Even if you don’t read anything else today (apart, of course, from this not-to-be-missed column), you will want to read Rush Limbaugh’s superlative reflections in The Wall Street Journal on the latest liberal libel, the idea that criticizing the Democrats’ big-government agenda is tantamount to 1. sedition (a fancy word for “treason”) and 2. inciting violence.
I know, I know: to hear them tell it, Rush Limbaugh is a barely articulate (or is he a demonically super-articulate?) neanderthal, one of those “bitter” chaps addicted to “guns and religion” that candidate Obama warned about on the campaign trail.
Yet here he is on the editorial page of the nation’s most serious newspaper sounding like a cross between James Madison and George Orwell. How can that be?
Limbaugh begins by recalling that in 1995 President Bill Clinton accused “loud and angry voices” on the airwaves—i.e., folks like Rush Limbaugh—of inciting the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. As Limbaugh puts it, “What self-serving nonsense.”
And the nonsense is not only self-serving, it’s also malignant. I mean, it’s not just this week’s prime example of liberal hypocrisy—“Liberals,” Limbaugh points out, “are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.” Then dissent is “the highest form of patriotism,” it’s OK to festoon walls with Bush=Hitler posters, etc., etc. But move the shoe onto the other foot and suddenly it is “unpatriotic,” even (if you—per impossibile—believe Chris Matthews and Joe Klein) “seditious” to raise questions about the growth of government and the fiscal and national security policies of the present administration.
Purely from a theatrical point of view, you have to admire the way the Alinsky-Left has deployed what Limbaugh calls “the violence card.” Virtually all the real violence has been committed by the Left: The SEIU goons send Kenneth Gladney to the hospital because they don’t like what he says at Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting. Karl Rove goes to Claremont College to talk and someone phones in a bomb threat. Allee Bautsch, Bobby Jindal’s campaign finance director, and her boyfriend are attacked leaving a fundraiser in New Orleans. She suffers a broken leg, he a concussion, fractured nose, and broken jaw.
Thank you Roger for this post about Rush Limbaugh. He so frightens the left that they must hate him; but we conservatives cannot allow the Left to isolate him from the mainstream — he represents the mainstream, and he does it very well. There are even so-called moderates who portray him as an uncivil Neantherthal, which he is certainly not. Thank you again.
The mainstream does NOT side with David Koresh and the branch Davidians. The mainstream hasn’t been divorced three times. Mainstream Americans don’t travel to the Dominican Republic with a fraudulent prescription for Viagra to fuel a weekend of sex tourism.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/07/44888
This guy makes David Vitter look like an adult.
Yawn.
For reals.
“An ad hominem argument, or argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument against the man [or person]“), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. Ad hominem rebuttals are one of the best-known of propagandist tactics.”
Source Watch
Your misrepresentation is laughable. That you feel the need to reply as such is revealing. It tells us the left can’t handle a radio host. What’s ironic is that such attempts by malcontents and a legacy media encourages more people to listen to Rush.
I don’t understand. Why WOULDN’T you travel to the Dominicna Republic for sex tourism?
Try again, skeeziks, your mewling self-righteous diatribe is becoming weaker…. weaker…. weaker….
You have no argument.
Just to let you know…., the mainstream (unlike yourself) do not ride around on Rascals because they weigh 450. The mainstream do not require the state to support them because they are so overweight that they cannot walk….
The mainstream is utter clueless about David Koresh except for the lies and distortions the mainstream media feed us.
The mainstream didn’t have a slew of back surgeries to contend with, nor a highly regulated medical field placing restrictions on treatment and medications that doctors can prescribe without putting their license in jeopardy.
But the mainstream has all sorts of ObamaJugen like you to barf back their “points”.
It’s OK to kill anyone that the mainstream doesn’t side with????
By the way, on any given night Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (which is own by GE) has less than 1 million viewers (he’s at the bottom of the ratings for cable news and at MSNBC). Rush Limbaugh has, according to a conservative estimate by the NYTimes, around twenty millions listeners per week.
Anyway, Keith is a pompous, half-educated ass who should not have given up his job as a sports announcer.
Limbaugh also has the highest unfavorable rating of all national shows. Just so you know. dn if ratings are your sole arbiter of relevance, Spongebob Squarepants comes in 150% above Fox News highest rated show.
2nd ad hominem attack
ad hominem facts . . . if you’re gonna live in denial you should get your dodges straight . .. I suggest you go with “taken out of context.’
Well, they say that you know a man by his enemies.
I would ask you though, “skeeziks” to rebut a single thing that Rush has said. So far you have not addressed a single argument that he has made.
if Rush is such a “nobody” you should not get so excited about this.
Apples and oranges, my bitter friend. If any ADULT viewers are turning to Spongebob for political enlightenment or the news of the day, I really fear for this country.
Toby, you might be on to something. I’ll bet it is the democrat adults that do watch spongebob. A fantasy cartoon for their fantasy lives.
and he (Olberman) is good friends with Dan Patrick.
Well, those of us who, like Rush and Roger, realized that Obama didn’t seem to have a single friend who even liked the United States saw this coming long before November 2008.
I’m of an age to remember when the Menace from the Right was all the news—John Birchers running amok, militiamen maneuvering in the Michigan Hills, Americans for Jesus Christ the Avenger issuing manifestos, the Aryan Nation PsychoMotorcycle Club roaring down our highways, etc.
Then JFK got shot by a Stalinoid Castrophiliac, Weathemammal bombs started going off by the hundreds, RFK shot by a Palestinian Marxoid, Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, all that.
Menace from the Left. Never heard of such a thing. Never happened. Never happens. Can’t happen.
If the proposition that “BHO’s regime is a radical leftist regime” is to be accepted within reasonable limits of uncertainty, then one musat expect violence – all radical leftist regimes were involved with violence history teaches us.
Thus, if you accept this thesis, you must be prepared to address the subject of violence. If violence doesn’t occur by this November and the Dems are soundly defeated, then the hypothesis of radicalism must be rejected, as a false hypothesis.
And as in all cases of social/political theory, this could be a catch-22, self-fulfilling prophesy. In any case, watch out.
Could you continue your thought, please? I have no idea what you just said.
Coolguy: Yours is a good point. Except if you are up on the news the violence has already started. So your point should be ‘if violence increases’. As far as “radical left wing” all you have to do is look at the evidence which is “in your face” is it not?
There will be no apologies to the radicals when they are gone, only good riddance. The American Dog has a bad case of fleas and ticks, parasites that will all try to bite at once before they are irradicated. Any violence that comes from non 2nd hander Americans will be of the defensive nature.
I cannot comprehend how anyone can support a known drug user. Do we have no standards? To think that we have gone from William Frank Buckley Jr, to a doctor shopping, opiate addict that ate so many pills to feed his addiction that he went deaf…and the only reason that he didn’t go to jail is because of those hippy ACLU scum bags defended him.
Is this the face of the Conservative party? A slack jaw, pill popping drug fiend? No thanks. I stick with a real patriot, like Sarah Palin, who I know isn’t hopped up on pills.
Diablo, I’m guessing you belong to the party of tolerance and inclusion. How else would someone try to respond that cannot counter Rush on any point? Ignorance and vile hate, that is the only thing you can reply with. That just proves Rush’s point about dissent must be squashed when it is coming from the right.
Ah yes…if someone tries to hold a public personality to any bit of a morale standard than they must be liberal…wait what?
The inference that I have anything to do with Barrack Obama is insulting.
We can do better than Rush. We have to…our country depends on it.
Diablo/Skeez: Just take any point that Rush made and simply and factually refute it. No need to do the politics of personal destruction although that is all the left can do. Please.
Exactly, and that’s why they come here to begin with. To disrupt that which they cannot refute. If the truth didn’t matter, these radicals would never pay attention, but truth is a threat to their very ideology. Hence the attempt at the interruption. The malcontent’s actions betray their very inner hateful intent.
Diablo: Rush was hooked on persciption pain killers due to a butched surgery. He took a proactive approach and is now clean. Obama did drugs because they were cool, and he needed to prove his cool creds. So according to you, Rush is the bad one. Perfect liberal sense.
