Well...Rush Limbaugh feels liberated!! (1 Viewer)

[Saint77]

How is that possible? He doesn't even actually say anything. He just talks in circles, and mostly about himself. I've never heard a man praise himself so continuously in my entire life.

I'm a conservative, at least in the true political sense of the word, and I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the worst people in the world...in the world.

Ill have to agree with ya there. The interesting thing is that about 1% of the time, the man actually can make a decent point about something, and I mean that with all sincerity.

But the rest of the time, its nothing more then a snide, obnoxious, hardheaded, overinflated egotistical, sometimes subliminally most of the time not, slanderizing demeanor that exudes from his pie hole like water from the oceans. Sadly, enough people are influenced by him to make it a true blight.

At least Franken is just sorta fruity. Not that I like him too much either.

 

[jimwnola]

What a cop out. They didn't deserve your support? Then why did you give it to them?

Pffft.

I didn't hear his show and would have been interested to hear his take. I assume what he means that they don't deserve him having to do all the work of explaining why they should be re-elected, because they should be doing it themselves better. That combined with notion that they aren't even very good at being conservative, but can generally assume he considers them lesser of 2 evils (which is why you still vote for them.) Really for the last few years, if you listened carefully, the only thing Rush really liked from the Reps in Congress was prior tax cuts and support for Iraq.

 

[SaintJ]

I never listen to Limbaugh and could really care less. He and Al Frankin should move in together at a beach cabana in Haiti.

If you're already weirded out about agreeing with Steve, have a seat. I've got some more news for you.

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

I never listen to Limbaugh and could really care less. He and Al Frankin should move in together at a beach cabana in Haiti.

For some hot monkey sex.

 

[SWJJ]

I listen to rush daily, not very many other options for talk radio in Shreveport.

His arrogance makes him far harsher than his views.

He is not so much a parrot of the RNC as much as he is just anti-democrat, He has great satire, though only against the left, if you can stand his arrogance (which is asking a lot) his show is very entertaining.

If you listen regularly, he is not and has not been happy with the republican party, he claims to be conservative, but if you listen enough from time to time, he admits what is REALLY important to him, ratings and money, he says what he needs to say to keep his ratings high.

Telling the truth does not keep ratings high in talk radio, but taking a hardlined hardcore right wing stance has proven successful.

FWIW you cannot listen to Rush regularly and believe he is a part of the "religous right" but he says what he needs to say to keep them listening.

I probably agree with about 66% of what I hear rush say, and he probably only believes that much as well.

Love him or hate him, he's doing something right (no pun intended) he ratings are always at the top.

 

[Redlands Saints]

I never listen to Limbaugh and could really care less. He and Al Frankin should move in together at a beach cabana in Haiti.

now, being a registered Dem who listens to both shows I'm not sure which one irritates me more. their both the same person just different sides of the coin. they are cry babies for their party's and can't see the others side. and you may ask why I would listen to their shows? because you should always know your enemy's plan.

 

[Saintshizzle]

I listen to rush daily, not very many other options for talk radio in Shreveport.

His arrogance makes him far harsher than his views.

He is not so much a parrot of the RNC as much as he is just anti-democrat, He has great satire, though only against the left, if you can stand his arrogance (which is asking a lot) his show is very entertaining.

If you listen regularly, he is not and has not been happy with the republican party, he claims to be conservative, but if you listen enough from time to time, he admits what is REALLY important to him, ratings and money, he says what he needs to say to keep his ratings high.

Telling the truth does not keep ratings high in talk radio, but taking a hardlined hardcore right wing stance has proven successful.

FWIW you cannot listen to Rush regularly and believe he is a part of the "religous right" but he says what he needs to say to keep them listening.

I probably agree with about 66% of what I hear rush say, and he probably only believes that much as well.

Love him or hate him, he's doing something right (no pun intended) he ratings are always at the top.

JJ, you would be hard-pressed to find anything religious about Rush. Doughy, arrogant, windbag are the best adjectives I have heard thus far...but, like the loud-mouthed, misbehaved child in kindergarten - he will get all of the attention from everyone else in class.

It simply was a sad commentary on our nation when the President of the USA goes onto a show like that to persuade Americans to follow his lead.



"Changing the tone in Washington....whatever"

 

[ra]

..........and I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the worst people in the world...in the world.

..... the world.



As long as gay people still can't get married.
That's all I care about.

 

[dapperdan]

Anyone thinking the promise of the Republican House of 1994 derailed by Clinton would be redeemed by unified control under Bush was in for a rude awakening. Gingrich, and Reagan before him, were one-offs. In a $12 trillion economy raised on compassion and "playing well", polarizing figures are passe.

Politics, like wars, are always fought on the models of the last one. Voters simply flail around for a result. Let's try Pelosi now.

The contrarian Pete Beinart of The New Republic assessed Reagan and Bush, and found the latter more conservative in policy matters. The big government Bush initiatives have elements of privatization, albeit in miniature. What galls the Reagan right is that Reagan succeeded, and Bush hasn't. That's Beinart's premise.

