Rush is back!

[edthecynic]

Liberal!

December 20, 2007
RUSH: That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer. Don't take me seriously.

January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist. I think what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, "We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."

A couple of things here:

1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.

I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.

2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.

You are correct, but the fat gasbag disagrees with you.

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal


The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler

 

[Osomir]

There sort of is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?

A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum.

So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.

Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.

Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature.

True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.

The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.

I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)

It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions. His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do. He is just less insulting when he says it.

I find it a little odd that you feel they have to be "leftwing" conclusions. If I said the same about Maddow would you accuse me of being a partisan conservative?

Not if you gave me the reasons for your opinions which you still have not done. Nor have you given me a link to those reasons that you said you had posted and that I asked for.

There are plenty of rightwingers who really don't like Rush but they mostly can all state why. And almost always it is not because he 'has harmed our media institutions' or 'brainwashed somebody' or the other leftwing accusations, but it is something like him being a pompous blowhard. I don't challenge statements like that. Those who see him as a pompous blowhard are just being honest in how they see him. They are not accusing him of things he is not or has not done.

Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.

So, if you were not reciting leftwing talking points, you should be able to give me some examples or at least an intelligent reason for how Rush has damaged our media institutions.

 

[edthecynic]

When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.

You mean the Dominican Republic?

No, you empty twit.

He meant Costa Rica.

Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.

Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.

 

[Osomir]

Not if you gave me the reasons for your opinions which you still have not done. Nor have you given me a link to those reasons that you said you had posted and that I asked for.

I listed many reasons already only within the last couple of pages. I also gave an example (his comments on the LRA). I'm not sure what more you'd really like. If you'd like to post up a recent session of his in the thread I suppose I could go through it and point out the specific things I have a problem with.

For the most part though I feel like your misunderstanding of my argument simply comes from you not having read my posts over the past couple pages. Or from a general sense of defensiveness.

And almost always it is not because he 'has harmed our media institutions' or 'brainwashed somebody' or the other leftwing accusations

A couple of things here:

1.) Why is it a leftist thing to care about the integrity of a nation's media institutions? You're rather doing "non-leftists" a grave disservice in that assumption.

2.) I haven't said that he has brainwashed anyone, but I find it telling that you have to rely on strawmen in order to make your point.

but it is something like him being a pompous blowhard. I don't challenge statements like that. Those who see him as a pompous blowhard are just being honest in how they see him. They are not accusing him of things he is not or has not done.

Well I do think he is a pompous blowhard, but that in and of itself isn't my rub with him. It's that I don't think emotive discourse such as his or any journalistic "personality" has a place within our media. It detracts from what media is actually here to do and instead is what makes him an entertainer and not a journalist.

Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.

Now this just strikes me as a partisan inspired gross stereotype / generalization and an overall desperate argument to make.

 

[Papageorgio]

Pogo, I owe you an apology, Franken parted ways with AirAmerica after it was bought out of bankruptcy. Management could no longer pay Franken the $2 million a year is had been receiving. Most hosts with his ratings were in the $400,000 range. So they didn't part ways because of ratings, it was a money issue.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You mean the Dominican Republic?

No, you empty twit.

He meant Costa Rica.

Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.

Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.

I love how you nitwits who detest all things Rush seem to be so "in the loop" about shit like when and where he vacations.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, I owe you an apology, Franken parted ways with AirAmerica after it was bought out of bankruptcy. Management could no longer pay Franken the $2 million a year is had been receiving. Most hosts with his ratings were in the $400,000 range. So they didn't part ways because of ratings, it was a money issue.

You know I never steer you wrong.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There sort of is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?

A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum.

So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.

Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.

Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature.

True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.

The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.

I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)

It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.

I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.

So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation.

Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.

 

[Pogo]

Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.

Um... where's the basis for this one, Foxy?

 

[Pogo]

There sort of is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?

A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum.

So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.

Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.

Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature.

True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.

The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.

I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)

It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.

I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.

So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation.

Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.

And that's exactly why political labels suck.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.

Here's the problem.

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?

Good for the GOP? Not really.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, you empty twit.

He meant Costa Rica.

Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.

Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.

I love how you nitwits who detest all things Rush seem to be so "in the loop" about shit like when and where he vacations.