Do you mean a known drug user like perhaps… Barrak Hussein Obama? The man who admits in his multiple memoirs that he did many illegal drugs?
Personally, I don’t care if a man did drugs in the past, so long as it is in the past. Do any of us not have things in our past we are ashamed of? I’m usually reluctant to go all biblical, if only because it has a tendency to turn people off and cause them to miss the point, however: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” Jesus Christ.
I have plenty of sin in my past and plenty in my current life.
Are you perfect sir?
Amen!
You Obamabot, leave the good name of Governor Palin out of this, you aren’t fooling anyone; you’re a troll.
3rd ad hominem attack
It’s all they have. The left never did have a cogent argument for letting the federal government take over the private sector.
Liberals are hypocrites.
Liberals ridicule Rush Limbaugh because of his past addiction to Oxycontin. Rush became addicted to the drug because of severe pain after unsuccessful spinal surgery. He successfully completed drug treatment and remains drug free.
Liberals ridicule Glenn Beck because of his past cocaine and alcohol addiction due to recreational drug use. Glenn openly admits that in his past he was making a six figure salary and that money “went up his nose.” His addictions caused him to lose his family, his home, his job; everything he had. He hit bottom. Consequently, he turned his life around.
Liberals conveniently neglect to mention Barak Obama’s recreational drug and alcohol use. As stated in Obama’s own autobiography, Obama smoked marijuana, used cocaine and drank alcohol in high school. High school age is fourteen through eighteen. When a person is a drug and alcohol user at such a young age, do they stop abusing those substances when they go to college? When did Obama stop using those substances for recreation? Did a rehab center help him overcome his drug use? Did he overcome drug use on his own? Has he ever gone back to using drugs as an adult?
Obama is a smoker. Yes, smoking is legal. However, if a conservative were president and also a smoker, they would be eviscerated by liberals. And don’t you know that Obama is smoking in the Oval Office.
If a conservative were to do what Obama does and has done, like George Bush, Sarah Palin, Rush, Beck, etc., the liberal whining would never end. Liberals are such frauds! It is not what laws are broken but who is breaking laws. If a behavior is wrong…it is wrong for everyone.
As it happens, Bill Buckley was a friend and big supporter or Rush, and on more than one occasion invited him to social/political soirees in New York. Buckley was a civilized gentleman who appreciated Rush Limbaugh as a free and kindred spirit.
Rush is a master of seeing through the veils and reading between the lines. I’ve listened to him long enough to have seen many things he has said come to fruition, good and bad. I have 100% trust and faith in what he says.
Diablo:
Apparently you know even less about Buckley than you do about Limbaugh. Buckley was in favor of legalizing recreational drugs and famously “experimented” with marijuana.
BBB
Diablo: Dude, are you a Lefty troll? Do you fear Rush Limbaugh’s ideas?
Limbaugh took the pills for severe back pain. Have you ever had severe back pain?
Obviously, the pills did no damage to his brain.
Conservatives really need to get over the cult of personality around Limbaugh. He’s no Ronald Reagan, dude. He serves a useful purpose in getting out the word (mostly positive and correct, but not entirely so), but he isn’t a candidate, he isn’t the head of the GOP and he isn’t a leader, rather he has a bully pulpit from which he screams at the top of his lungs (metaphorically speaking).
It’s actually the left that needs to “get over the cult of personality around Limbaugh.” Conservatives aren’t worried about it. He’s merely a radio show host. The problem is that he hits a nerve and the leftist crybabies can’t handle it.
If what you say were true, then this article wouldn’t be here. Its existence refutes your argument that its the left that has a cult of personality issue with Limbaugh.
I dig it when Progs come around and tell Conservatives what they need to do.
Thanks, pal. We’ll take it under consideration.
If you think I’m a progressive (as demonstrated by your “Prog” labelling of my comments), then you haven’t been paying attention. Its funny how conservatives always say they are “big tent” in their philosophy until you have the most minor of disagreements with them and then suddenly you’re a “Prog” or a “lib” or whatever ad-hominem of the day feels convenient.
*chuckle* Ad Hominem Attack? gee, like the ones where those of you who are sent completely around the bend by Rush, Beck et al. call them drug addicts and racists and pedophiles?
such a LARGE tent there…
Non sequitur. I have said no such thing.
I gotta admire a guy that causes the effete to have seizures.
They must destroy those who they cannot defeat.
Diablo ….then you must be speaking of that well known, self-confessed drug user – BARACK OBAMA. In one of his books, he speaks of using grass and blow. This known user gets more of a pass than a man who had pain problems that were not properly treated by Doctors. Obviously – Limbaugh was wrong in his mis-use of drugs, but it was for a poorly treated problem, not recreational use the way Barack was using.
So – obviously, a cocaine addict now in the White House is the face of Democrats. Anything goes (for Democrats) – while worrying about abuses that are far less serious than what the Democrats are clearly guilty of. (Can you say HYPOCRITE!!)
You need to be educated:
“The answer (to llegal drug use) is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.” ” – Rush Limbaugh
This from the guy who would drive three miles from his $23 million Palm Beach, Fla., estate to a Denny’s parking lot so that his drug mule/maid could hand over a cigar box concealing dozens of tiny prescription painkillers. The loquacious Limbaugh, his housekeeper says, was often high on “hillbilly heroin.”
In an affidavit she offered that Limbaugh had over 8,000 oxy pills. He was charged with illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions, after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months.”
He successfully bought his way out of a conviction,but as a primary condition of the dismissal, Limbaugh was required to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past 2½ years, Black said. Among other provisions, he also has agreed to pay the state $30,000 to defray its investigative costs.
No comparison to Obama’s fleeting use of recreational drugs (far from a cocaine addict).
I see violence coming, hate is cheap these days; just read the posts.
Among our prophets are two people who, at one point in their lives, were murderers. Yet, we recognize that God is willing and able to turn the ugliest of sinners into holy men. If they admit their guilt and turn from their wickedness, we will forgive them. Let Obama forsake his lies, his arrogance, and his acceptance of worship, and we will likewise reckon him a righteous man.
4th ad hominem attack
These arguments are silly. Chronic Pain is debilitating. Most recrreational drug users are not addicts. Pointing out hypocrisy cuts both ways. Focus on something meaningful….what btw is a skeeziks?
This known user gets more of a pass than a man who had pain problems that were not properly treated by Doctors.
Most people have tried drugs. Big deal. Nobody cares. Obama is perfectly normal.
And in this case Obama isn’t the anti-drug hypocrite zealot who suggests jailing drug users and essentially tossing the key (or words to this same effect.) They should have jailed Limbaugh and added 20 years for violating The Law Of Irony.
“Most people have tried drugs.”
Uh…no they haven’t. But thanks for the generalization.
“Big deal. Nobody cares.”
Yes they do.
“Obama is perfectly normal.”
By the very fact that you have NO way of proving that ‘most people have tried drugs’ then this point of yours is nothing but supposition.
“And in this case Obama isn’t the anti-drug hypocrite zealot who suggests jailing drug users and essentially tossing the key (or words to this same effect.)”
Okay…provide those words. Give us a cite, a url, something…not just your lazy accusation. And by the way…do you not see a difference between someone who freely chooses ILLEGAL drugs for recreation, and someone using a legal but controlled substance to deal with legitimate pain?
“They should have jailed Limbaugh and added 20 years for violating The Law Of Irony.”
And you should get a life sentence for the violent murder of an innocent strawman.
Now the doctors that didn’t treat his condition properly…were they the ones that he was using in the US…or the ones that he used with an illegal forged prescription pad during one of his drug tours the DR? You know…the forged pad that was in his luggage…call me crazy, but I think most people that go on trips don’t need their opiates.
I guess I must apologize to everyone here. I must be crazy when I expect our public personalities to not be complete animals and to hold themselves to some basic human standard. I find it funny that since I think its insane to have a thrice married pill popper leading conservative intellectual thought in the US, it must mean that I support the catastrophe that is the current administration.
