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.
The cheater even manipulated the sales of his book that got him nominated in the first place. He has admitted, over the air, that he bought tens of thousands of his book to give away.Good job in manipulating an internet poll
Lol, this is great stuff!
Yeah because no other author has ever done this right?
But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.
College campuses ? Are you serious ? Do you honestly believe the leftist professors and their mush-brained students would allow him to even step foot on an American campus ?!!!!
But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.
The guy's on the radio. People can listen to him or not as they choose.
But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.
College campuses ? Are you serious ? Do you honestly believe the leftist professors and their mush-brained students would allow him to even step foot on an American campus ?!!!!
If American colleges and universities are so terrible, why do students from all over the world come to America to study in them?
Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.
Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.
Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.
You're the one who cares more about partisan politics than children. You think that because the only example of Rush you know is him talking about politics on the radio, that's the only thing he ever does and has no life outside of his job. You're so consumed by your hatred for the man you can't understand that he just might have other talents and interests. It must be hell being so full of hate.Even though the likelihood is that most of the voting was probably done by adults? Think about it, logically if you can. The fan base for Limbaugh is not children. His fan base is adults, and he focuses on political issues. Without any push from adults, right or left wing, children are not interested in politics. They like a good story and a simple good versus evil theme, which is why Harry Potter novels are so popular.
I am not 'pissed off' by this Limbaugh award, but I find it very, very sad that rightwingers are so rampant in their desire to try to paint America as being behind the kind of thing Limbaugh represents that they would use children this way and try to warp reality. Left on their own, children prefer reading good stories that do not present any specific political slant.
Your post, sj. points out that you care more about partisan politics than children. And, that meshes with the overwhelming impression that the right gives in that they also care more about partisan politics than the good of the country.
That's a very ironic statement coming from you. I believe that the vehement and vicious television and radio people like Limbaugh are mainly at fault for the extreme partisan politics in today's America. Nothing like this was in existence before such people began to be media sensations.
I don't hate Limbaugh because I don't personalize it and because politics is not the center of my life by any means. What does disturb me is the vitriolic and partisan atmosphere that infuses American politics and social issues nowadays. It is destroying America. I don't know who said it, but it goes something like America will destroy itself from within; it will not be destroyed by outside entities. The American people themselves are far more of a threat to the country than Al-Qaeda terrorists, or any kind of terrorist.
People like Limbaugh are responsible for much of the extreme divisiveness in America today. The fact that a book or series of books he wrote, focusing on politics, has been voted by internet readers as most popular simply indicates that people are using political views to slant reality. I know children and I know what they like to read: children are not interested in politics. This 'award' is a false award based on adults who are fans of Limbaugh. It is not based on what children love. Children love stories like Harry Potter. That is the reality.
Review: 'Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims' by Rush Limbaugh - Chicago Tribune
<Rush Revere is the author's alter ego, a substitute middle-school history teacher who dresses like Paul Revere and time-travels with his magical horse named Liberty.
Rush and Liberty, sometimes accompanied by two bright students, go back in time to the Pilgrims' Atlantic crossing on the Mayflower and the establishment of the Plymouth colony. Many of the book's details line up well with historical accounts.
Limbaugh's political viewpoint certainly shows up, but less than you might expect. He even defines "American exceptionalism" in a manner unlikely to offend Rachel Maddow: "It does not mean that we Americans are better than anyone else. It ... means that America is special because it is different from all other countries in history."
Limbaugh, like other conservatives, seizes upon the Pilgrims' story as an example of the terrible things that can happen when people pool their resources in a collectivist manner. The author seems particularly offended by the idea of a "Common House" at Plymouth. To him, the pilgrims suffered from the evils of Common-ism (my word, not Limbaugh's) and survived only by belatedly injecting individualism and free enterprise into their settlement.
>
<Limbaugh is also wrong in the same way that much of American history is wrong in deifying the founding fathers. Limbaugh declares that they "believed all people were born to be free as individuals." The founding fathers were great in many ways, but the fact is, four of the first five presidents owned slaves. If they believed all people should be free, they certainly didn't act on it.>
Almost impossible to even discuss US history without 'opinions'. Somewhat disturbed at some of the ideas Limbaugh seems to present and more concerned about those of the article's author.
