotism is a scam; he's a drug addict, so his Values agenda is a lot of hot air.

So a person has to be the perfect unblemished lamb--sinless and without fault - all knowing, all seeing, and have never made a mistake in order to have any credibility with you?

I would like to see the PROOF that Rush Limbaugh is a draft dodger. No such proof has EVER been produced by any leftwing hack making that claim. Yet we know that Bill Clinton WAS a draft dodger by his own admission. And yet he was qualified to be Commander in Chief and was qualified to comment on many many things, military and otherwise? Do you not see a dichotomy there?

The world's very best counselors for those mired in addiction are recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts. Why? Because they know first hand how it feels, how it works on a person, how it controls them, and how it distorts thinking, and how it twists their values. Shall we say that such people should be disqualified from teaching, counseling, or commenting on the addictions because they were addicts?

Why is it that liberals are so eager to impose qualifications and standards upon conservatives that they absolutely refuse to impose upon one of their own?

So, you want Clinton held to the same standard as a radio talk show host? How absurd, you know that conservatives are held to a much higher standard than any liberal.

That's because Statists have moving standards...ANYTHING to keep themselves in power..TRUTH for them is a moving target...

 

[The T]

[

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.

You can.

Back when I was more conservative, I used to love Rush's show. And sometimes I find it fun to listen to.

I'll give you a great example of Rush's ethics being poor. When Sandra Fluke testified, he called this woman all sorts of vile names, saying that she wanted to be paid to have sex and calling her a slut and a prostitute, merely because she thought that when she paid for health coverage at her university, it needed to include reproductive health coverage.

Now, here's the thing. There is ALMOST a legitimate debate to be had about forcing employers/insurance providers to provide services they have moral objections to.

The problem is, the story became Rush using these horrible words to describe a young woman who merely wanted her opinion to be heard. And he kept doing it because for a couple of days, his ratings spiked as people tuned in too listen. Until his sponsors started cutting ties with him and he half-assed apologized.

DUDE? Stop LYING.YOU were NEVER a Conservative by ANY stretch. If anything? YOU are a seminar poster.Did Obama hire you to come post this bildge?

 

[BDBoop]

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.

You can.

Back when I was more conservative, I used to love Rush's show. And sometimes I find it fun to listen to.

I'll give you a great example of Rush's ethics being poor. When Sandra Fluke testified, he called this woman all sorts of vile names, saying that she wanted to be paid to have sex and calling her a slut and a prostitute, merely because she thought that when she paid for health coverage at her university, it needed to include reproductive health coverage.

Now, here's the thing. There is ALMOST a legitimate debate to be had about forcing employers/insurance providers to provide services they have moral objections to.

The problem is, the story became Rush using these horrible words to describe a young woman who merely wanted her opinion to be heard. And he kept doing it because for a couple of days, his ratings spiked as people tuned in too listen. Until his sponsors started cutting ties with him and he half-assed apologized.

He didn't keep doing it, and his ratings didn't spike until the lefties started making a federal case out it. It was another case when he should have thought before he used her as his metaphor to make his point, but the point he made got entirely lost amongst all the faux PC outrage. (We know it was phoney outrage because the same people don't become outraged or even a little miffed when somebody on their side says something far more outrageous.)

So was he guilty of poor taste? Yes he was. Should he have been censured for that. Yes he should have been. Is it an example of poor character? Not in the least.

You know I hold you in high regard. Yes? So. How is it not an example of poor character.

He vilified her. If that had been my daughter, I would have wanted his head on the proverbial platter. He called her damn near every name in the book, questioned her morals, and the bad and ugly went on for days. But that's not an example of poor character?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Please- quit with whining

what is this? The left's new age form of 'Victorianism"
They want to be equal until you pick on them?
Then they are 'delicate flowers'
The radical left pushed her into the political view



Bill Maher calling Palin the "C" word was perfectly fine with most of the left


Frankly, I don't care what she does
But let her buy her own damn condoms and pills
cheap jerk


Damn those Republicans and the shutdown

 

[JoeB131]

[


He didn't keep doing it, and his ratings didn't spike until the lefties started making a federal case out it. It was another case when he should have thought before he used her as his metaphor to make his point, but the point he made got entirely lost amongst all the faux PC outrage. (We know it was phoney outrage because the same people don't become outraged or even a little miffed when somebody on their side says something far more outrageous.)

So was he guilty of poor taste? Yes he was. Should he have been censured for that. Yes he should have been. Is it an example of poor character? Not in the least.

I think calling a woman a "slut" because you disagree with her opinion (which you really didn't understand to start with) is really an example of poor character.

So is denouncing drug abusers and being a drug addict yourself.

So is denouncing lawyers but hiding behind them when you find yourself in trouble.

So is screaming about family values when you are on your fourth marriage.

Is Limbaugh an effective businessman? Yup. Is he a decent human being? Not in the least.

 

[JoeB131]

Please- quit with whining

what is this? The left's new age form of 'Victorianism"
They want to be equal until you pick on them?
Then they are 'delicate flowers'
The radical left pushed her into the political view

Bill Maher calling Palin the "C" word was perfectly fine with most of the left

Frankly, I don't care what she does
But let her buy her own damn condoms and pills
cheap jerk

Damn those Republicans and the shutdown

]

1) Palin is a public figure with some truly ugly views. And she's stupid. Calling her the C-word is appropriate.

2) It wasn't about Fluke being "cheap". It was about the fact that students at Georgetown were paying $30,000 a year to attend, which included health coverage, and that health coverage didn't cover reproductive health services for students. This included a student who needed birth control pills, not because she was having sex, but because she needed treatment for ovarian cysts.

3) Limbaugh apparently thinks you need to take birth control depending on how much sex you have. It makes me wonder if he knows how the lady parts work. Four marriages- no kids. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Neotrotsky]

People who stand to make 6 figures
and are too cheap to buy their own birth control
is pretty ugly

She made herself a public figure, as well

 

[JoeB131]

People who stand to make 6 figures
and are too cheap to buy their own birth control
is pretty ugly

She made herself a public figure, as well
]

Boy, she humiliated your fat dope addict, and you guys just can't get over that.

She paid 30,000 for tuition every year... that should include birth control, no matter what a bunch of religious assholes say.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Too funny, you believe this lie

The prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
Funny, how much of the reactionary left falls for this lie


She humiliated herself, by being used by the Left and not even smart enough to know the full school policy.
So, subsidizing the rich is ok, now ?

The Target store which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus,
offers a generic form of the birth-control pill- month supply $9

I do wonder how did Julia manage during this shutdown?
poor thing....

 

[JoeB131]

Actually,
she humiliated herself.
So, subsidizing the rich is ok, now ?


I do wonder how did Julia manage during this shutdown?
poor thing....

]

It was never a matter of "subsidzing the rich". The insurance companies, usually the most evil bastards in the universe, had no problem with paying for birth control. I mean, why wouldn't they. $300 a year for birth control vs. $3000-$10,000 for a live birth, after which the girl would drop out and stop being a paying customer.

The real tragedy here was that the Catholic Church was ALL FOR ObamaCare when they thought they were going to reep a huge windfall for their hospital business. Then they read the fine print.