Why does no one seem to care that there are sodomites, drug addicts, embezzlers, tax cheats, and every possible spectrum of human scum throughout our society? The level of corruption that voters allow in both parties, as long as these scum say the right buzz words, sickens me. Its people like you that allow the Tea Party to be completely taken over by the same scum that run the GOP. You are just the same as the liberal morons that elected this socialist president. You people are two sides of the same sick coin. Keep lapping up the claptrap from your dope fiend idol. Hell tell you exactly what you want to hear as he keeps getting high behind that microphone…all the way to the bank.
5th ad hominem attack.
I love the comparison to George Orwell, simply because Orwell was a hardcore Anarcho-Syndicalist . Seriously, what inspired that comparison? The two men could not be more different.
He’s no Ronald Reagan, dude.
When did he ever say he was? Reagan was a politician; Limbaugh is a radio personality who has been tremendously effective. Most people are bright enough to figure out the difference without you having to spell it out.
It’s like comparing Jon Stewart to Pelosi. One figure is an entertainer who irritates some and influences and is enjoyed by others; the other is a person who wields very real power and is using it to put the US on the fast track to the poorhouse. You confuse apples and oranges and then accuse others of doing so.
Oh, when the trolls are done hyperventilating about Limbaugh’s past drug use, do they have anything to say about these indisputable facts:
Virtually all the real violence has been committed by the Left: The SEIU goons send Kenneth Gladney to the hospital because they don’t like what he says at Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting. Karl Rove goes to Claremont College to talk and someone phones in a bomb threat. Allee Bautsch, Bobby Jindal’s campaign finance director, and her boyfriend are attacked leaving a fundraiser in New Orleans. She suffers a broken leg, he a concussion, fractured nose, and broken jaw.
No, no, no! Let’s talk some more about how Limbaugh is a druggie!
If that dead horse is all the pissants have, we have nothing to worry about.
That horse ain’t dead. Junkies are like abusive husbands and pedophiles – they can not be rehabilitated, only managed.
Yes, similar to trolls on a pajamas media blog.
It’s a matter of character. He’s a junkie, a philanderer, and a hypocrite. The fact that he’s been able to make millions of red meat conservatives feel conservative is no major accomplishment. Paul McCartney has more money than Rush Limbaugh, so does that mean we should all be vegetarians? Get your principles straight, folks.
Now you want to talk about Gladny and his phony baloney injuries? Let’s do that. He wasn’t sent to the hospital. He was taken there by cry baby tea baggers who saw the chance to play the victim. Nothing more.
I’m not one to hyperventilate about anybody’s past drug use, but thanks for acknowledging Limbaugh’s abiding hypocrisy. I do have a little to say about the supposed “violence” of the left. In case you hadn’t noticed, there has been a string of actual murders in our nation, primarily committed by religiously motivated conservatives. The left may be a little bit violent at times, but the right is positively homicidal on an ongoing basis.
Do you remember Doctor Tiller, who was murdered in cold blood while greeting people at his church?
Do you remember Stephen Tyrone Johns, the guard at the National Holocaust Museum, murdered in cold blood while guarding the entrance to the museum?
Do you remember Matthew Shepard, murdered in cold blood because of his sexuality?
Somehow these events seem more serious than a “bomb threat” to me. You might also remember the events of 9/11, just another example of religiously motivated violence…
I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Peace.
DS
*Love* how you defend Rush and slam Obama for using recreational drugs in college. Wonder what your thoughts are on GWBush and his alleged alcohol/drug abuse until his 40s. So, it’s okay for Rush to be anti-drug, while be addicted to prescription painkillers (Oxycontin) as well as, a few years later, having some blue pills (Viagra) found on his Dominican Republic trip?
Blast the one who used drugs *in college* versus the users in their 50s (Limbaugh) and their 30s/40s (Bush)? I think only two of three on this list were arrested for drug/alcohol, and neither are our current president.
But, I guess the little blue pills were NOT for recreation, right, but to treat something. On a trip. To the DR which is known for its sleazy sex industry.
BHO had only “recreational drugs” in his “youth”… right; that’s why he thinks there are 57 States and has visited all of them, and achieved 3,000% savings with his HC Bill for employers, and that Austrians speak Austrian.
He’s ‘high’ all the time folks, and only God knows what’s in his medical records,… oh I forgot, they’re sealed and hidden from the public, together his REAL birth certificate.
Rush is not a politician. A politico perhaps in the sense he is active…does not hold office, and the official/unofficial leader of NO party that I know of..
He is one of the very few in the US that tells us what is going on in our government. He doesn’t lie about Obama, he does give us the facts. He is like Beck in the sense, that you can go check out the facts.
Do you know that Rush is on illegal drugs for a fact? You speak of his presently getting high behind his microphone… He had problems, lord don’t we all…but to hold that against him..I don’t understand… Obama got high in college..he was elected to the highest office in the land. Rush is merely a commentator, not the leader of the free world.
If you do not like him, turn the station. I do not look to him as a “leader”. I do accept his commentary as a look into my governemnt and the bull $#it that is going on every day.
Perhaps you could offer up someone else that knows as much, can articulate it to us on a daily basis.
Palin is great, I really like her. But, I do not feel she is up to speed on what is going on and able to articulate it to us in the way Rush does.
Drug addicts and sodomites??? Sounds a little bible thumpie. You are looking for excuses because I think you are a leftie out to spew hatred.
Whats wrong with the Bible? If it weren’t for the Bible, many many more people would be flaming liberals with no moral standards.
Your inference that were it not for the bible, noone would have moral standards is a baseless claim. There are many ways to arrive at a philosophical and moral code; the bible holds no unique claim in this regard.
All the Left has for Rush is ad hominem attacks. This is because they have no response to his arguments.
Godspeed, Rush
Ah,the left,how skilled they are at “seeing the speck in someone else’s eye while being unable to see the splinter in their own eye”; paraphrase of Jesus.
It is a skill that comes in quite handy for those who have absolutely no factual evidence to support their policy positions and lack the courage and integrity to look at the issues with intellectual honesty, and whose objective is to win at any cost. Even if that cost is the destruction of America.
Never attack the messege attack the messenger. That is the cowards way of dealing with things. Yes I said coward. It is all too easy to attack any peron for any number of reasons because none of us are perfect. All too often all of us have used this easy tactic. I am not here to defend or demonize what I am here to say is that Rush is correct on substance and analysis of liberal policy. Too often he has also gone for the easy target of personal attack but sometimes it can be forgiven if the person, not the policy, is the issue.
The issue today is not Rush or even Obama but it is the policies that the Obama Administartion have persued and the analysis that Rush has provided. I see very little talk of the policy but too much talk about the person who made the policy or the person who is critical of it. This is how we get distracted. This is how these things we detest can be accomplished because we are distracted.
Rush is our bulwark against the semantic warfare that the Left has conducted since the decade of the Sixties. Rush has a genius for revealing the political manipulativeness behind the Left’s love for neologism. He is very much a philosopher with a specialty in semantics. He is not a politician pushing a particular political line. Most important of all, he is funny when dissecting the idiocy that is to be found in each neologism that the Left offers. He has a great advantage. The Constitution of the United States and its great legacy in the history of congressional legislation and our courts is one bedrock of the that peculiar English language that is American English. So, it is quite easy to reveal that those who would create and add to the Constitution those “positive rights” so dear to Obama’s heart cannot but strike at the heart of our common language.
For all the trolls out here bashing Rush. You understand that you are just supporting our understanding that you are ALL Saul Alinsky accolades. Go after Rush with everything you’ve got, but just once try to refute anything he says. IMPORTANT HINT: Rush prints out everything he says on his radio show. So whenever you misquote him or take him out of context it is exctremely easy to prove you all wrong.
I believe the word you’re looking for is acolyte, not accolade.
Anyone…Everyone,
Please, if you can refute what Rush has to say on his radio show…tell us….
I never have listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. But I know of three newspaper articles that are serious, well-reasoned and rational. I do notice that those who react negatively do not take up the subject matter of his writing. They all want to talk about something else.
