Reply With Quote
The joke is on those like you who don't!@ anyone taking Rush Limbaugh seriously.
You don't have to like the man, but he has influence. You should at least respect him for that and keep up.
the hate towards Rush's viewpoints in this thread is palatable, but not surprising at all
The joke is on those like you who don't!
You don't have to like the man, but he has influence. You should at least respect him for that and keep up.
Really?
I rarely get a chance to listen to him. Even when I do, I can only stand so much of his overbearing arrogance. However, I have heard him as critical to president Bush as an other republican when they make dumb moves. I would say he's just more respectful to president Bush than a senator, representative, governor, etc.
Wow...
I see you listen to what other people say rather than actually listen to him. He is one smart asshole!
he's an entertainer..
I respect Mr. Limbaugh's success but do not enjoy his performance.
He's a dimwit. Jocular and witty in his own way, but dim.
You can have him.
I sometimes listen to him, but like I said. I can only take so much. You have to understand his style. I used to regularly listen to him starting about 1993. I understand his style and I can assure you, he is very intelligent. Not a dimwit. He has become more arrogant over the years, and I have a hard time with that. On top of that, one things he regularly says just grosses me out. When he refers to his "naked glorious body."
One thing you cannot deny if you actually were to listen to him is how seldom he is wrong when he states and means something as a fact. Hard for the novice listener to know when hes joking sometimes.
He is that too, but that doesn't mean he isn't smart.
I've heard -- strike that -- I've been made to listen to plenty of Rush. You barely get the chance, and you're busting my hump.
Impersonation, strawman and fake outrage is about 90% of what he does. He's a historical dunce, is often incoherent, and he grovels to the party poobahs.
That you think he is smart only inspires me with....
....pity.
Whatever.
I repsect his on-air talent as a comedic demagogue.
I have no respect for anyone who is stupid enough to be influenced by him.
Haven't you listened to his show? Some people listen to his show to get the 'real' news.
I'm a conservative and I actually agree with that. If I'm in the car when he's on I always listen because he is the most entertaining guy on talk radio. Occasionally I agree with him. First and foremost he is an entertainer, but he does wield considerable influence.
Actually I take that back, Michael Savage is the most entertaining guy on the radio. Except for the fact that he's not just saying crazy stuff to be entertaining. He really means it when he says we should use tactical nukes to clean up the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Yeah he does. You totally get what what you see with him.
Savage is smart, knowledgeable, entertaining...and emotionally unstable. In spite of his homicidal truculence and rather extreme intolerance, I find him likeable, and I enjoy listening to his show. I even respect him in a way I never could Rush. Rush is a horrible phony. Savage -- love him or hate him -- is totally genuine.
I disagree, Rush is a terrific phony. Hannity is a horrible phony. I can barely stand to hear him for 5 minutes. He'll beat the war drum about how we have to spread democracy throughout the middle east and then say "What would Reagan do?". Um, Sean you really don't have to guess.
In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:
1.)The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2.)If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3.)Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
4.)Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 01-30-2009 at 04:34 AM.
I stand corrected.
Free Speech... anybody on the left ever heard of that...
Has Rush somehow been prevented from having his say?
The DCCC’s anti-Rush ad is a wonderfully laughable effort. What office is Mr. Limbaugh running for? Who is the Democrat opposing him?
For the last eight years, the Left’s efforts were almost uniformly focused on demonizing former President Bush; now, with him out of the picture, it appears that Mr. Limbaugh is next on the list to be targeted.
That’s fine; every dime and minute spent targeting Mr. Limbaugh is a dime and a minute spent neither opposing a Republican actually running for office, nor articulating a vision for actually leading America forward.
Democrats spent the last eight years opposing the administration and putting forth their best efforts to obstruct progress. Despite the fact that they now hold both the White House and commanding majorities in the House and Senate — and with those, the responsibility to actually produce solutions and sustainable policies that will benefit Americans as a whole — the Democrats seem unable to break out of their habit of behaving like a minority party, pointing fingers, assigning blame, and demanding bipartisan cover for policy proposals they claimed to strongly believe in (just not strongly enough to pass them without opposition support).
No, but let's see what happens with Congress and the FCC in a few months. (Yes, I know the Supreme Court has held that the Fairness Doctrine is generally cons utional.)
Good point.
Eh, flavor of the month. Besides, they're not done bashing Bush yet. Not by a long shot.
The GOP's vision was so convincing, the American people gave Obama a larger majority than Reagan in 1980.
Didn't the Dems strip the legislation of family planning provisions and add more tax cuts at the behest of the opposition?
Regardless, it should comfort you that the Dems still act like the opposition. Once they figure out they don't need the GOP, and start driving the steamroller, it'll irk you even more.
I respect Savage for his honesty. I have zero respect for hannity and hush because they aren't intellectually honest.
Savage is not honest. Savage is a lying fool, and he's mentally unstable.
Hannity is a complete moron. I really dislike his "you're a great American" nonsense and his freedom concerts. I agree with him sometimes, but they say even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Rush is actually pretty smart and entertaining. I think he makes sound arguments when he's being serious. He can be a jerk sometimes. But, overall, he's the best in the business. He's much better than Hannity and Savage; and he's better than anyone the left has to offer.
What does he lie about? I think many of his positions are ridiculously wrong, but that isn't the same thing. And he turned out to be right about GWB being a socialist.
You can't really argue with his success. On whether he's smart I guess we just differ.
Can you give examples of Rush's political astuteness?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions