# Rush Limbaugh



## Paraíso

Hola, 

I don't know if this question comes here... sorry if it doesn't.

But I felt disturbed by the web page of an American I had never heard before, called Rush Limbaugh. Is he important in the USA? Has he got influence in public opinion? Does he have economic interests in order to hold those abrasive points of view?

Thank you for the help


----------



## Kajjo

He is quite popular and an ultra-conservative. See Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I do not know more details. Some natives surely will. This is an interesting discussing of Limbaugh's weird conception of reality.

In Germany, we came to know about him because of his ravings about Michael J. Fox putatively _acting_ his Parkinson disease. I reckon this comment of Limbaugh as utterly disgusting and certainly wrong.

Kajjo


----------



## invictaspirit

I'm sure an American poster will be of more help to you than I can be: I'm just going on what American friends say, and my experiences while vacationing in the USA.

Rush Limbaugh is a popular radio show host, whose show is 'syndicated' across America's local radio stations.  He is a deliberately provocative, right-wing tub-thumper.  You will be alarmed to note, and I'm sure an American poster will confirm this, that Limbaugh is considered one of the more moderate right-wing radio hosts.  There are more extreme versions.

My purely personal observation is that he is a semi-educated loud-mouth.  His callers seem to be trained in Rush-worship.  I'm not sure whether I am right on this one, but I have never heard a caller phone in and properly debate with him or call him out.  They always agree, or present to him some scandalous 'liberal' (Americans use the word 'liberal' to mean socialist/progressive/left) plot so that he can spout on it.

Recently there have been some 'liberal' radio hosts to even up the balance, but until a couple of years ago, the Limbaugh-type was far more often heard.


----------



## Paraíso

Thank you, Kajjo, the link is very useful. 

In Spain we have a sort of small Limbaugh called Federico Jiménez Losantos, though his effort is dedicated in full to criticize the government.


----------



## invictaspirit

One of our commercial radio news/sports networks in the UK is unashamedly right wing and Limbaugh-like.  The difference is that our right-wing windbags encourage left-wing windbags to call in...so you actually hear a real debate of sorts.  Limbaugh always sounds scripted, his callers selected.


----------



## GenJen54

Rush Limbaugh is a misogynistic, hypocritical boor who uses bully tactics to intimidate people into agreeing with his points of view. And those are his nice qualities. 

Many people, who are afraid to look at other points of view, take his word, and the word of equally or even more-conservative talk show hosts, as gospel.

The influence he wields is scary indeed, although it has been indicated that his ratings are dropping, which frankly is a good thing. 

I don't mind radio hosts espousing their points of view, no matter how conservative. I do mind the churlish, bellicose, finger-pointing and name-calling. He acts like a schoolyard bully and those who follow him follow suit.

Case in point: Rush railed the actor Michael J. Fox for daring to bare the severity of his Parkinson's condition in an advertisment supporting a democratic candidate who is pro stem-cell research. He accused Mr. Fox of acting and/or under-medicating himself in an effort to maximize the spasms and jerks his body makes because of his disease.

After huge public outcry and backlash against his remarks, he apologized, citing that perhaps he was wrong about Mr. Fox and the severity of his condition. He then proceeded to rail against him for allowing himself - and his disease - to be exploited for a political cause.

In short, Limbaugh will use almost any "scare" or bully tactic to get his point across, and he does not care who or what he hurts in an effort to do it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Limbaugh is a shallow blowhard, and, to his credit, he is very effective at making those who agree with him feel good about themselves.

His chief technique is victimization.  He tells his listeners, who seem very prone to agree with him, that they are under attack by "the mainstream liberal media".  The "mainstream liberal media" doesn't exist, as most of the media in the US with a fairly broad reach is either conservative or namby-pamby centrist.  He spent days yelling and whining about a sporting event show in which a woman's nipple may have been exposed to view for a second.  This, according to Limbaugh, was a direct attack on the moral well-being of an entire nation.  

He is a racist, a bigot, and a fine manipulator of the opinions of those who read little, and think less.  If George Bush is for something, RL will support it.  

He was arrested for illegal possesion of prescription drugs, but he doesn't talk about that very much.  

He tells people that (1)they are right to be concerned about the evils of liberalism/progressivism/The Evil Democratic Party; (2)he is very smart, so if they agree with him, the listeners are also very smart; (3)there is a huge international conspiracy trying to undo the noble way of life RL and his listeners believe in.

He also makes money selling neckties.


----------



## TrentinaNE

GenJen54 said:


> supporting a *D*emocratic candidate.


Ciao, GenJen.

I think the capital D is essential here.  

Elisabetta


----------



## djchak

Since people have already responded, and told you what he's about...let me say a few things.

He grew in popularity during the Clinton years. And got more and more outrageous. During that time, many republicans/conservatives saw themselves as the "underdogs" in the situation. Rush was a sort of entertainment for some of them for a while, until it got old hat. By then he had a dedicated core crowd.


While he is popular...he isn't important or influential, any more than Howard Stern would be. He's a shock jock, and if there wasn't anyone in the Democrats/Libarals/other countries to demonize, he would just demonize other conservatives for not being moderate enough.

This is how he makes money. Entertainer to the end.


----------



## Paraíso

almostfreebird said:


> I had a same question before and figured it out for myself, for reference:
> [Mod note: Please don't link YouTube if the clip contains copyrighted material, thanks ]


 
Amazing !!!

What's the difference between a dictatorship and his claims against immigrants? 
Anyway, I guess he must be taken for a clown, though I guess some people don' t, which might be dangerous.


----------



## Poetic Device

Actually, a large amount of the Republican Community (at least in my area) at least used to adore him.  Even for those who I know as uber right-wingers have found him to become more obnoxious.  At one point he was awesome, though (at least for a laugh).  I personally stopped listening to him a few years ago.


----------



## JamesM

I agree with every characterization above: semi-educated loudmouth, popular but not powerful, scripted calls. I would add manipulative, self-aggrandizing, arrogant, and single-minded to a fault. 

I think he taps into an undercurrent of resentment in many who are upset by the rapid pace of change in the world these days and who are disaffected by the loss of jobs and general feeling of decline in the standard of living in the U.S. for the average worker (although statistics don't prove out the feeling.) He's a consummate showman and has no qualms with distorting other people's words in order to bolster his own image. It is an act that has grown old, even with his staunch supporters.

Of course, his recent drug problems have tarnished his image somewhat as defender of the Wholesome American Way.

I heard a recent local moderately conservative talk show host defending Limbaugh after the recent media firestorm about Michael J. Fox, saying that the man apologized immediately after a commercial break when he realized he'd stepped over the line.  That was no apology.  If you read the text of the "apology", he says that he owes Michael J. Fox a huge apology *if* he is wrong.  That's not an apology; that's a CYA hedge, in my opinion. 

He reminds me very much of the character Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, who says, "If there's anything in this universe bigger than my ego, I want it caught and shot."


----------



## Benjy

almostfreebird said:


> Is this clip copyrighted?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk&eurl



No, it's not. Please watch it and stop winding me up by posting other copyrighted content. 

Thanks.


----------



## emma42

Please, what does "CYA" mean?


----------



## GenJen54

emma42 said:


> Please, what does "CYA" mean?


It's short for "Cover Your Ass."  In other words, do what you need to do to protect yourself.  It's a popular workplace euphemism.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Genjen.


----------



## don maico

invictaspirit said:


> One of our commercial radio news/sports networks in the UK is unashamedly right wing and Limbaugh-like.  The difference is that our right-wing windbags encourage left-wing windbags to call in...so you actually hear a real debate of sorts.  Limbaugh always sounds scripted, his callers selected.



Would that be Talk Sport?


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Limbaugh is a shallow blowhard, and, to his credit, he is very effective at making those who agree with him feel good about themselves.
> 
> His chief technique is victimization. He tells his listeners, who seem very prone to agree with him, that they are under attack by "the mainstream liberal media". The "mainstream liberal media" doesn't exist, as most of the media in the US with a fairly broad reach is either conservative or namby-pamby centrist. He spent days yelling and whining about a sporting event show in which a woman's nipple may have been exposed to view for a second. This, according to Limbaugh, was a direct attack on the moral well-being of an entire nation.
> 
> He is a racist, a bigot, and a fine manipulator of the opinions of those who read little, and think less. If George Bush is for something, RL will support it.
> 
> He was arrested for illegal possesion of prescription drugs, but he doesn't talk about that very much.
> 
> He tells people that (1)they are right to be concerned about the evils of liberalism/progressivism/The Evil Democratic Party; (2)he is very smart, so if they agree with him, the listeners are also very smart; (3)there is a huge international conspiracy trying to undo the noble way of life RL and his listeners believe in.
> 
> He also makes money selling neckties.


We saw him on _60 Minutes_ along with an interview with Michael J Fox, who is very brave!

One book I would like to read if I could find it, is, _Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot _by Al Franken (I think).


----------



## ps139

Kajjo said:


> In Germany, we came to know about him because of his ravings about Michael J. Fox putatively _acting_ his Parkinson disease. I reckon this comment of Limbaugh as utterly disgusting and certainly wrong.


To be fair, Limbaugh said that in a recent pro-Democrat political commercial, he thought Fox either was acting _or _purposely did not take his medication. 

Fox has publically admitted in the past to not taking his medication before speaking about Parkinsons, in order to give the audience a real view of what Parkinsons is like.

Take that for what it's worth.


----------



## Tsoman

He's obviously not an idiot if he makes so much money


----------



## djchak

You can be a rich idiot regardless of what you do. It's totally subjective anyway.


----------



## Tsoman

You can be a rich idiot, yes, but Rush seems to know how to whip up a public frenzy that is profitable to him


----------



## cuchuflete

almostfreebird said:


> [Mod note: Please don't link YouTube if the clip contains copyrighted material, thanks ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this clip copyrighted?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk&eurl=
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look at the bottom of the screen on which that clip was displayed?   If you did, you would have found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright © 2006 YouTube, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . That's ambiguous.  It may refer to the content provided by youtube, and not to the video.  There is no indication that the video itself is copyright protected.  In fact the content suggests that it is not.
> 
> 
> The link that was deleted was to an obviously infringing clip.  If you followed the
> URL at the bottom of that clip to its source site, you would have found a very clear and strong copyright claim.
> 
> As the second clip you linked states, youtube carries both infringing and non-infringing material.
> For the protection of WR, we will delete any links to material that infringes the law, or that is ambiguous, but likely to be an infringement.  If you do not want your posts deleted, you will take the time and trouble to try to avoid copyright legal issues.
Click to expand...


----------



## ps139

Tsoman said:


> He's obviously not an idiot if he makes so much money


That, and if you want to receive his newsletter, or hear archived shows, you need to be a member of the "Limbaugh Club." That rubs me the wrong way... if someone is financially very successful (i.e. he probably does not need the extra money) and claims to have a message that needs to get out there... how can you charge for that? Of course, radio is free, but if I had enough cash and I wanted a certain message out, I would make it as available as possible.


----------



## Victoria32

ps139 said:


> Of course, radio is free, but if I had enough cash and I wanted a certain message out, I would make it as available as possible.


That does seem much more logical...


----------



## Aoyama

All of what has been said above about this guy is sadly right. The real enigma here is how is it possible to become a radio talk show host with such a low level of intelligence (or intellect). That must be in America ...

I remember, 6 or 7 years ago, someone phoned RL during his show, claiming he wanted to write a book about him. RL, very flattered, started to say that he would be very glad to help. The other side then said : "I don't really need your help, what I'm trying to show is that there is _absolutely no thinking, whatsoever, in what you're saying (...) _". Abrupt end of discussion. Someone must have gotten into trouble at the station, later on ...


----------



## badgrammar

OMG.  Limbaugh.  

Every time I go back to Texas, *I *end up *listen*ing *to him* on KLBJ talk radio.  

It is some sort of sick and twisted thing I do to myself, perhaps a way to confront the fact that although I live in France and am lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent, thinking human beings, there is a sort of otherness out there that exists.  This otherness listens to Limbaugh and agrees with him.  _Edited to add:  This is not to say that in the U.S. everybody listens to Limbaugh and agrees - I think he is very extreme and appeals only to a certain part of the population.  Sorry if I was unclear.  There are also lots of idiots in France and everywhere else...
_
It is the best technique I know to come face-to-face with the horrible reality that is hate-mongering, mono-cultural diatribe, and a sort of political conservatism/patriotism that has nothing to do with actual political views and/or love of country.  It's a real head-banging trip.

So when I'm in tha car in Texas (which, by definition, is quite a big chunk of one's time in Texas) I inflict Rush Limbaugh upon myself, so that I may remember that the real enemy is indeed still out there and still fooling a lot of people.

Bleck.  Scary.


----------



## djchak

But, that's like listening to *Jean-Marie Le Pen* and thinking that he represents all of France. Not fair at all.


----------



## JamesM

djchak said:


> But, that's like listening to *Jean-Marie Le Pen* and thinking that he represents all of France. Not fair at all.


 
Very true.


----------



## badgrammar

Not true at all, I said I listen to it because it is a window into what non-like-minded people are up to.  Never would I intimate that Rush Limbaugh is representative of all Americans' attitude.  I'm American.  It's not my attitude.  And in the U.S. I always surrounded myself with people who have similar political orientations, just as I do in France (I certainly do not rub elbows with anyone who would vote for Le Pen, either).  So I know it's not everyone's attitude.

By listening to the drivel spewed by Limbaugh, I get insight into opinions and ideas that I would not hear anywhere else.

Know thine enemy to better defend oneself, no?


----------



## badgrammar

Sorry, I see now that in the way I wrote my first post I could be interpreted as saying that in France everyone is intelleigent and like-minded, while the US at large represents this "otherness".  That is not what I meant to say, I should have been more careful there...  Too late to edit?


----------



## djchak

Why did you mention the fact that you listened to is while you were in TEXAS?

Don't you think, in retrospect, that might sound a little like an insinuation of texas?

It's like me talking about listening to Lois Farrakhan whenever I drove through Chicago...


----------



## Poetic Device

I'm personally finding it amazing that no one like this guy.  How is it that he is still on the air?  He can't possibly have _that much _money?  What about his ratings?  They should be so low it's not even funny and by that alonehe should be off the air.


----------



## badgrammar

Djack, I'm from Texas.  I'm a Texan.  Born and raised. My family is in Texas.  I know Texas.  I love a lot of things about Texas.  I strongly dislike a lot of things as well.  Rush Limbaugh is not from Texas, I think he works out of Ohio or something.  He's about as Southern as an Alaskan King Crab. 

Insinuation?  My only insinuation is that when I visit the states (coincidentally it's almost always Texas, if you hadn't guessed by now), I subject myself to listening to this radio show.   Being from Texas is just part of my personality and I often mention it in my posts.  Maybe I'm even a little bit (or a lot) proud of it, in spite of it all... 

Poetic, I tend to think that the kind of people who enjoy Rush just don't spend a lot of time hanging out on forums like this one, where debate is pertinent and moderated...  His ratings seem to be just great!


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> I'm personally finding it amazing that no one like this guy. How is it that he is still on the air? He can't possibly have _that much _money? What about his ratings? They should be so low it's not even funny and by that alonehe should be off the air.


 
It's a demographics issue.  I don't think you'll find that much overlap between the Rush Limbaugh audience and people who discuss cultural differences on an internet board.     I think it's important to keep that in in mind when discussing any topic here - the sample of opinions is not necessarily representative of the public at large.

He is still popular, to be sure, but from many sources I get the impression that his popularity is waning, one of them being the station in Los Angeles that airs his program.


----------



## AngelEyes

There are millions of Americans who love Rush Limbaugh. I can't say I love him, but I agree with him most of the time.

He's arrogant and ego-centered. He's also brilliant and specific when he makes his opinions known on the air. He gives concrete reasons why he thinks the way he does, he goes after all Democrats and, piece by piece, dissects and extrapolates the issues they are talking about, never leaving any doubt why he believes they are wrong.

If he finds inconsistencies in any political figure's statements and opinions, he plays the talking points that highlight these facts from that person to drive his point home to his audience. A lot of his hot air is made up of logical facts, figures, statements, proof of authenticity, and just plain old common sense.

I believe any Democrat would be welcomed with open arms on his show to debate their side of any issue. All they have to do is ask. And they would have, at their disposal, the biggest American radio audience in the world to hear them and the brilliant things they have to say.

He doesn't care if you agree with him; you can turn the channel if you don't. He is American pompousness at its most prolific.

Regarding Michael J. Fox and Rush's insensitive comments. I think that was a terrible blunder, though Michael has admitted publicly that he DOESN'T take his medication ON PURPOSE when he sometimes appears in public because he wants to highlight the truly horrific effects of his disease, and he wants people to see the unvarnished truth of it in its brutal,naked form. I don't know if that was the case when he taped those political spots. 

Whether you agree with him, politically, or not, Rush's statements were hurtful, damaging to the Republicans in general, and a stupid move on his part to say in the first place. Nothing was gained in this pre-election contest, and more negative vibrations now cover the Conservative Party.

Rush lives in the Florida Keys. He does his show from home.

Whether you hate him or not, you should know that millions of Americans think he's wonderful.

AngelEyes


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> I can't say I love him, but I agree with him most of the time.
> 
> ... Nothing was gained in this pre-election contest, and more negative vibrations now cover* the Conservative Party*.