I notice that none of those attacking Rush for his drug use, etc., said a word about his ideas or his take on the issues. It is really sad that you have nothing to say on the issues or none of your own ideas to express, but merely take another tiresome opportunity to express your irrational hatred. Your posts reveal more about yourselves than they damage Mr. Limbaugh, whose talent and genius is unsurpassed by anyone in radio, T.V. or print.
It’s odd that Limbaugh is still vilified regarding his oxycontin use but there’s never a word about Obama’s cocaine use. I just don’t understand the selective outrage of the leftists.
Could it be that they are biased? That the left is simply propagandistic in their criticism of the right? Gosh, I’m appalled! The left has always told us that they, not the right, were the fair ones, the concerned ones, the compassionate ones . . . but here they are, ignoring criminality of their side and focusing only on the foibles of the right.
“Rush Limbaugh, Patriot”
Of what nation? I thought he moved to Costa Rica.
24. TriGeek “For all the trolls out here bashing Rush.”
Once again, it’s the trolls vs. the a-holes.
“Of what nation? I thought he moved to Costa Rica.”
Really? When did he say he was moving there?
Cite, please.
Let’s face it, he is an easy target for sad little people, liberals, who are in crisis mode right now with buyers remorse, their hope & change dreams heading toward oblivion, and November elections ticking closer. People like Rush are more and more becoming their nightmare.
I have seen it here in my local paper on line. formerly somewhat calm regular liberal commentors are becoming more and more shrill and angry. Typing in allcaps, multiple exclamation points, and of course the ever popular attacks with required labels of “racist” toward Rush, anyone connected in anyway with FOX, and anyone who may listen or watch them.
I expect their heads to begin exploding long before the mid-terms
I remember in the early 1990′s, when Clinton was elected when the “hatred commentator” came into its own. Rush L. was one of the pioneers of this genre. He deserves to be commended for actually being one of the founders of the movement, the real thing. I really believe all the other “hate the government movements” including the t-party folks, owe this guy for starting the snowball rolling. He truly made “the ugly side of paul harvey” popular. However, as time has passed, old Rush has paid the price. I actually think his drug addiction was caused by the stress and the fact that he suddenly realized the damage he caused, but was not able to face up to because the fame was also an addiction he needed. Personnally, I always saw him as entertainment and there was nobody better to listen to when you were upset with city hall or political correctness was there? I dont listen to him anymore so I do not know if he is still going but 20 years ago, he was truly one of a kind. Good Luck to him !!
The Radio (like politics, newspapers, all media and food) is a buffet. I’ve listened to Rush, agreed with him on some things and not others. I’ve turned the channel when he gets tiresome. The left feels fine with a one-size-fits-all, politics defines opinions. Any who oppose are racists, reactionaries, or any-other-insult-that-comes-to-mind . . .
So, when you don’t have an argument to attack the message, you attack the messenger (and seek to intimidate others). This is why the left is weak
ooookkkk,
So your trying to tell me that Rush L. was all about “a message” and really about understanding, peace and love? rather than hate?
Apparently, your radio was tuned to different channel …than the “rest” of the country. Dude, … in case you don’t get it, the message that R. Limbaugh, Beck and the t-party..”is not” about love
and understanding, trust me. Even they have admitted to that, sheesh, like its some deep concealed secret or something. And by the way, I was actually giving Mr L. a compliment if you read my entire entry. Dont fret…
Wow, such experts on Rush Limbaugh. I doubt any of them have listened to his shows. They do get their talking points from like minded people who also haven’t listened to his show.
Sad little people.
I listen to his show every day. That’s why I don’t trust him. Sad little sheep.
I listen to his show every day.
Oh, sure, moho. That’s why you’ve offered such incisive criticisms of his ideas and stances. Surely a person who listens to him every day would be familiar with what those ideas are rather than focusing on his drug use, personal life etc. Yet not a single lefty on this thread has said one thing about what Limbaugh actually talks about on his show.
Tell me, “skeeziks.” Have you ever made it through an entire day without lying? What’s the norm for you – can you make it through an hour without lying or do you start to feel pressure after 10 minutes?
Name one lie I’ve stated about Limbaugh. Just one.
Isn’t it intersting how the same people who told us “personal life doesn’t matter” when it was William Jefferson Clinton, but it does matter when it’s Rush Limbaugh. If personal life isn’t important when it is the single most powerful man on earth, why does it matter when it’s a Radio Show Host?
Rush cut his teeth criticizing the liberal agenda and continues to polish them on it today. For this they demonize him and anyone who listens to him as a racist bigot. They do this for a reason: to preserve their raw political power.
Anyone who is uncomfortable with this doesn’t understand the finer points of the Democrat politics. If you vote Democratic, you support this, just as the SEIU does.
Rush, on the other hand, can be just as critical of Republicans as he is Democrats. He never comes out and explicitly supports the Minutemen or the Tea Parties, but he does support their causes when they align with preserving the freedoms and liberties of the American people.
Thus, if you support these same freedoms and liberties, you should realize when Democrats demonize Rush Limbaugh, they are demonizing you, too.
Nothing can stand in the way of the Democrat Party’s maniacal quest for power: not Rush Limbaugh, not your freedom and liberty, and certainly not YOU.
Nothing can stand in the way of the Republican Party’s maniacal quest to regain power. You’re sore losers and so have embarked on a scorched earth policy of political and personal attacks. But here’s what you should rally know – November will be a huge disappointment for the right. In 2006 Fox News and its coven of bimbos and pundits were certain that “the tide had turned in favor of the Republicans.” You lost and you lost huge. In 2008 you were similarly enthusiastic and you lost huge.
Will you lose as big this time? No. You will gain a few seats. But Obama and the Democrats will remain in power. And you will have to face that the sleeping giant did indeed awake and voted for progress and innovation over paralysis and fear.
Ah, the androgyne returns to our fold! Skeeziks! Skeeziks! How we have missed your stupidity! I can’t claim to be all that bright or erudite, but you always made me feel like like I was brilliant, if just by dint of your blithering idiocy.
While I’ve got you here I wanted to remind you of the the prostitution that your messiah used to engage in while in the employ of his pimp, a certain slumlord from the windy city…. He’s currently serving time.
But nonetheless, allow me to provide you a visual to stay with you today. It’s a picture of your God on his knees, workin’ it like a pro! Up and down and back and forth, those means streets of the windy city!
It’s like Velvet Underground song!
Doot-do-doot-do-doot, take a walk on the wild side Skeeziks!
I’m glad this struck a chord with you.
I don’t recall talking about the all-consuming need to win elections, but rather “freedoms and liberties” and the need to defend them.
You need to look to your “inner-Nixon” to find the answer to what you seek.
Thanks for the reply.
How much does the DNC pay you to post? I was just curious because I need a job that doesn’t require any thought.
If the Demos maintain Congressional control, we all lose. Again, what is a Skeeziks? Some kind of Venomous bug?
That’s pretty funny, Skeezits! How long did it take you and your friends to begin your “maniacal quest to return to power” after GWB was elected to his first term? Five minutes sounds just about right, doesn’t it?
“You’re sore losers and so have embarked on a scorched earth policy of political and personal attacks.”
———————-
Look up the definition of “hypocrite”. Describes you to a tee!
“November will be a huge disappointment for the right.”
———————–
Combined polling over the last year suggests that you may be ignorant. Or, simply a wishful thinker?
“Will you lose as big this time? No. You will gain a few seats. But Obama and the Democrats will remain in power. And you will have to face that the sleeping giant did indeed awake and voted for progress and innovation over paralysis and fear.”
———————
Have you noticed that there is a new “sleeping giant” awake and walking the land? When an Ostrich is fearful of what it sees, it buries it’s head in the sand. You’re not covered in feathers…are you?
fire your gubs If it were up to me, I’d deport you and every candy-ass half a man redneck who thinks remotely like you. Yep, round you up, confiscate your ’79 Laredo and your mobile home, melt down all your gubs, give you a Bible and a week’s pay (or $100 whichever is higher) put you on a bus, weld the doors shut, and send you down to Honduras.And when you come back to the border, I’m afraid I’ll have to see your papers. What? no papers? You left home without them? Im sorry, unless you have papers to prove you belong here, it’s back to Honduras with you. buh-bye.