They sure spend a lot of time watching and listening to him. I don't know anything about him anymore. I haven't heard him in years, just what is posted on this board.

 

[JoeB131]

Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a bad thing?

No wonder you suck at business.

Depends on why he went into the business.

Frankly, what's the point of having a radiio show if no one listens to you because the technology sucks?

Oh, incidently, I'm not the one who crashed the fucking economy. That would be YOUR industry.

And you're a bigot.

Any more non sequiturs you wish to dive into?

Not a non-squitor, guy... you keep telling me how genius you are, but your industy is the one that fucked everything up. And then demanded a bailout.

Oh, hey, how did that Nominating a Freakish Cult Member work out for you guys, anyway?

 

[Papageorgio]

[

Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.

Here's the problem.

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?

Good for the GOP? Not really.

He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.

What Mahar said about Palin was deeply insulting to women, except the political allies being what they are, Dems don't get the heat for stupid things said. It's about spin and Dems spin sexism better.

Dems should be happy and grateful Limbaugh is on the air, it gets them votes.

Yet all they do is bitch, bitch, bitch about him.

 

[Pogo]

[

Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.

Here's the problem.

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?

Good for the GOP? Not really.

He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.

So did Father Coughlin.

By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
Quite a stretch, innit?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.

Here's the problem.

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?

Good for the GOP? Not really.

He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.

Well, no, he really didn't. But that wasn't the point I was making. Let's see what else you are going to talk about to avoid the point I was making.

What Mahar said about Palin was deeply insulting to women, except the political allies being what they are, Dems don't get the heat for stupid things said. It's about spin and Dems spin sexism better.

First Palin is an office holder, so it isn't the same thing. Most women think Palin is a C-word. That's what happens when you wag your finger at working women like she does and act like you are better when you live in the Meth Capital of Alaska.

Dems should be happy and grateful Limbaugh is on the air, it gets them votes.

I'm not a Democrat, so I wouldn't know. But to the point, what he does do is toxify the environment.

The way it should work in politics is you have an election. You get an idea where the people are, then you sit down and make deals and get things done. but because you have toxic characters like Limbaugh ready to jump down the throats of the few sane Republicans that there are left, that isn't happening. So we get debt downgrades, we get sequesters, because the business of government can't get done.

How is this a good thing? (THis is your chance to prove to me you aren't nuts.)

Yet all they do is bitch, bitch, bitch about him.

As well they should. The man is a pig. and a hypocrite.

 

[JoeB131]

He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.

So did Father Coughlin.

By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
Quite a stretch, innit?

DUDE!!!!

AWESOME Reference. I totally owe you some Rep for that.

 

[Osomir]

I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.

I'm firmly of the belief that's not where most people reside. What I think happens is that we can understand and contextualize the political, economic, and spiritual diversity within ourselves, but when it comes to looking at others we tend to oversimplify them and cram them into a convenient per-concieved understanding of label x, y, z, q, etc depending on what our initial impressions are. There are actually biological reasons for this as well. Simply put correlation is good for us as an evolutionary trait, particularly when there isn't perfect knowledge of a thing. Something glowing red may be hot so I'm not going to touch it! Animals that growl and have sharp teeth may hurt you so be cautious! Brightly colored reptiles may be poisonous so beware! Not perfect examples because they are pretty simplistic compared to the depth of political, economic, and spiritual views, but it is a common human tendencies to categorize things, people and beliefs included. That becomes problematic though because when we fill in the blanks for these vastly more complex topics we have a much greater mathematical chance of getting it wrong, or of grossly over simplifying.

I don't even think it particularly malicious, it is merely a tendency of all of ours that we have to keep in mind so that we can reserve judgement and seek out better information on which to base our opinions, beliefs, and actions.

So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation.

And I think that's the way many people see most people, but when you ask them about themselves they'll usually claim to be an exception, or "not like that", and once again I think that is because of the above condition based on information asymmetry.

Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.

I think it matters less simply because we ignore it for the above stated convenience reasons, and one problem that I have with media personalities is that those people tap into those oversimplifications and two dimensional labeling and exploit it for profit or to further there own image. And these are often times very smart people, aka people who should know better.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here's the problem.

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?

Good for the GOP? Not really.

He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.

So did Father Coughlin.

By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
Quite a stretch, innit?

So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.

Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?

So you don't think both are offensive to women?