Well, you seem to agree with him in confusing the Conservative Party, which exists in some states in the US, with what you and Mr. Limbaugh erroneously think is a conservative party: the GOP.   Since when do conservative principles include the massive intrusion of "No child left behind", which is an assault on states' rights?  Bush II used to rail against such things when he was Gov. of Texas.  How about that classical conservative dedication to fiscal responsibility?  How is the Republican mandated deficit spending conservative?

I know people who listen to Limbaugh and feel good because they agree with him.  I've never heard one of them express affection for him.  Others share my viewpoint: he is mostly wrong, but very effective at what he does.  I couldn't be bothered hating him, any more than I would waste time or energy hating a politician with whom I disagree.  

To love or hate a radio entertainer or political spokesperson is to have a very superficial sense of what love and hatred are all about.


----------



## AngelEyes

Uh,Uh...I'm not going to get in a pissing match with the Liberals on this Board. LOL

You think what you want; I'll think what I want.

And God bless America that we all can.

AngelEyes


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> Uh,Uh...I'm not going to get in a pissing match with the Liberals on this Board. LOL




That is so typical of Limbaugh.  He doesn't ever take on a direct question and reply with a direct answer.  He calls people "liberals", which to him means anyone who dares to disagree with him.  Then he chuckles, oh-so-knowingly, and changes the subject.   It's not real debate, it is devoid of facts, it's not informative, and it plays well with pseudo-conservatives who don't know that conservatism is a lot different from knee-jerk agreement with the regime in power.  

There are conservative radio talk shows that despise Democrats, and also roundly criticize Bush and company for their betrayal of conservative principles.  You are welcome to love Bush, and to agree with Limbaugh, but when you call either a conservative, you are re-inventing the word to suit your beliefs.  It's about as inaccurate as calling Clinton a liberal.  Superficial labels, sloppily applied with a broad brush, are typical of Limbaugh's style.  They play well with audiences that don't want to take the trouble to ascertain the facts, or do their own thinking.


----------



## AngelEyes

I want the members on this Board around the world to know that this is how divided our country is now.

The above poster is mad - all Liberals and Democrats are mad right now because their guys aren't in power. Well, that will probably change very soon and then they can take the ball and run with it.

I have very strong opinions; I'm not an idiot who's afraid of debate. But I just don't want to up the strength on my Inderal because my blood pressure shoots through the roof as a result of banging my head up against the door of opposing viewpoints.

I posted my opinion about the man to give balance to the discussion. From this thread's tone, it sounds as if no one likes Rush or enjoys his program. It was giving a skewed version of the reality of it all in this country. That's simply not true. I was stating my opinion for all the international readers who are visiting this site.

Once again, you're entitled to your opinion. 

I'm just not in the mood to counterattack your opinion.

If you hold on just a little longer, I'm sure your opportunity to gloat will arrive, and then you and the Democrats can solve all our serious problems.

I hope when that happens, I'll be nicer to you.

AngelEyes


----------



## SpiceMan

May I contribute with a funny, if not sad, link  ? 

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/


----------



## Victoria32

AngelEyes said:


> The above poster is mad - all Liberals and Democrats are mad right now because their guys aren't in power. Well, that will probably change very soon and then they can take the ball and run with it.
> 
> 
> AngelEyes


Oh... misunderstanding here... you mean AE 'mad', = angry! I was momentarily very confused!


----------



## Edwin

AngelEyes said:


> The above poster is mad - all Liberals and Democrats are mad right now because their guys aren't in power.



Why make it a Liberals versus Conservatives, Democrats versus Republicans thing?

Could it be that many people --liberals, Democrats, conservatives and Republicans are angry right now with the way the Republicans in Congress and in the Administration are running things?  

Are *you* happy with the actions of the current Congress and Administration in the USA?


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator note:  The topic is Rush Limbaugh.  Please make at least a passing effort to tie your thoughts to that.


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:


> Moderator note:  The topic is Rush Limbaugh.  Please make at least a passing effort to tie your thoughts to that.



Cuchu, really, I prefer not to tie my thoughts to Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## emma42

"The above poster is mad.  All liberals and democrats are mad right now because their guys aren't in power".

"I'm just not in the mood to counterattack your opinion".

"...I'm sure your opportunity to gloat will arrive..."

Now I understand how "hot air" can be "made up of logical facts, figures, statements, proof of authenticity, and just plain old common sense".  I had thought the statement contradictory.

It seems that Mr Limbaugh's influence is alive and well.


----------



## badgrammar

Yes well, it is Limbaugh's technique to pick a topic, give his slant on it, and then basically call anyone who disagrees with him a "liberal".  The word "liberal" has taken on a new meaning when used by him or by posters like Angeleyes.  It has nothing to do with the actual definition of "liberal", but okay, it basically it means anyone who is not republican.  

So once someone is labeled with this word "liberal", nothing else they say has any validity.  They can have strong arguments, backed up with all the facts in the world, but if they are labeled as "liberals", then nothing they say will matter.  

That is Rush Limbaugh's technique, and if you don't agree with him, he is abusive, obtuse and simpy cuts you off.  He doesn't give a rat's tush about "logical facts, figures, statements, proof of authenticity" and certainly doesn't worry about "plain old common sense".

He is scary, and those who listen to him and agree with him are not very thinking individuals.  That is my opinion.


----------



## emma42

Good points.  I have not had the pleasure of listening to Mr Limbaugh, but, from what forer@s are saying, there are one or two "shock jocks" in this country who employ the same dishonest and essentially unintelligent techniques.


----------



## cuchuflete

As his avid (no, I didn't say rabid) fans might point out, he has millions of loyal listeners.  He constantly tells them that they are all under attack by sundry evil conspiracies.  That motivates them to feel righteous.  He tries to sell them neckties.  He plea bargains for his drug law violations[wiser than doing time...] .  He goes to rehab [A very good idea if one has an addiction...  ].He sneers, and intentionally mispronounces the names of prominent members of the opposition, trying to make them sound "foreign".  "Foreign", as any red-blooded Thatcherite or lover of J. Edgar Hoover knows, is inherently baaaaaaad, daaaaaaangerous.  

He is an embarassment to true conservatives.


----------



## badgrammar

Well put, Cuchu.  He does a great job of making those he disagrees with sound and look like stupid and/or bad people.  It's a very basic, bullyish approach, but it certainly seems to work.  

He is a master in the art of namecalling...  I find that ironic, because it is something we teach our children not to do.  We teach them to respect others even when they are disagree.  We teach them not to just go off and say "Oh yeah, well you're a poopoohead/white trash/a dork".

Anyway, even if the other person has a solid argument, he will just mow them down, and long before he would allow some reasonable person to make a valid opposing argument, he'd just call them "Another liberal, off the wall nut case" and hang up.  

He IS an embarassment to true conservatives, and I would love to know if he really understands the terms himself.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's take a specific case to see what Limbaugh would have to say. Imagine a US President who wanted to put 230 million acres of public land aside as game and bird preserves. That comes to about 84 thousand acreas per day in office for that President.  Limbaugh has written, "If you ever doubted me when I said that the militant environmentalists were anti-people New Age mystics, this article should prove my case."  He also stated on his radio show, "The Earth's eco-system is not fragile."

This same President, in early days as a legislator, worked to pass laws to improve the lot of poor people living in slums. Limbaugh would attack him as a native New Yorker and Ivy League graduate.  

This President went after some abuses of unfettered capitalism, which Limbaugh thinks is divinely inspired.  He has defended Microsoft against antitrust charges.


How inconvenient that the President in question was a Conservative with a capital C...gent named Theodore Roosevelt.


----------



## Poetic Device

Wait, stupid question. Doesn't he claim to be a conservative?  Isn't he going more towards facism?  (NOTE:  That is an _honest_ question and not a stab at facists or any other political party and its members.)


----------



## invictaspirit

This might be my naivety as a foreigner...but do people think Limbaugh actaully BELIEVES half the stuff he spouts? I think the guy is onto a good thing as an *entertainer*, pure and simple.

What he says is so....simplistic and base. It's so willfully, joyfully idiotic. It is anti-clever.

Our true versions of Limbaugh here in the UK are not our radio shock-jocks but a couple of low-class newspapers. _The Sun_ is the prime example. I thought for many years it was so uttetly inane that its journalists couldn't possibly believe what they wrote. A few years ago I met two of them. Ehm...they don't. They just know that scandal and childish inane crap with a conservative twist sells copy to a certain type of lump.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if Limbaugh was actually a moderate...or at least more intelligent than he sounds.


----------



## tvdxer

Limbaugh is probably one of the most famous talk show hosts in American radio history, if not the most famous.  He has thousands and thousands of devoted fans, called "Dittoheads".

I personally don't care for his style or for some of the things he says.  But the reality is the liberal talk show hosts aren't any better.  I've heard them before on Air America (a floundering left-wing talk radio network) - Mike Malloy comes to mind, but there are others as well.  They're just as whiny and as abrasive as Rush.  And I don't think whiny, abrasive, loudmouthed talk radio is necessarily a left- or right-wing thing (though the right has been much more successful with their shows).  It's more a matter of selling space to advertisers, who want to air their commercials on the most popular programs.  Programs that embrace careful reasoning, calm, even intonation, and full sentences don't seem to be particularly popular with a large portion of the American audience, who seems to lack the attention span necessary to enjoy them.


----------



## emma42

Yes, I have often wondered if such persons as Sun journalists actually believe anything they write.  I think they actually do, even if they deny it to themselves, for the simple reason that by writing what they write they are, in fact, lending support to right-wing viewpoints, and all that engenders.

I have just realised there is a third possibility - they don't support anything - right, left or middle-wing, apart from their own egos.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> Wait, stupid question. Doesn't he claim to be a conservative?  Isn't he going more towards facism?  (NOTE:  That is an _honest_ question and not a stab at facists or any other political party and its members.)



Not a stupid question at all. He *claims *to be a conservative.  He may or may not know what the word means.  He claims all sorts of untrue things...browse the web for lots of examples of "Limbaugh facts" and the inconvenient "other facts" that show him to be either ignorant, or just a good entertainer.  If his claims about trees are as accurate as his claims to be a conservative, he may well be a lefty pinko Librul hippy in disguise.    Remember, this thrice-divorced fellow is a strong advocate of family values.   Ever wonder which family he is thinking of?  

No, he is not a fascist.  His economic "ideas" do not include state control, unless it's for no-bid contracts for Halliburton.  



> “The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down”


----------



## Paraíso

I would like to know something about this sort of entertainers / journalists / gurus... Have people like Limbaugh make anyone in the U.S. question the freedom of press / expression? I mean... if anyone can say whatever they want, especially when tending to close to fascism ideas or spreading proved lies. 
Or is it beyond discussion ?


----------



## cuchuflete

Paraíso,
Anyone can say whatever they want, no matter how stupid.  There are libel laws to invoke if the statements made are intentionally malicious and false.  

Limbaugh himself has called for the explusion from the country of those who disagree with him, but I doubt that he was even half serious.  If all of his "enemies" were removed, he would be unable to appeal to the paranoia of his listeners.

I think it is a wild exaggeration to say that Limbaugh is "close to fascism".  He often says things that are untrue, unreasonable, small-minded, stupid, and intentionally outrageous, but that has nothing to do with fascism.  As tvdxer pointed out, there are shows on the other end of the political spectrum that do the same thing.  

Part of our legal system and political tradition allows idiots and actors to say what they like.  That's a good thing, most of the time.  When it's not a good thing, it's part of the price of freedom.


----------



## Paraíso

Cuchuflete, Ok, it was just a question.

Anyway, maybe he doesn't believe less than half of what he's saying, and he's mainly making money, but I'm sure that some of his listeners do believe his words. Nobody becomes so popular only by performing a clown. 

What you said about freedom made me think about something... wasn't it after Janet Jackson's superbowl 'exhibition' that TV had a some seconds retardation to cut any inconvenient image? Some call it censorship.


----------



## Poetic Device

Cuchuflete,
I didn't mean anything by the facist comment.  I never listen to him so I don't know.  I was just looking to get a better idea.  I'm sorry.  :^_(


----------



## emma42

Paraiso, I too am absolutely sure that some of his listeners believe his words.  That's why, despite what some of us may see as Limbaugh's inanity, lack of perspective,  call it what you will - people like him are dangerous.  They appeal to some people's fears, worries, prejudices and, under guise of "common-sense" and "patriotism" and "righteousness", cause damage.

I have not heard Limbaugh, but am starting from the premise that he is similar to, for example, Sun (British tabloid newspaper) journalists.


----------



## ps139

tvdxer said:


> Limbaugh is probably one of the most famous talk show hosts in American radio history, if not the most famous.  He has thousands and thousands of devoted fans, called "Dittoheads".
> 
> I personally don't care for his style or for some of the things he says.  But the reality is the liberal talk show hosts aren't any better.  I've heard them before on Air America (a floundering left-wing talk radio network) - Mike Malloy comes to mind, but there are others as well.  They're just as whiny and as abrasive as Rush.  And I don't think whiny, abrasive, loudmouthed talk radio is necessarily a left- or right-wing thing (though the right has been much more successful with their shows).  It's more a matter of selling space to advertisers, who want to air their commercials on the most popular programs.  Programs that embrace careful reasoning, calm, even intonation, and full sentences don't seem to be particularly popular with a large portion of the American audience, who seems to lack the attention span necessary to enjoy them.



I agree with you tvdxer. The more I listen to talk radio, the more disgusted I am in general. I regularly listen to the conservative station's cast of characters: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, etc. And I regularly listen to Air America's Rhodes, Franken and the guy on "Politically Direct." It is like they are talking about 2 different countries. 

Politics are full of corruption. Each group (lib and consv.) rips apart and highlights the mistakes of the other. They both call each other "unpatriotic" and both accuse each other of "not supporting the troops." When a Republican does something bad you rarely hear the conservatives even acknowledge it, if they do, they spin it and make it not his fault. And if a liberal does something bad, its either not mentioned, or spun into nonsense.

Honestly, it's almost as if these people are paid by both parties to defend them and disseminate the party talking points.

I am really sick of it, there are 2 guys I consider more moderate/independent (Andrew Wilcow and Brian Whitman) and then there is the morning show with Don Imus, a self described Republican who loathes Bush - he tells it as he sees it - but he doesn't always talk politics so I wouldn't group him in the same category.

Anyway, I am sick of it all. I keep listening to both because I figure that by hearing both extremes it might lead me toward some truthful middle position... but it is just really sad how bad these people get sometimes.


----------



## Paraíso

emma42 said:


> Yes, I have often wondered if such persons as Sun journalists actually believe anything they write.
> (...)
> I have just realised there is a third possibility - they don't support anything - right, left or middle-wing, apart from their own egos.


 
I agree with you,

I think many journalists leave politics aside and write according to the ideologic line of their newspaper or TV or radio and so on. We must think that neutrality doesn't exist, at least if you want to sell newspapers and get governments, firms and politians to insert ads and finance 'extra numbers'. So every media has its ideology and political tendency and it's impossible more than 50% of the journalists share it.

Maybe at first it can be a bit disgusting, but afterwards... the feeding of the ego is such a great pleasure and a stronger feeling than ideology. Also you have that once you get to know how politics and politicians work, you realise how rotten is everything and you can work happily just to satisfy the hungry ego, get paid with no remorse and get an interested public.

I don't talk about all journalists, but I know many and I've often seen that attitude.


----------



## Lusitania

Tsoman said:


> He's obviously not an idiot if he makes so much money


 

That's the scary part: there are so many like him.

He invented the term Feminazi and the nicest thing I heard from him towards feminists was "feminist cow". He is awful. It's unbelievable how he became so famous.


----------



## almostfreebird

There're people who become famous(notorious) unexpectedly like him(Rush Limbaugh) and get a lot of money and then it becomes his job, he will continue as long as he could. But that does'nt mean he could change the world , however he could give some kind of catharsis to his big fans.


----------



## djchak

Lusitania said:


> That's the scary part: there are so many like him.
> 
> He invented the term Feminazi and the nicest thing I heard from him towards feminists was "feminist cow". He is awful. It's unbelievable how he became so famous.




But...that's why he became so famous.

He "entertains" people by showing his resentment towards certain groups, and zeros in on the really radical ones. Look at the flipside...people like Andrea Dworkin.... so we have radical people (in the US especially...their numbers are small, but they have the loudest mouths) and Rush just has to make a few mean arguments and skits to make some money.

And the more people he "outraged",the bigger he got. 

He makes the most money whenever there in a non republican, moderate government. He made a KILLING during the Clinton years.


----------



## cuchuflete

To paraphase the illustrious Spiro Agnew, Limbaugh is a nattering nabob of negativity.  If the current regime loses control of the Congress next week, he will scream that it is the fault of _______________(fill in the blank with almost anything.) The only thing he will not do is acknowledge that voters are not in agreement with the current administration.
If the current regime does not lose control of the Congress, he will crow like a rooster, and take credit for the smaller than expected loss of legislative seats.   In neither case will he be telling the truth, so at least he will be consistent with past performances.


----------



## AngelEyes

Don't you all find it ironic that this entire thread is made up of people spewing and hurling invectives out of disgust, anger, and hatred for a man because he has a radio show where he spews and hurls invectives out of disgust, anger and hatred for...well, fill in the blanks yourselves.

Let's see if we can get his butt fired and off the air and maybe then all of you can have a radio program and show us morons the way and the light. 

Believe me, if your views and thoughts and words would sell soap, you'd all be making millions and everyone would be listening and writing on forums all the things they didn't like about you.

Rush Limbaugh has the most popular radio program on the air today. No one can match his ratings. Somebody's listening to him. Somebody must agree with him and his views. I don't claim to be his number one fan, but he's not the evil anti-Christ either.

At least...I don't think he is. Hmmm, maybe this is the beginning of the end for us all.

I'll go back and sit over in the corner by myself now. 

Everyone else...back to it.

AngelEyes


----------



## Tsoman

AngelEyes said:


> Rush Limbaugh has the most popular radio program on the air today. No one can match his ratings. Somebody's listening to him. Somebody must agree with him and his views.



My grandmother, bless her heart


----------



## cuchuflete

Dear Dittohead,

You must listen to him hour after mindless hour.  You have mirrored his techniques very well.   

Let's have a look at the Limbaugh style you illustrate so well:



AngelEyes said:


> Don't you all find it ironic that *this entire thread is made up of people spewing and hurling invectives*
> Analysis:  You just told a great big whopper of a lie!  You set up a false enemy, a strawman, so you can knock it down to
> seem beleagured and fearless, a staunch defender of Right against Evil.  Read this thread, and find specific examples of "invective".  I dare you!   This entire thread includes many statements, mine among them, giving him credit for being very effective at what he does.  He gets complimented for masterful technique, and you call it invective.   We should take up a collection and buy dictionaries for some people.  (That last sentence was a paraphrase of Limbaugh's denigrating style when he describes anyone who doesn't buy his line, so please don't take it personally.)  "This _*entire*_ thread..." also includes statements that those on the other side of the political spectrum also bend and abuse the truth.
> Many of the posts here condemn more than just your favorite
> drug popper.  His opponents have come in for their fair share of debunking as well.  Seems uncommonly even-handed treatment, exposing wingnuts from both left and right.
> 
> 
> *
> out of disgust, anger, and hatred
> *What nerve!  You claim, with all the self-assurance of your hero, to know what is in the heads and hearts of people you do not know.  You paint them as angry, full of hatred and disgust.   You invent this nonsense because you cannot argue facts.  That's a Limbaugh technique par excellance.  I don't hate the turkey.  To the contrary, I have stated my admiration for his effectiveness more than once in this thread.
> I also disagree with the half-truths he purveys, but with a total lack of disgust or anger or hatred.   I just flat out disagree with him, because he is wrong.
> for a man because he has a radio show where he spews and hurls invectives out of disgust, anger and hatred for...well, fill in the blanks yourselves.
> 
> Let's see if we can get his butt fired and off the air and maybe then all of you can have a radio program and show us morons the way and the light. Why on earth would anyone want to get him fired?  First, he has a long track record of getting himself fired from job after job after job.  He will probably do another number on McNabb or someone like him, and then "resign" in advance of a public firing.   Second, he is a source of constant amusement.  He says things no comedy writer could invent.  He's always good for a few belly laughs.
> I hope he stays on the air.
> 
> Believe me, if your views and thoughts and words would sell soap, you'd all be making millions and everyone would be listening and writing on forums all the things they didn't like about you.  Thank heavens there's more to life than selling soap, which you seem to consider the paramount objective in life.  I'll admit to never having sold anything but rare books and complicated logistics software systems...I'm not anywhere near Limbaugh's skill level for pandering to the masses.  He's so good at selling stuff that people buy his ugly neckties, and many of his outrageous ideas and his thinly disguised bigotry.
> He's such a good saleman he could probably even persuade people to buy into voodoo and astrology.
> 
> Back to your finely honed Limbaugh technique:  The words people have written here were never intended to sell soap.
> You set up a phoney analogy, quite far from any honest discussion about Limbaugh, and tried to use it to insult your opponents.   It was a weak and transparent effort.  Limbaugh listeners accept such pitiful debate techniques, while most WR participants see it for what it is....yet another evasion from the topic at hand, for which you have no logical or factual contribution, or if you do, you are hiding it from us.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has the most popular radio program on the air today. No one can match his ratings. Somebody's listening to him. Somebody must agree with him and his views.  More Limbologic!   Ha!   McDonalds has sold countless billions of greasy hamburgers, made from who knows what parts of which animals.  Consumers by the millions consume such stuff.   Does that make it healthy?
> 
> Tabloid trash typically outsells newspapers that require more than a sixth grade education.  There are audiences for every taste level.  Lots of listeners who think NASCAR and Budweiser are high culture may tune in to your Mr. L.  That doesn't make him a source of virtue or wisdom.  It does suggest that he is very much in tune with that particular audience segment's tastes, and that he knows how to play to that crowd.  Give him credit for being a good, hard-working disciple of P.T. Barnum.   Limbaugh knows how to separate the fools from their money, and make them think they've had a good time.
> 
> 
> I don't claim to be his number one fan, but he's not the evil anti-Christ either.  We agree.  I'm not his number one fan, or even his number two fan, and I think he's far less imposing and impressive than the evil anti-Christ.  He's just plain folks,
> with a string of divorces behind him, a resume that shows he couldn't hold a steady job for most of his adult life, and a police record for illegal purchase and use of controlled substances.  And, his politics are pretty scary.  Other than that, he's a fine gentleman, with a big expensive house, lots of loyal fans, and a necktie business on the side.  Sure don't sound like no anti-Christ to me.
> 
> At least...I don't think he is. Hmmm, maybe this is the beginning of the end for us all.
> 
> I'll go back and sit over in the corner by myself now.   Awww come on, tell us what you like about his supposed political views...Do you think we should nuke every country that doesn't see things the way Cheney and Rumsfeld do?
> Do you agree with Limbaugh's pre-arrest statements about illegal drug users?  How about taking responsibility for one's own actions?  He's big on that.  Big as in he was so responsible about his own eating that he got up to near 350 pounds, or was it 400?  That's a lot of self-determination indeed.
> 
> Do you share Limbaugh's "America, Love it or Leave it" views, or do you accept the possibility that one can disagree with the regime in power, be it GOP or Donkeys, on the basis of concerned patriotism?  Let me guess here.  I wouldn't be even a little bit surprised if you were all in favor of the Clinton impeachment trial.  I would expect that would have come from a sincere belief that the guy was bad for the country.
> So, by the same logic, why shouldn't people want to see Bush and friends leave office, if they believe that crowd are hurting US interests at home and abroad?  Your good buddy Rush has proposed deporting nearly half the population of the country for not blindly following Bush.
> 
> Everyone else...back to it.  Thanks Chief!  Nice to know you approve of our efforts.
> 
> AngelEyes


----------



## Tsoman

Cuchuflete writes:
"Tabloid trash typically outsells newspapers that require more than a sixth grade education. There are audiences for every taste level. Lots of listeners who think NASCAR and Budweiser are high culture may tune in to your Mr. L."

elitism? you decide


I'll bet if someone else wrote that about some other country's cultural traditions, you would be denouncing them right now...


----------



## cuchuflete

Elitism?  Nope.  Market segmentation.  No value judgements.
Just give each demographic the product it wants.


PS- Cultural Traditions???!!!   Nascar has been a big part of the entertainment business for just a few decades.
Before Daytona Speedway was built, around 1970, there was not much of a national sport.


----------



## Tsoman

People who think that Ramadan is "high culture" like to tune into terrorist radio stations


----------



## cuchuflete

Tsoman said:


> People who think that Ramadan is "high culture" like to tune into terrorist radio stations



Where does ignorance cross the line and become nothing but blatant, idiotic bigotry?   Ramadan is a month in the Islamic calendar, with strong religious associations.

Your remark is shameful.

You may find it cute to insult hundreds of millions of those whose religious beliefs are different from yours.   It's not.


----------



## Tsoman

HAHA you've proven my point

I substituted 2 words for what you said about NASCAR and Budweiser

and you are up in arms!

knee jerk!


----------



## cuchuflete

If you cannot distinguish between Rush Limbaugh's radio show and terrorism, or between people's tastes in entertainment and their religion, you are suffering more than an appalling lack of reading comprehension.


----------



## Tsoman

But aren't all cultural traditions equally valued? 

shouldn't Ramadan be equal to NASCAR?

shouldn't mozart be equal to Nascar

shouldn't Jay-Z be equal to Louis Armstrong?


PS

I don't have anythign against Islam and I'm not a fan of Nascar


----------



## cuchuflete

Do you seriously think that someone's spiritual beliefs and religion are on a par with their taste in entertainment?

Your analogy was inept.  Would you compare a memorial service to a softball game?


----------



## Tsoman

Well duh it's a crappy analogy


----------



## maxiogee

I've tried not to interject here, but I can't resist. 
I'm wondering what all his legions of imitators are called. As they bid to sink lower than their rivals, and lower than the man himself, in what they will do to attract an audience, has no-one thought to invent the term Limbaugh Dancers?

AngelEyes states


> Rush Limbaugh has the most popular radio program on the air today.


Does that make it good?
I don't really expect someone living in the home of capitalism and consumerism to appreciate this, but just because the public like something that doesn't mean they ought to get it. 

Viewing and downloading pornography is one of the main uses of the Internet!
The Da Vinci Code - highly 'popular' and yet a badly written and poorly plotted tale.
What are the top rating TV programmes in your area? I bet they're not what anyone would term 'enlightening', or even 'good'.


----------



## invictaspirit

I am at my happiest when being called a snob.  No matter how wittily you put it, or how angry I make you and how heartfelt your furious belief in my elitism, my sense of self worth can't help but rise a few nothches.

Most popular culture is total crap. Often, though not exclusively, stuff that is trumpeted as the 'most popular' or 'best-selling' this or that is totally worthless beyond the obvious economic field. Orwell had a good word for it: 'prole-feed.' It is easy and tempting to make huge amounts of money out of tasteless idiots.

It's OK to like some of this stuff as long as you realise you are allowing yourself some time out to like crap. I'm a huge football (soccer) fan, sometimes follow inane reality TV series and have been known to read pulp-fiction avidly on long flights. But I would never go around claiming these things are 'culture' or even that good. They work for me sometimes, but I am discerning enough to realise they are bad. It's when you start really believing it, or citing it as being in some way culturally valuable, that you are getting things out of perspective.

Rush Limbaugh is perhaps not the worst radio presenter I have heard, but he is pretty bad all the same. Example: I was in the US a year or so before the last presidential election. It was at the time when the Democrats were choosing between various candidates. I remember Limbaugh's show one night when he became obsessed by one of the other guys (that wasn't Kerry...sorry, I don't follow politics over there that closely...one of the guys that didn't get the Democrat nomination). OK...Limbaugh ranted for nearly an hour that the man 'looked French'. Dittoheads called in saying how typically Democrat it was to look French and how shameful for America it would be if the president looked French. In the next hour, Limbaugh ranted about the fact that this guy had gone into a restaurant in Philadelphia and eaten something called a Philly cheese steak (?) the wrong way. I can't remember what the wrong way was. But it involved not getting cheese all over his face and napkin. This was bad. A real man would have got dirty eating this steak the right way and this was more evidence that the candidate was not a real American, and would be dangerous in leading America.

Now...Limbaugh appeared to take this seriously. He sounded very angry that the man looked French and had eaten a steak the wromng way. The Dittoheads sounded very angry too. There was an air of righteous indignation and a connotation of 'this is how low the Democrats have sunk...they look French and they eat steak wrong.'

Can anyone honestly tell me that:

1. Limbaugh actually believes this crap (please don't comment that it was ironic...the dittoheads at least were furious at the Democrat and were totally serious. Limbuagh himself sounded serious but I suspect may have been acting.)
2. That an analysis of Democrat hopefulls on America's most popular radio program is best served by talking for nearly two hours on the fact that some guy has the temerity to look French and doesn't eat steak like a man.
3. That this is good radio..._popular_ radio, sure...I listened in fascination! But _good_ radio?


----------



## elpoderoso

> But I would never go around claiming these things are 'culture' or even that good.


These things are still culture regardless of whether they are 'good' or not,
tuna may not be as nice as salmon in someones opinion but it is still fish.


----------



## maxiogee

elpoderoso said:


> These things are still culture regardless of whether they are 'good' or not,
> tuna may not be as nice as salmon in someones opinion but it is still fish.



You appear to be confusing invictaspirit's use of the word 'culture' with "popular culture" - popular culture is not culture! It is not their goodness which makes them culture, nor their lack of it which deprives them of the quality, it is the intellectual quality of them which makes them "culture" - and yes, some deliberately low-brow arts can be culture. They can have a high quality whilst aiming at a mass market. This is not mere snobbery, though invictaspirit is not averse to accepting the epithet, it is a matter of taste.

We all have our guilty cultural lapses - when we say "I know I shouldn't watch/read/listen to XYZ, but I find it fascinating/compulsive/addictive."

Would anybody term Rush Limbaugh and his ilk "quality broadcasting"? Would he?


----------



## cuchuflete

elpoderoso said:


> ...
> tuna may not be as nice as salmon in someones opinion but it is still fish.




Standing or sitting in the sun for hours, drinking beer and watching loud vehicles go around an oval track, hoping for an exciting collision....Call that fish if you must, perhaps bottom-feeding species.

The remark that started this little digression was mine.

"There are audiences for every taste level. Lots of listeners who think NASCAR and Budweiser are high culture may tune in to your Mr. L."

I didn't say that Nascar races are cultural or not.  I did say that there are different taste levels, and that those with (strongly implied) lower tastes are apt to think that car racing is high culture.  It's not.  It's car racing.  The spiritual and intellectual stimulation available from fast cars doesn't quite rise to the level of adrenalin release, but it's an amusement, like listening to Limbaugh's rants.


----------



## djchak

I think what has just happened here...is that AE and Tso have just proved thier points...for the yin there will always be the yang....

Rush is just making money off of people who want to believe him...hence his fans being called "dittoheads". People who disagree respond strongly...cuasing the dittoheads to rally around Rush, no matter if his points are mostly political toilet humour for the most part...

Rush had some of the NASTIEST skits I have ever heard about anyone...there really is no "low". That's why his listeners love him.
And the people that argue against him can't help but sound like elite snobs...they not only disagree with him, but usually on a passionite level.

So everyone's guilty of falling into the trap. All Rush really has to do is bait it with peanut better. Watch the mice of all colors scramble. It's genius in it's own twisted way.


----------



## emma42

I don't agree at all, djchak.  I don't think anyone who has argued against Rush's brand of broadcasting has sounded like an "elite snob".

It is an interesting discussion to have.  I think describing forer@s as "scrambl"ing "mice" is a little contemptuous.


----------



## AngelEyes

djchak said,

*..."I think what has just happened here...is that AE and Tso have just proved thier points...for the yin there will always be the yang.... So everyone's guilty of falling into the trap. All Rush really has to do is bait it with peanut better. Watch the mice of all colors scramble. It's genius in it's own twisted way"...*

*I'm being sincere here...I like these words you've written. I think they contain very insightful thoughts on this thread's contents. It's very true that Rush knows that controversy feeds ratings. I'm in radio so I know that. "Whatever you say or do...just don't be boring."  is our Mantra. The point with Rush, though, is that he really does believe - I would guess - a lot of what he says on-air. *

*And it's true, President Reagan and Nancy both followed the tenets of Astrology. She did so, especially, after he was shot. He didn't get on his helicoptor if she asked him not to. 

History will revere HIM as one of our greatest Presidents ever.

AngelEyes


** 
*


----------



## djchak

emma42 said:


> I don't agree at all, djchak.  I don't think anyone who has argued against Rush's brand of broadcasting has sounded like an "elite snob".
> 
> It is an interesting discussion to have.  I think describing forer@s as "scrambl"ing "mice" is a little contemptuous.



What do I know, I can barely spell (this early in the morning).
It wasn't meant to be contemptuous, it was meant til illustrate Rush's position in all this....he's the one who sets the trap.....

It's just an observation. He is excellent at provoking people, and makes money (indirectly) whenever someone rebukes his statements.


----------



## emma42

I do know what you mean, djchak, and I agree with what you say about people like Rush setting such traps.  However, I think that most forer@s eschew such tactics and want genuine discussion.


----------



## cuchuflete

I know that literary theory may seem a little far from the topic,
but look at some of the classic, and effective techniques used by Jonathan Swift, Nathanial West, Gabriel García Máquez, Alexander Pope and Terry Southern:

1- Exaggeration
2- Repetition
3- Piling up of detail after detail until a sort of "interior reality"
is created.

Some standard satiric devices are invective—we seem to have at least a little of that, according to AngelEyes—wit (high or low, according to one's tastes), ridicule—a Limbaugh specialty— irony, sarcasm....

Targets in satiric works are easily identified by key words and phrases..."Librul, Elitist, Egg-head".  Caricature replaces accurate depiction.  Exaggeration is trotted out early and often.

Satires are often based on an author's feelings about the need for strong social protest.  The author feels overwhelmed by things in society at large (no pun intended), and overwhelms the reader with a welter of exaggerated protest.

Satirists indict.  They attact.  They ridicule.  The audience begins with amazement, and if the satirist is good, the disbelief is soon suspended, and the reader soon accepts the interior 'reality' of the diatribe.   The target is disdained, and the reader feels righteous.  If this is well done, and Limbaugh is very good at it, it dehumanizes the target.


----------



## emma42

Not off-topic at all, and an excellent explication of the "interior realities" created (or attempted) by such as Rush.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> I don't agree at all, djchak.  I don't think anyone who has argued against Rush's brand of broadcasting has sounded like an "elite snob".
> 
> It is an interesting discussion to have.  I think describing forer@s as "scrambl"ing "mice" is a little contemptuous.



I don't think djchak described any forer@s that way - you read what he wrote and you'll see he was describing those who react to what Limbaugh broadcasts as mice, not those who react to Limbaugh himself - there's a difference.



elpoderoso said:


> These things are still culture regardless of whether they are 'good' or not,
> tuna may not be as nice as salmon in someones opinion but it is still fish.



There's a lot of life in the ocean — not all of it, however, is "fish".


----------



## emma42

djchak didn't seem to think I had misunderstood, although he did think I had misinterpreted.  If I misunderstood, I do apologise.  Thank you for pointing this out, Tony.


----------



## invictaspirit

AngelEyes said:


> djchak said,
> 
> *..."I think what has just happened here...is that AE and Tso have just proved thier points...for the yin there will always be the yang.... So everyone's guilty of falling into the trap. All Rush really has to do is bait it with peanut better. Watch the mice of all colors scramble. It's genius in it's own twisted way"...*
> 
> *I'm being sincere here...I like these words you've written. I think they contain very insightful thoughts on this thread's contents. It's very true that Rush knows that controversy feeds ratings. I'm in radio so I know that. "Whatever you say or do...just don't be boring." is our Mantra. The point with Rush, though, is that he really does believe - I would guess - a lot of what he says on-air. *
> 
> *And it's true, President Reagan and Nancy both followed the tenets of Astrology. She did so, especially, after he was shot. He didn't get on his helicoptor if she asked him not to.
> 
> History will revere HIM as one of our greatest Presidents ever.
> 
> AngelEyes
> 
> 
> *


 
But this is where I have difficulty believing stuff.

You think Rush Limbaugh (a man clearly intelligent enough to make several million dollars) *really* believes that it is a serious problem and a threat to America that a Democrat nominee 'looks French' and doesn't eat a type of steak in a certain way?  And that this guy's appearance and the way he eats are more worthy of radio debate than his policies?

I don't.  I think the poor Dittoheads do...bless 'em.  But the man himself?....nah, no way.  I mean...this is beyond inane as political debate.  But it's great radio.  But just in case Limbaugh really _does_ think the main problem with a particular Democrat nominee is that he looks French, it would be fair to call him a huuuge asshole and to laugh and point, right?


----------



## AngelEyes

*invictaspirit* :

I am not familiar with Rush's statements that were derogatory to French people.

I can offer this:

This was an awful thing to say, if he did. I don't like to paint people with broad brushes. I don't lump governments with individuals from different countries. I wouldn't want to be judged as a specific kind of person, based on what a foreigner from another country might think they know about MY country by just reading stuff in the papers.

I take each individual for what and who they are, one-on-one. I would only ask that someone accepts or rejects me, after they get to know me. That seems fair.

As for Ditto-heads...first of all, the fact that I guess I'm being branded as one is funny to me! I reject labels that pigeon-hole you prematurely to one set of perceptions.

Aside from that statement, I guess there are a lot of loyal listeners to Rush's program who believe what he believes, just because he says so. 

While I agree with a great many of his opinions, it's not a blanket acceptance. 

Also, I don't think he's successful just because he's rich. I think he's successful because he says what a lot of Americans think, but don't express. He is the most listened-to radio personality in the business. Millions tune in to him because he mimics their own views back to them, not because they don't have any in the first place and so borrow some of his. He didn't get that way just on the shoulders of people who listen in to mock him and laugh. He speaks for millions of people.

I don't object to the posters here who honestly despise everything he stands for. 

What turns me off, is that you think you're right and everybody else is wrong, case closed.

In my world, nothing is that black and white. And I wouldn't like it if someone called me a snob. That conjures up feelings too divisive for my tastes.


AngelEyes



By the way, the name of Nancy Reagan's astrologer for the person who asked was: Joan Quigley.


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes post #95 said:
			
		

> I don't like to paint people with broad brushes...
> 
> I reject labels that pigeon-hole you prematurely to one set of perceptions.
> 
> 
> I take each individual for what and who they are, one-on-one. I would only ask that someone accepts or rejects me, after they get to know me. That seems fair.





			
				AngelEyes Post #40 said:
			
		

> The above poster is mad - all Liberals and Democrats are mad right now because their guys aren't in power.



How nice that your broad brush is back in the closet after you gave it such a good workout so recently.  

I don't know your party affiliation, if any, despite your stated admiration for Mr. Bush.  You don't know mine.   You called me a "Liberal" without knowing my political, economic, or social philosophies.  All you had to go on were a few statements about a public figure, some of which were positive, and others negative.  You don't agree with that public figure all the time, so I suppose that makes you a "liberal" too.  

Millions of people agree with what Limbaugh has to say.  Whether Limbaugh agrees with it or not is a separate question.  Millions disagree with what he says.  We say what we think.  That's called democracy.  Bush and Limbaugh say that they believe in democracy, so they certainly shouldn't object to public disagreement with the policies they espouse.  

Here's a dilemma:  Bush and Limbaugh are strong public proponents of democracy.  Chirac and other leaders, in keeping with their own parallel democratic traditions, represented the expressed will of their own peoples, and thus opposed Bush's actions in Iraq.  For that loyalty to democratic principles—acting in accord with the popular will of the people who elected them, those leaders were excoriated by Limbaugh, and indirectly by Bush through his mouthpiece Rumsfeld.   Tony Blair acted anti-democratically by supporting Bush.  The majority of the British people, with their democratic tradition, are more than a little unhappy with Blair, and want him out of Downing Street.  Bush Praises Blair, who has acted against the will of the people who chose him to represent them as head of government.  Is it difficult to know when people believe in what that declare they believe in?


----------



## AngelEyes

Well, let's see...


I never voted for Reagan. In retrospect, I believe I made a mistake on that.

I voted for Jimmy Carter. Glad I did when I did. I wouldn't support him today, though I believe he's a good man.

It's pretty clear to me you hate President Bush and all he stands for. Maybe I should rephrase that. You don't agree with any of his policies. I don't even need paint to create that image. 

I, on the other hand, think he's doing exactly the correct thing on fighting Terrorism away from our shores. In fact,I wish he'd be even more bold in his aggression. And I wish he'd tell all the people who don't like him to take a flying leap sometimes. He has wonderful restraint for all that's thrown his way. Comes with the job, I imagine he would say.

Clinton was a joke in my mind. The greatest of unrealized potential ever exhibited in a man of power. He could have left the most unblemished and charismatic legacy ever owned by a President. He could have owned the moment and ruled history. Now he's a footnote that's covered in snickers. The whole thing is sad, because there could have been so much that might have been and, on some level, I think his broken heart that had to be fixed by surgery was a symbol of what was going on inside him. His body mirrored his own lost dreams. 

As for Tony Blair, I like him a lot. He's doing what I would do in his shoes. That's why I like him. If he didn't do what I would do, then I would see him in a totally different light.I also admire anyone who stands up for his beliefs, and I think he does.

Rush (when did I become this man's lone defender?) figures, I guess, that you're either with us or you're against us in this War on Terror. The stakes are way too high in this to play with it frivolously, though, which you can argue he sometimes does. 

And I can say this very clearly. If the Democratic Party would, just once, give me their plan for peace, I'd possibly look at them differently than I do now.

And, finally, I'll give you this one, cuchuflete: You're right. I am no better than you when it comes to making assumptions. Wouldn't it be poetic  justice if we were both wrong?

AngelEyes


----------



## emma42

I understood that one was not able to vote in the USA until one was grown up?


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:


> I understood that one was not able to vote in the USA until one was grown up?



Emma42,

There are rumors abroad that suggest that American voters are
(1)mature (2)immature (3)thoughtful (4)shallow (5)dispassionate (6)rabid.  All of these rumors are both true and false.  

It is further rumored that in Chicago, among other places, one need not be counted among the living in order to have a ballot cast in one's name.  "Vote Early and Often" was a popular campaign slogan.

I look forward to Tuesday, when I will cast ballots in favor of candidates of at least four different parties.  Mr. Limbaugh might even approve of one of my choices.  That will not deter me.  I also look forward to never being a grown-up.  Such people are far too serious about their politics.


----------



## emma42

Dear Cuchuflete.  Thank you for that edifying explanation.


----------



## ps139

invictaspirit said:


> But this is where I have difficulty believing stuff.
> 
> You think Rush Limbaugh (a man clearly intelligent enough to make several million dollars) *really* believes that it is a serious problem and a threat to America that a Democrat nominee 'looks French' and doesn't eat a type of steak in a certain way?  And that this guy's appearance and the way he eats are more worthy of radio debate than his policies?
> 
> I don't.  I think the poor Dittoheads do...bless 'em.  But the man himself?....nah, no way.  I mean...this is beyond inane as political debate.  But it's great radio.  But just in case Limbaugh really _does_ think the main problem with a particular Democrat nominee is that he looks French, it would be fair to call him a huuuge asshole and to laugh and point, right?


I honestly think that Limbaugh is semi-serious about half the time.... in other words, I do not think he believes it is a serious problem that a nominee looks French. As to his audience, I don't know, but I would not take him seriously (as in, thinking he is serious about it) with a lot of stuff.


----------



## AngelEyes

emma42 said:


> I understood that one was not able to vote in the USA until one was grown up?


 
Emma,

Please define what you mean by "all grown up."

In fact, please expound on your statement. What, exactly, is the meaning behind your words?


AngelEyes


----------



## JamesM

> I, on the other hand, think he's doing exactly the correct thing on fighting Terrorism away from our shores.


 
This is always a puzzling statement to me. When we invaded Afghanistan, after it was put on notice regarding the harboring of terrorists and the support of their activities at a national level, I agreed that the invasion was justified. It made sense, even. We had known links to the people who killed thousands of our citizens. They were based in a country which vocally supported them. This, to me, was a justified action. 

Suddenly, we are threatening and then invading Iraq. Where is the connection?

Iraq was not involved in any of the activities related to 9/11. No Iraqi has even been identified in the upper levels of Al Qeada (sp?). No weapons of mass destruction were found (and I'm not saying the President invented them, but the fact is, the threat was not actually there). Iraq was hobbling under the sanctions placed on it after our first invasion. Yet, somehow, Iraq=Terrorism. We are supposed to take this slogan on faith, and to question it is to be called anti-American. 

I don't see anything that has ever tied these two together. Personally, I feel like it was a huge bait-and-switch move on the part of the admiinistration. Meanwhile, our efforts in Afghanistan have languished because our forces are re-deployed to a new theatre, we have not dismantled Al Qeada's operations in Afghanistan nor located Bin Laden, and we are embroiled in a situation that was warned of in great detail before our invasion of Iraq and ignored entirely by Bush and his administration -- times two, now, because we are dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.

How being involved in an ongoing civil war clearly predicted by experts on all sides months before the invasion does anything in regards to terrorism is completely beyond me. It seems to me to be the biggest smokescreen ever thrown up by our government to explain its actions.

Meanwhile, one of our "allies" in the region, Saudi Arabia, has a much more restrictive/oppressive government than Iraq ever had, harbors terrorist cells that have attacked our warships twice and have blown up our embassies twice, not to mention have been directly linked by multiple nations to terrorist activities in Northern Africa as well as having financial links to Al Qeada. Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi ruling family, for heaven's sake! Yet this administration, which says it will spare no effort or expense to fight terrorism wherever it is found, is absolutely silent about the Saudi Arabians. The "fighting terrorism away from our shores" explanation just doesn't hold water when you look at the basic facts. If any major middle-eastern country has been linked with terrorism, it's Saudi Arabia. But if you question our involvement in Iraq or point out the inconsistencies of our policy towards Saudi Arabia, you're unpatriotic, according to Rush Limbaugh, or deluded, or a bleeding-heart liberal, or some such epithet that allows the actual merits of the argument to be ignored.

I apologize if I've gotten off-topic. Feel free to delete my frustrated rant, moderators, if I'm leading things astray.


----------



## cuchuflete

Wearing Moderator hat:   Limbaugh is the thread topic.

Opinions about other topics, if mentioned briefly in support of a statement about Limbaugh, are ok, but let's not use this thread as a place to debate foreign or domestic policy of any nation.


----------



## elpoderoso

maxiogee said:


> You appear to be confusing invictaspirit's use of the word 'culture' with "popular culture" - popular culture is not culture! It is not their goodness which makes them culture, nor their lack of it which deprives them of the quality, it is the intellectual quality of them which makes them "culture" - and yes, some deliberately low-brow arts can be culture. They can have a high quality whilst aiming at a mass market. This is not mere snobbery, though invictaspirit is not averse to accepting the epithet, it is a matter of taste.
> 
> We all have our guilty cultural lapses - when we say "I know I shouldn't watch/read/listen to XYZ, but I find it fascinating/compulsive/addictive."
> 
> Would anybody term Rush Limbaugh and his ilk "quality broadcasting"? Would he?


I wasn't confusing culture with popular culture, popular culture is just at the 'lower end' of the scale, but it is still culture


----------



## maxiogee

elpoderoso said:


> I wasn't confusing culture with popular culture, popular culture is just at the 'lower end' of the scale, but it is still culture



Not if you define culture as *Chambers English Dictionary* does:
cultivation; the result of cultivation; the state of being cultivated; refinement in manners, thought, taste, etc; loosely, the arts; a type of civilization; the attitudes and values which inform a society.

… or as the *Oxford English Dictionary* does:
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively, a refined understanding or appreciation of this.

Both of these explicitly indicate that there must be a refining process involved.


----------



## AngelEyes

This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I don't think there is just one type of person who listens to Rush Limbaugh. It's a wide spectrum of listeners who tune in for their own unique purposes. 

How wide is this area, and what percentages make up each section? I'm sure Rush's "people" - whoever they are - do a lot of demographic studies, not only to present to their advertisers who want to know if their product "fits" the potential buyer pool, but also for their own personal reasons.

I'm guessing here, but logic would tell me Rush and his staff have their own agenda for doing this, too. First, they want to know who's listening from different age groups - very important for advertisers who want to grab that all-important youth group. Secondly, they want to know how educated and wealthy their audience is. Again, you always have to go back to Rush wanting to impress and entice his listeners. He needs to target what he thinks they want. Educated people usually desire a different approach to their entertainment, or maybe he's just saying what they already think in the first place.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does he cater to what he thinks they want to hear, or do they listen because he's saying what they want to listen to because they agree? It's probably a little of both. 

But go back to the money. Advertisers love people who have money to spend. If Rush can show the bulk of his listeners are in the higher-earning bracket, he's like gold in the sales department's pocket. Commissions, product perks - believe me there are a lot of freebies that filter through a radio station and the sales departments- that means he stays on the air and he makes lots of money for them and for him.

One thing I believe motivates him, even over money and fame, is the power that comes with those two. Some people thrive on telling others how to think and live their lives. Some people even *believe* it's their right and duty to do so. That's a big part of who he is.

Then you come to the ultruistic motivation. Does he say what he does because he really believes it on a higher, life-affirming level? Does he really believe we are in very dangerous times and one mistep or political mistake in decision would bring a devastating result to our country? This is where, I think, his most loyal listeners reside. They believe that the War on Terror is the deciding factor on whether we are even still alive to enjoy the American Dream. If you honestly think that the Democratic policies for peace (and I still don't have a handle on just what they are) won't work and will, in fact, make things even worse, you're going to listen to Rush to keep up on current events and you're going to agree with most of his assessments.

So you've got a list of reasons for why he's so popular.
Who's listening?

1. People who hate him and want to keep an eye on him, because they think he's dangerous. 
2. People who don't know what to think, and so look to him for answers.
3.People who, by accident, tune in occasionally in the car.
4.Politicians in all areas of government who want to know what's being fed to the public, because they know millions, everyday, are listening.
5.People who already share his views, so they don't have to be convinced whether he's right or wrong; they want to hear him discuss issues from a perspective that's already one they own.

I bet Rush's producer could tell you, within a couple of percentage points, which group contains the largest number of listeners. And, from the fact that he pretty much does what he wants, that would tell me it's the number 5 that holds the biggest numbers.

You wouldn't know it from reading this thread, but that's what I think is true.

Keep in mind that Rush is also in a class by himself when it comes to radio programming. It's very possible he owns the rights to his show and he can do any darn thing he wants when it comes to who advertises and who doesn't; what he says and what he doesn't say. I highly doubt he has a Program Director who slaps his hands when he's a bad boy. 

He really stands alone in power and prestige in his business. Like him or not, you can't change the facts when you look at the bottom line. Just remember, those words are written in letters made up of dollar signs. 

That doesn't mean he's not doing it for good, though. He really believes his way is the right way. 

If you want something different, go start your own program.

AngelEyes


----------



## CTW

Paraiso,  Most of what people have said is an exaggeration.  In his early radio years, he did tackle a huge gammit of issues from a conservative view point.  He is articulate, and well read.  He also used to engage people in dialogue in the early years (circa 1995).  His first book was also a lively, argumentative op-ed.  I haven't listened to him since the late 90's but for the several years I did, I never once heard anything that was racist.  That said, he has spriraled down into a dull, one sided entertainer. and truly much less informative than in years past.  As far as influence goes, as in any culture, there will always exist a broad spectrum of intellects and viewpoints.  I agree with the above who stated he is a shock jock no different than Howard Stern.  The rest of the tirades against him are also guilty of mostly what they decry.  The best advice I can give you is to listen for your self and make up your own mind.  (Try the internet)  The best thing I can say about America is that anyone can voice their own opinion and still live free.  Those above, using the same criteria might accuse Carlos Mencia (a rowdy and raw comedian) of being racist.  But to listen for even half an hour shows an intellect that thrives on the humor evident in different races and cultures and the boldness to voice them in a politically corect environment.  Others may disagree which is my point exactly.  Hope this helps with your perspective.  Adios,  CTW


----------