The above comments confirm one of Rush’s points: the left is full of hatred which it projects onto those it fears. They obviously have no response to Rush’s facts. Having their ignorance exposed is threatening, because central to the Liberal faith is belief in their own superior intelligence. They react to the threat by using the psychological defense mechanism of projection.
Thanks for the article, Roger.
Come on, Limbaugh couldn’t have written the WSJ article. He’s too crude, hateful, dumb, etc. He had a skilled ghostwriter. Maybe Sarah Palin. You know she has to have a few free minutes every now and then, when she’s not wowing the crowds in Eugene or tormenting Lord Obama. The President should be charging her rent for all that space she occupies in his head. That may explain why angry white man Clinton is still obsessed with Rush.
I used to read a guy named Roger Kimball who wrote interesting and erudite essays on writers like E.M. Cioran and Robert Musil. I don’t know what happened to him. Is he any relation to this other Roger Kimball who is indistinguishable from any number of other hack right-wing populist ideologues? The other Roger Kimball was always worth reading. This one not so much.
Er, you can still read Roger Kimball’s excellent articles on books, art, etc. at the New Criterion website. Kimball writes mostly about politics here because this is mostly a political website. You know, the same person can like Limbaugh and Musil at the same time, it’s not mutually exclusive, except apparently in your narrow, conventional little brain, “Diogenes”.
Man, being a teufelsdrockh clearly has harmed your ability to reason: confusion of genres, of levels of living and thinking, of communication registers…
You should have seen it coming when you chose to become his poop. It happened to so many others in history.
Besides, there’s no greater ‘populist’ than the Devil. He always talks in the name of the “oppressed masses,” haven’t you noticed?
Robert Musil? Who reads him anymore? Der Mann Ohne Eigenschaften is boring, even the second time I read it. I’d like to hear what Roger has to say about Anthony Powell’s A Dance to the Music of Time.
E. M. Cioran:”Each time you find yourself at a turning point, the best thing is to lie down and let hours pass. Resolutions made standing up are worthless: they are dictated either by pride or by fear. Prone, we still know these two scourges, but in a more attenuated, more intemporal form.” Deep!
Mr. Tweed. I respectfully differ with you on Musil. I would be more than happy to hear what the other Roger Kimball has to say on Anthony Powell. As for Cioran, say what you will, bur he is much more interesting than a lowbrow gasbag like Rush Limbaugh. I think the difference between the two Roger Kimballs says a lot about what has happened to American intellectual conservatism in the last 15 years or so.
word gibberish@35: Pathetic.
To all the trolls (skeez, diablo, et al), none of you have yet argued or rebutted anything Rush wrote. There must be something wrong with you-as a group.
Therefore, I have diagnosed your collective problems and I think you all have cerebral impotency deleterium. Unfortunately it is not curable. In fact it is degnerative and will continue until the whole brain is turned into a gelatinous soup. Not to fear though because Obama will have programs for you to live out your remaining years in nice, single rooms replete with crayons and coloring books. He does take care of those who helped him.
Well done article, Roger, thank you.
I don’t understand why the left is afraid of passion, but I’m glad your passion, and Rush’s, are on my side.
The left is afraid that the average tax payer out here will find out what they are up to. They cannot attack the facts so they go after the person telling us.
Politics of personal destruction is their specialty.
Limbaugh is and has never been more than a cynical, hypocritical, rabble rousing, anti-American blowhard, no more, no less.
You see, there’s a heist going on. We have a witness who clearly sees what’s happening and is trying to sound the alarm but the lookouts are making desperate diversions in a bold attempt to keep the proprietors, sleeping above, from being alerted.
Apart from the “character issues” which we know the left doesn’t actually care about and which don’t matter because Limbaugh is not running for not does he hold office, what have they got here? Nada, zip. Blanks and ad hominem.
Come on, lefties. I’d like to see just one of you issue just one [verifiable] fact-based rebuttal to any conservative’s points.
But you can’t. All you can do is spew forth ad hominem attacks, red herrings and hateful diatribes.
Leftists are truly a sad bunch – perpetually angry and miserable, full of hatred and bile towards anyone who is not, yet sure that they know how to run everyone else’s lives when their own are in such disarray.
Rush has so many inconsistencies that it is laughable.
Patriotism: Like so many chicken hawks he is pro war except when his time came. I wonder what the rate of medical deferment was for the well connected (of both parties) vs. the average middle class or lower class kids?
Drugs: Barack used drugs as a young man. I don’t recall that him preaching about the evils of drug use nor discussing how these people who use should be in jail all the time while being an addict. I bet the majority of people in Baracks age group have used pot at least and a significant minority have tried other drugs. You people don’t get hypocrisy and why that is bad. So here it is, Bill Clinton was a skirt chaser but never campaigned on that issue so he is a cad, not a hypocrite. Rush is supposedly pro family and is celebrated by the evangelicals and the Reps yet he is thrice divorced, is a former drug addict, apparently takes viagra on trips to the Dominican Republic (not married and a haven for sex tourism) with his buddies.
Factual things Rush is wrong about: Really, you don’t think you can find any of these. Well the most recent was the mine issue and the union who Rush blamed for not protecting the minors.
There have been so many lies about the recent political things. Energy audits.
16000 IRS agents to make sure people pay for the health program.
Historical screw ups: I’ll just name a few. Who was President when the oil embargos began. The Iraq war.
Do you need more?
Lastly, Rush admits to carrying the water for the Reps when they aren’t conservative and the reason is he is not a conservative, he is a Republican hack. Big difference. He celebrates the stupidest man who has held the top office in the last 100 years and one of the worst presidents ever in GWB. Then the Reps offer up someone even less prepared who is can be proven to be an idiot (won’t do a press conference, can’t rise above petty family disputes and act adult, bizarre story about her youngest kids birth, she was pregnant when she eloped, her oldest son was in trouble back home and went to the military, her daughter was pregnant as a teen, death panels, thought that we needed an exit plan for Iraq before AIPAC got ahold of her, etc….) and Rush champions her.
I left the party in the 90′s because of the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the Evangelicals and despite being a fiscal conservative and having values that would have been Republican prior to this, I cannot fathom supporting this party now. My 81 y.o. father has also left the party. So Rush and his ilk may have some occasional short term benefits but in the long term, this is poison to the party. He is a hack and a bad person.
It amazes me how the Internet Intellectual class claims with absolute certainty that they know the heart and soul of Obama (good) and Limbaugh (bad). I don’t listen to Rush much. But I do listen to Obama. On an arrogance scale I’d rate Obama higher, but maybe not so high as dahbouv. Rush just gets under the liberal skin, but notso much as Coulter who revels in it.
OMG!!! All of us here love Coulter!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We esp love it when the left is reduced to acid attacks with no reasoning in reality!!! I think she could reduce satan to tears over his running of the democrat party..
and we thank God every day for that fact.
the fact??? oh, the one that you left the party of course!!…
Dahbouv@38: Are you for real? Do you really think anyone here will take your vacuous drivel with anything more than a grain of salt? Holy cow.
I see that you get some of the Dem talking points (out dated), and probably listen to Obermann so you think it is cute and permissible to just say mean and patently false things, but in a real debate you will be sliced apart. I’ll leave a more responsive rebuttal to someone else.
Kimbally & Limbaugh, a marriage made in heaven. In fact, give Rush a thesaurus, a copy of Bartlett’s and a few British mannerisms, and you’ve got … RK! Eh, what?
Rush doesn’t need a thesaurus. For a mostly self-educated man, he is brilliant in the plasticity, richness, nuance and insight of his English. I bet you’d never be able to sustain the same level of depth for ten minutes, let alone three hours.
On the other hand, Columbia and Harvard-educated Obama needs a simple dictionary with the right pronunciation to make his way through common English (remember “corpseman”??) or through the most trivial ideas, even with a teleprompter.
Rush is what he is precisely for combining an astute, analytical mind with linguistic brilliance.