Much was said when PBS or NPR produced a cartoon series on US history---many well known celebs were involved. So 'whatever floats your boat'? I watched it a few times--never noticed anything 'upsetting'. Probably miss a lot.
Liberty's Kids
The Theme Song is performed by: Aaron Carter and Kayla I see a land with liberty for all Next thing I know the truth will rise and fall That's just the way it goes A word now to the wise The world was made to change Each day is a surprize I'm looking at life with my own eyes I'm searching for a hero to idolize Feeling the pain as innocence dies I'm looking at life through my own eyes I'll take my heart into battle Give that freedom bell a raddle Get my independence signed Declare for it on the dotted line Let Philadelphia freedom ring and patriotic voices sing Red, White and Blue Never give up You represent America! I'm hoping and praying for a brighter day I listen to my heart and I obey How can I see it any other way? I'm looking at life through my own eyes
No--the leaders of the nation should not have owned slaves. I can only assume that in the process of creating a new nation---there was chaos. No excuse I suppose. I would want my child to think critically about politics.
Based on this, he's delivering a false view of American history, which is not only sad but dangerous.
I jumped from page 3 to here, don't have time or patience to read all the Liberal cesspool garbage, so if this has already been posted, I apologize, but only to Conservatives.
No frigging wonder the World is laughing at us:
Al Sharpton Demands?Voter ID?
I jumped from page 3 to here, don't have time or patience to read all the Liberal cesspool garbage, so if this has already been posted, I apologize, but only to Conservatives.
No frigging wonder the World is laughing at us:
Al Sharpton Demands?Voter ID?
Does the world listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Here's another example:
Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter
Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.
Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.
Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.
Young America's Foundation
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.
Here's another example:
Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter
Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.
Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.
Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.
Young America's Foundation
This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote:To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.
First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.
As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.
Here's another example:
Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter
Young America's Foundation
This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote:First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.
As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.
Boiled down, what he's saying is that Coulter is not a discussant but a troll. We have the same shit flung here, and it's equally ineffectual as argument.
The same applies to Limblob, and always has, which is why he can't be taken seriously. There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument. For a good example, imagine how a conservative tenet might be expressed by Limblob or Coulter, and then imagine William F. Buckley making the same point. There's no contest, even if the point is the same.
Sure, but we have liberals on the other end doing the exact same thing. More notably people like Al Sharpton. And so, when we resort to attacking the person instead of their views, as you have done with both Limbaugh and Coulter, we have conflict of interest here. Why not address the same behavior in your party?There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument.
This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote: First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.
As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.
Boiled down, what he's saying is that Coulter is not a discussant but a troll. We have the same shit flung here, and it's equally ineffectual as argument.
The same applies to Limblob, and always has, which is why he can't be taken seriously. There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument. For a good example, imagine how a conservative tenet might be expressed by Limblob or Coulter, and then imagine William F. Buckley making the same point. There's no contest, even if the point is the same.
"Limblob"
After you just got finished calling Ann Coulter a troll. I don't like Ann Coulter either. She is a prima donna. But if you are going to call Coulter down for being a troll, make sure you refer to Rush by his name, not by a pejorative. Or else, you risk sounding like a troll yourself.
There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument.
Sure, but we have liberals on the other end doing the exact same thing.
More notably people like Al Sharpton. And so, when we resort to attacking the person instead of their views, as you have done with both Limbaugh and Coulter, we have conflict of interest here. Why not address the same behavior in your party?
I can list a slew of examples of liberals employing argumentum ad passiones, namely in the race debate, gay rights, religion, women's rights and etc, and other forms of less than effectual arguments. They simply label dissent as one of four things: hateful, bigoted, racist or misogynistic. These are nothing but emotional crutches as well, used in lieu of an actual argument. They also employ a tactic of ad hominem known as guilt by association. Similar if not identical to Alinskyist tactics of shaming and ridiculing the opposition. Throw a bit of McCarthyism in there to boot. By no means is this a definitive list of left wing debate tactics.
But if a liberal drug addict, obese, drunk, drug smuggler had tried to make himself the hero, we'd never hear the end of it.
He can posture and jiggle all he wants but he is not worthy to call himself Rush Revere.
Really, that's just trashy and exactly what we have all come to expect from him.
Let him write all the books he wants but he is no hero.