I really don't read Mr. Beinart's work very often, I see his name occassionally on the daily list of editorials as I'm making my cyber-rounds on realclearpolitics. But this idea of Mr. Beinert's that Bush is more conservative that Reagan is, well, asinine. From a fiscal standpoint, there are two basic measuring sticks for conservatism: 1) spending policy, and the first metric of spending policy is simply the overall rate of spending growth on non-defense items; 2) tax policy.

On non-defense government spending, Bush is, by all definitions, a big spender, aka a liberal; the most liberal President of my generation, based on spending policies. If social liberalism is defined by the advancement of a central government getting bigger, and claiming more power through socialized spending, then President Bush is the most liberal President since, well, I was going to say Jimmy Carter, but by this definition, he's more liberal than Carter. Hmmm, if I had the time, I'd have to look this one up. He makes Clinton look like Mr. Skinflint when it comes to spending on non-defense items.

On tax policies, Bush has been somewhat more conservative, although a closer look at the actual impact his tax policies have had on the wealthy indicated that Bush's tax policies have resulted in a greater tax burden on the wealthy, not a lessor burden.

If this is the opinion of Mr. Beinart, that Pres. Bush is more conservative than Reagan, but that the conservatism just didn't work; it's clear that Mr. Beinart is making an ideological attempt to distort, and deliberately lie, about the Mr. Bush's policies. A rather pathetic attempt, if I may add.

 

[System Shock]

I can't stand partisan mouthpieces, regardless of affiliation, especially the hypocrits like Rush; you know, the closet drug addict who condemn drug addicts, and probably closet homosexual, since he admittedly went on a "boys trip" to Haiti (or wherever it was)

His statement cleary shows the sad reality of partisan politics. Rather than owning up to the failures of the GOP, he throws the losers under the bus in an attempt to distance himself and the GOP from them. The sheep who listen to him will have no issue accepting it, though.

Funny thing that we demand that athletes playing sports own up to their mistakes and accept blame and responsibility for what happens on a field for our entertainment, but when it comes to politics...

 

[CAVALIER]

He is a hypocrite. Again, if he knew and felt, like I do that the Republican House and Senate betrayed the people who got them there. He should have been honest and gone after them....like Savage......

 

[SoonerJim]

I really don't read Mr. Beinart's work very often, I see his name occassionally on the daily list of editorials as I'm making my cyber-rounds on realclearpolitics. But this idea of Mr. Beinert's that Bush is more conservative that Reagan is, well, asinine. From a fiscal standpoint, there are two basic measuring sticks for conservatism: 1) spending policy, and the first metric of spending policy is simply the overall rate of spending growth on non-defense items; 2) tax policy.

On non-defense government spending, Bush is, by all definitions, a big spender, aka a liberal; the most liberal President of my generation, based on spending policies. If social liberalism is defined by the advancement of a central government getting bigger, and claiming more power through socialized spending, then President Bush is the most liberal President since, well, I was going to say Jimmy Carter, but by this definition, he's more liberal than Carter. Hmmm, if I had the time, I'd have to look this one up. He makes Clinton look like Mr. Skinflint when it comes to spending on non-defense items.

On tax policies, Bush has been somewhat more conservative, although a closer look at the actual impact his tax policies have had on the wealthy indicated that Bush's tax policies have resulted in a greater tax burden on the wealthy, not a lessor burden.

If this is the opinion of Mr. Beinart, that Pres. Bush is more conservative than Reagan, but that the conservatism just didn't work; it's clear that Mr. Beinart is making an ideological attempt to distort, and deliberately lie, about the Mr. Bush's policies. A rather pathetic attempt, if I may add.

I'm going on memory from the article, but Reagan never tackled social sercurity, indeed producing the greatest tax increase in history in 1983. Bush has self-initiative elements in each of his entitlements, albeit not enforced. Unlike Reagan, he never bugged out of Lebanon's equivalent in Iraq, and didn't placate Iran with Bibles and cakes. Bush produced free trade agreements and did not put Kennedy or O'Connor on the USSC. That's for starters.

Beinart's article was provocative, but Reagan is in the pantheon and Bush isn't because expectations are higher. It's the difference between the 1986 Saints and the 1993 team. The first one was just happy to win; the latter was supposed to go to the Super Bowl. Bush had both chambers and a paper majority on the USSC, and here we are.

 

[SaintsFan11]

I NO LONGER HAVE TO CARRY THE WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT'...

What does that even mean? Why does he have to carry the water for people who don't deserve it? It's a free country Rush, and if you don't like America, you can get out.

Unless of course he's being paid by the Republicans.

 

[TPS]

>>He should have been honest and gone after them....like Savage......



Cav,

You know you're my boy and all, but Savage is a kook. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about half the time and half the time left, he makes stuff up to rile people up. I could cite you examples but I already have on the board. I listen to the guy sometimes for laughs, but he might as well be on one of those overnight shows if he really believes some of the stuff he puts out there.

TPS

 

[saintfan]

According to Keither Oberman, he said that he did an interview with Rush, who admitted that he mislead his listeners about some of the candidates, making them sound better than they were, and he was glad they lost. I heard that on the Dan Patrick Show on 1290 am radio this afternoon.

If what Keith said is true, how can we trust what he says anymore? If he mislead his listeners purposely once, how casn we tell if he's not doing it again. He lost a lot of credibility this election.