Oops! Sorry for the y, Roger.
Take whatever the left-winger has to say or write from the position of knowing that
the person is really “the devil with a halo.”
If you take a transcript of one of Rush’s radio shows and replace the word “liberal” with the word “Jew,” you’ll quickly understand the nature of the man and his appeal. Most of the American right was anti-Semitic before World War II, but after the horrors of that era, the liberals eventually became the magically potent enemy required by a politics of resentment and paranoia. Of course radio politics are not new in this country or across the world, and people like Father Coughlin blazed the trail that Limbaugh would follow later.
I disagree with anybody who disputes Limbaugh’s talent, though, as with that other spectacular performance artist, Beck, Limbaugh has all the ticks of the self-educated. Which probably is a net plus: it allows both Limbaugh and Beck to embody a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like. Between them, in effect, what we have is yet another version of the Duke and Dauphin, though it is unfortunate that the con is not merely financial and that so many Hucks fall for it.
What do you think of the Jewish conservative talk-show host Michael Weiner aka Michael ‘Savage’?
Once the American right, with some exceptions, gave up anti-Semitism, the way was clear for Jewish people to share in the fun if they wanted to. But I wouldn’t make much of Savage one way or the other. He just seems like a very unpleasant guy. I can’t bring myself to listen to him long enough to figure out where he is coming from.
You do understand that I’m not accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic is these parts. The point is precisely that liberals play a role analogous to Jews, not that anybody in these parts dislikes them now that they have become honorary Aryans. And I certainly don’t have any hard feelings about Jews myself. After all, most American Jews are on my side of the fence, as the folks at Commentary endlessly bewail.
Considering it is the left which is most hostile to Israel these days (Obama tossed that country under the bus right quick), I’d say your argument is pretty specious, Mr. Harrison.
Perhaps you can point us to some anti-Semitic Tea Party signs. I didn’t see one at the TP I attended. Can you do that, Jim?
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. The anti- Tea Party reactionaries (and you are reactionaries) are now casting in every direction to discredit the Tea Partiers. They’re toothless rednecks! No, they’re privileged and selfish! Oh, wait, they’re, they’re – anti-Semites like Fr. Coughlin!
Enjoy licking your master’s boots, Mr. Harrison, you pitiful, unmanned little slave.
Donna V, did you graduate from grammar school? Maybe it was a social promotion. Just before your comment I had written “You do understand that I’m not accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic is these parts.” My point wasn’t that tea party types were anti-Semites but that the current right uses the same rhetoric against liberals that their ideological forebears used against Jews.
The Bible teaches to judge not lest ye be judged, meaning to be prepared when you make a judgment that you are no hypocrite. The way the Left is condemning the Tea Party and Conservatives of violence it makes we wonder what bodes if, and when, they lose in November, and 2012.
I predict that AR stock will go up.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/immigration_protest_small_riot_042310
Clearly Limbaugh must be doing something right if he can reduce the sputtering harpies of the left to apoplectic incoherence (as evidenced by some of the guests/trolls that unloaded here). He may very well be a thrice divorced drug addicted satyr in his personal life, but he’s not running for elected office or spending my tax dollars. Be that as it may, I’m not a Limbaugh listener but I read the WSJ piece and none of liberal pixies have addressed nor logically refuted one thing he wrote in the WSJ commentary simply because they can’t.
Gosh, skeeziks, sounds like you haven’t gotten over the incessant bullying you received as a child. Oh! those nasty young conservatives!! Since you have so much trouble forming even one cohesive thought in your retorts I have come along to help you. Here is a phrase you can use – free of charge- that befits your arrested emotional development.”Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo”. Just copy and paste it to any of your future posts. It should relieve some of your apparent mental anguish.
You’re welcome!
Great. Thanks. I’ll use that the next time I’m in church. It’s exactly the kind of insight and contemplation that fits religious clingers.
Like seeziks goes to church. Again, skeeziks – can you make it through a day, or even an hour, without telling a lie or is the leftist complusion to fib just too strong for you? Because it’s pretty clear you’re a compulsive liar- even your multiple niks betray your dishonesty.
Gosh, Donna, you don’t HAVE to be a dumbass to go to church. They still let me people like me in . . . for now.
For a long time the dividing line, as far as I’m concerned, has been between respectable shits who make a face when you mention Rush Limbaugh, and the genuine conservatives who recognize, with no ifs ands or buts, just what a national treasure we have in Rush. Welcome aboard, Roger.
The problem with Limbaugh is that he’s been a sell out.
I appreciate the fact that the guy has been in an almost impossible position for the past 9 years.
But he promised after the 2006 debacle that he would quit carrying water for Republicans if they did not pursue Ronald Reagan conservatism.
Ever since, he has basically been reciting Bush/Rove talking points ad nauseum.
Going so far as to give fake Conservative Karl Rove an hour of air time to promote his book with the equally fake title “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight.”
At some point over the last 9 years, the Limbaugh needed to take a stand. He didn’t do it.
Halsted, the father of American surgery, was addicted to morphine. None of his accomplishments were discredited. Judge Mr. Limbaugh on the merits of his argument.
Halsted, the father of American surgery, was addicted to morphine. None of his accomplishments were discredited. Judge Mr. Limbaugh on the merits of his argument.
What argument? Limbaugh is an entertainer and commentator and has specialised in saying exactly what his audience wants to hear for so many years that he *should* sound like he’s a deep thinker.
e.g. “I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional.”
Nobody seriously asserts that America is in decline other than the far right (the PJM crowd.) And nobody would even think of asserting that this is well-deserved, excepting a handful of wierdo nutjobs like Ward Churchill. And last, Limbaugh appears to be playing the supernatural version of “American Exceptionalism” (we were chosen by god) like a fiddle.
In effect this is a whopper. A huge one. And yet it’s everything you want to hear, all wrapped up with a bow, and it’s utter nonsense. It’s everything one *SHOULD* expect from an ideological commentator and entertainer.
That was easy. Next.
You dance all around the plate, talk a good game but all you’ve got are swings and misses, Alston. We have Obama, in his own words, downplaying America’s exceptionalism. He hasn’t got one friend who has ever loved the country he loves so much? Yeah right.
We have Obama, in his own words, downplaying America’s exceptionalism.
And which version of AE are you referring to? The supernatural one, the ethnic melting pot one, or the one where some scholars reckon AE is the result of a unique situation due to a wild frontier and a continent to tame? What did he downplay? I’m curious; I’ve not heard anything of the sort.
Link?
But when a lot of his argument is getting tough with druggies etc. the drug thing hits his POV pretty hard. If Clinton had made a point of family values and fidelity, his Monica thing would have been even more devastating than it was. I don’t follow Rush closely, but my sense is that he needs the comfy liberal version of forgiveness in order to still be where he is. Has Rush gone to a more forgiving mode? Has he been chastened by his own addiction and law-breaking? You tell me.
I’ll throw my two cents in and say this recent paranoid hysteria on the left reveals them for the cowards we all know they are. They’re not tough, their all empty threat, and they’re running scared because average Americans are realizing just how much these freaks hate us and our traditions, and they instinctively know that our military and police departments are ultimately going to side with their neighbors, who most certainly do not include leftists. Another thing, has anyone ever met a good-natured leftist? The few I’m embarrassed to say I know are effeminate jerks who I no longer have even a shred of tolerance for.
Dan . . . Dan, Dan, Dan . . . why so afraid of liberals? They clearly have you terrified. And even though you sound particularly susceptible to the gay rubbing off them and onto you, rest assured – They don’t hate you and your traditions. They hate your sniveling victimhood, hypocrisy and relentless self righteous moralizing. Other than that, they love you with a Christian love that knows no bounds. Rejoice and be glad, for the kingdom of Fox is at hand.
Hail Rush, Go Sarah!
Hosannah! Opsa la funda munda poltroon. . . samma lamma ding dong possa ro dotta boon . . . . ooo ma ma datsa wuns eeta payl nass
When faced with facts you have on response – “Those are talking points.” When faced with your own hypocrisy, you have one response – “You’re a doody head.”
Here’s is a right-dead certainty. If the Republicans gain majorities in the House and Senate, you won’t take responsibility for the results but will instead blame it on Obama – the opposite of what you did when Democrats had majorities and Bush was president. Certainty #2 – If a Republican gets elected in 2012, you will blame Obama for leaving you an unworkable mess – the opposite of what you did when Obama was elected. Certainty #3 – You will whine like itty bitty rednecks when Democrats filibuster every bill, obstruct every piece of legislation, just like you’ll deny the right to an up or down vote on Obama’s SCOTUS choice, whine against the very thing you demanded with Roberts and Alito.
None of this stuff is a secret. None of it is forgotten.
The question you have to ask is this: Why should anyone care what you think?
Question #2 – Is there anyone here who can refute any of what I just said?
You have no standing.
Sure I’ll take a crack at answering your “questions.”
# 1.The question you have to ask is this: Why should anyone care what you think? (I don’t know about anyone else but it’s very clear YOU must care deeply [I would actually say obsessively so] about what we think, otherwise what could possibly be your motivation for expending so much energy trying to enlighten us with all your irrefutable “facts?”)
# 2. Is there anyone here who can refute any of what I just said?
(Logically, how can one refute a series of conditions dependent on
hypothetical events posited in the years to come?)
# 3. You have no standing.(You need to exercise a little more imagination and literary panache when composing a signatory phrase for your little missives here. Yours is as dull and pedantic as that David S goblin who signs off all his diatribes with “Peace.”)
You call that a crack?
If the Republicans gain majorities in the House and Senate, you won’t take responsibility for the results but will instead blame it on Obama – the opposite of what you did when Democrats had majorities and Bush was president.
No, skeeziks, aka “complusive liar,” actually I blamed GOP losses in 2006 on – the GOP. They had strayed too far from their professed beliefs.
Certainty #2 – If a Republican gets elected in 2012, you will blame Obama for leaving you an unworkable mess – the opposite of what you did when Obama was elected.
Any GOPer who gets elected in 2012 will certainly have his or her work cut out for them, just undoing Obama’s spending spree. I’d be thrilled if they could get us back to a 2002 level of spending. Ideally, I’d like us to get back to a pre-New Deal level of spending, but that won’t happen overnight. I think it will happen eventually, though, because we have run out of people to stick it to. The welfare state is on its last legs due to demographics.
Plenty of Republicans criticized Bush’s spending – and are naturally displeased that Obama has increased that level of spending many times over. You ignore the GOP criticisms of Bush because you are a liar. You must lie constantly, even to yourself, to be able to face yourself in the mirror. What a sad tool, a pathetic sheep you are.
Shame on you Roger for allowing dittoheads to gush about a man who only has a following because Clear Channel/Premier radio took control of the AM Radio market thru changes made by the telecom act of 1996.(a republican controled congress at the time) His show has a large following due to his show being given to radio stations at no charge as long as the station broadcast commercials clear channel promotes. I am sure the May’s & Koch families appreciate you alot.
Yeah, yeah! But what about Rush Limbaugh’s ideas? Could you respond to what he says?
Dittohead in L. A.
They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country.”
If the majority of Americans had instinctively known, in 2008, what you claim (and we certainly COULD or SHOULD have), perhaps we would not be in this current democrat-orchestrated quagmire in which we have so quickly sunk and allowed ourselves to remain trapped. By electing obama and strengthening his democratic base, in effect we injected ourselves with political and economic toxins far worse than those hosted by the deadly ingredients of the highly controversial h1n1 and other vaccines. That said, I completely hope we can significantly reverse the crushing/crumbling legacy of obama and the current democratic majorities in the House and Senate, looming on the American horizon. We MUST rid the White House and the Federal government of this political blight ASAP, or be devastated by the fallout.
Let’s call it the Koorangkoo Rule (#27 above), a corollary to Godwin’s Law (I’d name it after myself, but my name is too well associated with either candy or a principal character in The Terminator):
Anyone who attempts to diminish an argument made by Rush Limbaugh by invoking his use of drugs, fails.
There are many restatements, each could have a namesake:
Anyone who attempts to diminish an argument made by Rush Limbaugh by invoking an accusation of racism or anti-Semitism, fails (especially you, Don Imus).
Anyone who attempts to diminish an argument made by Rush Limbaugh by saying he is rich, fails.
Anyone who attempts to diminish an argument made by Rush Limbaugh by saying he is fat, fails.
There’s probably a secondary restatement of Koorangkoo’s Rule that asserts some reinforcement of Limbaugh’s argument, but there is no need for it.
Anyone who attempts to diminish an argument made by Rush Limbaugh by invoking his use of drugs, fails.
Given that the major focus of the 1996 Dole campaign centered on character and the 2004 anti-Kerry effort centered on character, it’s a safe bet that conservatives think a great deal of one’s character.
Limbaugh’s private drug use contrasted to his public stance speaks a great deal about his character.
What we see today on this site are conservatives who would have no problem with attacking Obama et al on character and then turn right around and dismiss Limbaugh’s lack of character as “well, he’s not running for office.”
Character matters, or it does not. And if it matters, be consistent.
What your detractors are telling you is that you’re hypocrites of the worst sort. Similarly, senators who run off with a secretary are douchebags, but a “family values” preaching senator who does this is a special sort of hypocritical douchebag.
Regarding the “address Rush’s words” meme I did that above. Rush has nothing original to say. He’s a professional commentator and entertainer who makes a living parroting back what his audience wants to hear, no different than Stephen Colbert. After as many years as he’s been doing this he’s also rather good at it. (Expected, of course.) You think what Rush says is “deep” because it’s what you want to hear, all repackaged and handed back to you with a bow on it. Rush has no argument to diminish.
Your making the “character” argument has two critical flaws in it:
1)EVERYONE exhibits character flaws; but all are not judged equally. Limbaugh’s addiction to prescription painkillers is a kind of character flaw or weakness; just like my addiction to smoking is my flaw or weakness. But flaws of this type hurt no one but the individual engaging in the activity. Contrast that with the other types of character flaws that do indeed injure others (and I need not name them for you do I?)
2) The hypocrisy dodge: You make a big case out of comments he may have made in the past about his support of strong legal sanctions for those who use and traffic in illegal drugs. Maybe those comments were made well before he began abusing prescription painkillers. I don’t know the facts there but nevertheless I could raise the same analogy with my cig smoking. I still smoke. Many times I’ve tried to quit. I have failed thus far. I don’t smoke in front of children. However I unreservedly will advise others (mostly young people) DO NOT start on this habit. Does that make me a rank hypocrite or invalidate my advice?
Your making the “character” argument has two critical flaws in it:
Translation: let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I heard this somewhere once.
And you still don’t get it. If it’s OK to assassinate Clinton’s character or Kerry’s character or Obama’s character and dismiss what they say merely because they are people of crap character, the SAME RULE is supposed to apply to all.
Here’s the real world: I don’t like Obama. Crap character. I don’t like Limbaugh. Crap character.
Here’s the alternate reality wingnut world: Oh my, G.L. must be a raving leftist!!! S/he disparages Limbaugh. Obviously s/he’s a socialist, Alinsky-loving tool.
Ever see the “Dogma” movie? It’s impossible to think poorly of Limbaugh AND Obama. The universe may implode.
No, actually I do “get” your point now. You see all manner and variety of character flaws and failings as equal in force, severity and effect. Certainly by your rather rigid standard, we all must be of “crap” character. On the other hand I see it in degrees.
I’ll illustrate it this way: You see Limbaugh as having no (or crap) character because of his drug problem. I see a guy with a drug problem.
On the other hand, I saw Ted Kennedy as a man who was complicit in the death of a young woman and who did everything he could to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. I call that unforgivable “crap” character and reason enough to dismiss him and life’s work as a politician.
You haven’t been listening . . . we diminish Rush because he is black, he’s got big ears, he reads from a teleprompter, he’s from Chicago, his wife has nice arms, he’s skinny, he flies in Air Force 1, and . . . did I mention he’s black?
The argument in this thread that Limbaugh should be eschewed because he had an addiction to pain pills is stupid.
He could be a three-eyed horny toad addicted to marshmallows and it wouldn’t make his observations wrong.
Our leftist trolls have learned their Alinsky well:
* pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and marginalize it
#59 Alana — The argument in this thread that Limbaugh should be eschewed because he had an addiction to pain pills is stupid.
If anybody made that argument, it *would* be stupid. The trouble for you is that nobody has done this.
What’s been pointed out is that conservatives claim that character matters — except, of course, for other conservatives. Apparently you can’t seem to grasp the definition of “hypocrisy.”
Nor, apparently, can you do math. Limbaugh claims 20 million listeners, which of course is inflated. His listeners (or other people who assume that he’s somehow relevant) amount to perhaps 1/3 of the republican vote. He doesn’t even represent the average republican. Limbaugh should be eschewed because he represents the wingnut faction.
Where do you get your facts> the washington post doesn’t count.. character counts? then obama should be out on his face.
…character counts? then obama should be out on his face.
You and I agree. Obama has poor character. I wouldn’t trust him.
Noting that Limbaugh is a bloviating windbag with nothing original to say is NOT an endorsement of Obama. At least in the real world. Here, however, it’s a different story: you either worship at the feet of Limbaugh, or you are accused of being an Obama fan. It’s simply not possible to dislike BOTH. The world may implode.
There’s little as illuminating as watching partisans froth at the mouth over perceived transgressions.
#59 Alana — The argument in this thread that Limbaugh should be eschewed because he had an addiction to pain pills is stupid.
“The trouble for you is that nobody has done this.”
April 23, 2010 – 3:31 pm
April 23, 2010 – 4:50 pm
April 24, 2010 – 8:23 am
And this is just from a casual glance through the comments. There may well be half a dozen more. When “debating” with 0bama’s toadies, be sure to expect blatant lies like these. Was it Lenin who said that the truth is “whatever serves the revolution?” In any case, I think he meant that one should tell plausible lies. Not blatant garbage like what G.L. Alston’s attempting here.
Why are all these children that should be reading the Puff-ho here? They don’t realize how annoying they are, nor how ignorant.
“May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams
Lenin also said this:
“A lie told often enough becomes truth.”
But as for “plausible lies”, the Left’s audacity is limited only by the relative strength of their opposition. IOW: the more they can make us cower with their relentless accusations of “racists!” and “Nazis!”, the more audacious the lies they will push.
For an eye-opening education into the end results of succumbing to the Left’s propaganda campaigns; and the unbelieveable levels to which they’ll sink in their efforts; I suggest reading The Dragons of Expecation by Robert Conquest…in particular, the chapter “Inside the New Society”.
MisterH — No, actually I do “get” your point now. You see all manner and variety of character flaws and failings as equal in force, severity and effect.
No, I don’t, and no, you don’t “get it.”
“Conservatives” bring Limbaugh’s character into play by constantly nattering about how much character matters. This is why when a democrat politician has an affair, everyone thinks he’s a douche. And when the conservative politcian — who screeches about character — does the same thing, he’s a *hypocrite* as well as a douchebag.
To paraphrase Clinton — it’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
No, it isn’t…it’s the narrative, stupid.
“Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Was Bill Clinton – or any Democrat philanderer, for that matter – walking around saying “Hey, I’m cheating on my wife. Just thought everyone should know so that I can’t be labeled a hypocrite.”?
No? Then what were they doing? Appearing in public, making the same protestations about “the sanctity of marriage” and “the importance of family” and everything else that Republicans say. IOW: “screeching about character” whilst being abject hypocrites.
But when it comes to the way that they’re treated in the US news media, you’re absolutely correct that there’s a difference. The difference is that the Democrat is treated like some tragically flawed Greek hero (“Oh, brave Slick Willy/Teddy The Lion/Client Spitzer, if only thy flesh were match for thy noble heart!”) whilst the Republican is treated like…well…we all get the picture.
The only people who expect other human beings to be perfect are you Leftists…and the only people you expect to be perfect are Republicans.
But it is refreshing for a Leftist such as yourself to implicitly admit that you have no expectations of personal character in your Democratic politicians. Then again, that isn’t exactly a new revelation when it comes to the Left’s views of political power. Again, from Comrade Lenin:
“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
“To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; that is not to be taken seriously in politics.”
The question then is this: as the Left’s strangehold on the information streams continues to erode…and people become more informed about its history, tactics, goals, and actions…which message will resonate more? Limbaugh’s or Lenin’s?
I took a step back realizing that I may have annoyed people by bringing up my issues with Rush. Honestly though, if the best argument for someone is that some else did something worse…is that really an argument? My issue with Rush is that he says what is convenient to his audience. He doesn’t believe what he says, let alone practices what he preaches. He is the equivalent of a “right” wing Obama…just a personality to say what his audience wants to hear.
67. Diablo
“My issue with Rush is that he says what is convenient to his audience.”-Diablo
That explains why you believe Ross Perot became America’s 42nd president, eh?
Pick something else to be your “issue with Rush,” Diablo.
He doesn’t believe what he says, let alone practices what he preaches. He is the equivalent of a “right” wing Obama…just a personality to say what his audience wants to hear.
Skeeziks has a real problem with truth tellers. This was an excellent piece of work on Rush’s article in the Wall Street Journal. Rush is and always has been a fair man who as the old Irish motto goes: “Be fair and fear not!”
#68 TARBENDER:SKEEZIKS has a real problem with people who use drugs for medical reasons, as Rush did initially.Unfortunately for him, this attitude has resulted in his syphillis going tertiary!
SKWEEZITS: Keep ranting! You do a entertaining job of demonstrating the left’s impotence vis-a-vis the new media and its icon:RUSH!Must be rough to be both refuted and made a figure of fun!
of guello . . . any word on Jennings yet? Is he still in his job? Perhaps you’d honor us with another does of tertiary certainty vis-s-vis a new prediction. How about the number of seats that swing in November? How about financial reform being passed or not. Immigration reform? Step up to the plate, of guello, you have so many opportunities to be wrong.
We have “stepped up to the plate” in spectacularly effective fashion Zits. We have created a political resistance movement that will will neuter the O’hole in Novenber,and stop the descent of this nation into 3rd world-style Castroism.Tertiary certainty based on nearly 100 years experience with catastrophic socialism is a good place to be vs tertiary Utopianism based on Tertiary denial of historical failures,and the lickspittling of thuggish Marxoid Dweebs.
Sure, whatever that means, but any word on Jennings? You might want to factor these in to your next hallucination:
consumer spending
offshore drilling (I don’t hear anyone saying Drill, baby, drill)
public trust in Obama 15 points higher that GOP
health care reform passed
banking reform passing
stock market up
manufacturing up
Scott Brown a RINO
Rubio a RINO
Crist the next Florida senator
May Day protests (I predict 2.5 bazillion marchers . . it’s true! . . . The university of something or other said so!)
The relentless lies, crying and self righteous moralizing of the Tea Baggers is coming back to bite you . . . somewhere. People have grown weary of your theater, which is all it ever was- a public version of a scripted reality show. You mistook morbid fascination for political relevance. And soon, all that will be left is the slow walk back to the van, your folded lawn chair in hand, dragging your “don’t tread on me flag” along the ground, staring down at your Redwing B-grades wondering where it all went wrong.
Have fun with that.
Reading your farcical rhetoric has been highly entertaining. Bunches of BS with little or no substance. Typical lib — lot’s of attacks with very little ability to actually argue in a substantial way. Oooh … tea baggers… Did you make that up yourself? I wonder how the “violent” tea party protests will compare to the “peaceful” supporters of criminals who will be protesting in the coming days? when it’s done we can compare arrest reports.
Duh Truth . . . Tea Baggers? No, you called yourselves that. Remember? Of course you don’t.
Any violence will be the result of interlopers and infiltrators, conservative plants sent to disrupt the peaceful expression of patriotism.
Now, as to arguing in a substantial way, do me a favor and point out the substantial argument in your post.