Limbaugh - "We don't have the money" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2009, 09:50 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Limbaugh - "We don't have the money"

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 3)

At 7:50 or so.

The guy has a point.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 10:04 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:25 AM
That was a good speech. I hope Jindal will get some balls and pick up where Limbaugh left off. I mean a talk show host should not be the leader of the conservative movement unless there's a gaping leadership hole.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 10:14 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That was a good speech.
It was rather horrible.

But also timely and appropriate given the current state of affairs of the Republican party.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 10:19 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:25 PM
I watched it all on Youtube. I agreed with most of it. Of course, there's a lot left in the background that he doesn't address. I assume this guy never criticised the Bush administrations enhancement of Big Government.
So, of course, there's a double standard.

But I agreed with most of it, and don't really understand why this guy is some kind of hate figure for some.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 10:23 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post

But I agreed with most of it, and don't really understand why this guy is some kind of hate figure for some.
Look into some of his views on race and women, that might be a fair start.

Apart from the fact that I find him to be unintelligent, I hate his style. Basically he puts up a strawman, and then tears it down in indignation while patting himself on the back as if he just discovered America.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 11:28 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I watched it all on Youtube. I agreed with most of it. Of course, there's a lot left in the background that he doesn't address. I assume this guy never criticised the Bush administrations enhancement of Big Government.
So, of course, there's a double standard.

But I agreed with most of it, and don't really understand why this guy is some kind of hate figure for some.
He would disagree with you on the recent wars but not on the increase in size of entitlements. He disagreed with Bush on the Healthcare prescription entitlements and no child left behind spending. He also disagreed on blanket Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Bobby Jindal would be the guy he would support. He's a big Reagan fan. He's Christian so he would be typical pro-life anti-gay marriage guy.

You would like more economic arguments. Social conservative arguments and pro-military arguments would get on your nerves at the level of John Bolton.

He's a hate figure for the left because he's influential and almost singlehandedly advanced the right-wing presence in the usually left-wing dominated media since the 80's. The change in discourse is more crude now because the competition is very heated. The landscape is much more fun now that people have a media voice they can turn to if they feel the typical ABC/CBS/NBC coverage is too biased.

Recently some Democrats tried to silence him with the "Fairness Doctrine" which disallows "controversial" topics unless equal time is given to callers. His 3 hour runtime would be cut in half with spam. Currently they are trying to do local content rules to force more variety on talkradio stations which would presumeably cut on his runtime as well. To me this is Hugo Chavez lite. With upwards of 20 million listeners the demand speaks for itself. He's a tycoon now from the loyal subscriptions. He's currently setting himself up as a freedom of speech martyr so as much as Obama would comment that people shouldn't listen to him and to try and divide and conquer the conservative base versus the centerist Republicans, he's probably having a career high right about now.

He's also one of the few voices on the right that was against the stimulus packages (TARP and such) and still is with Obama. Both Obama and Clinton are irritated with him because of his stance on the stimulus packages.

In regards to race he is not a racist (why would he work with Bo Snerdley?)and almost all attacks on him are quotations taken out of context (especially TV reports). The online transcripts are available so people who keep track will see through the bull. Eg. If he jokes in third person the media will sometimes take it as a verbatim quote from his personal point of view.

His views on women? Well he's okay with Sarah Palin being allowed to be president and has no problem with Margaret Thatcher so I doubt he would stop women from working. He hates feminists (calls them FEMINAZIS) because he feels they are Marxists first and feminists second. He would look at some of them as sexist and hating men. He also coined the term "Drive-by media" for left-wing media when they partake in character assassinations (Eg. Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill).

He's very confident and likes to act egotistical to tweak the liberals and irritate them so he has a style of "I know the truth" and has a great sense of humor.

His personal relationships with women are a trainwreck. His constant devotion to politics at work poisons his relationships. I think he's a workaholic. It must be toxic to be in a job like that constantly in a war-room mode.

He has a herniated disk in his back (probably from overweightness) and he got addicted to pain medication. The media went wild on him hoping to see the end of his career. He got cleaned up and came back.

Bottom line you would like half of what he says and probably hate half of it. The show is so entertaining that many liberals listen in anyways, even if they hate his guts.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:10 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
He would disagree with you on the recent wars but not on the increase in size of entitlements. He disagreed with Bush on the Healthcare prescription entitlements and no child left behind spending. He also disagreed on blanket Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Bobby Jindal would be the guy he would support. He's a big Reagan fan. He's Christian so he would be typical pro-life anti-gay marriage guy.

You would like more economic arguments. Social conservative arguments and pro-military arguments would get on your nerves at the level of John Bolton.

He's a hate figure for the left because he's influential and almost singlehandedly advanced the right-wing presence in the usually left-wing dominated media since the 80's. The change in discourse is more crude now because the competition is very heated. The landscape is much more fun now that people have a media voice they can turn to if they feel the typical ABC/CBS/NBC coverage is too biased.

Recently some Democrats tried to silence him with the "Fairness Doctrine" which disallows "controversial" topics unless equal time is given to callers. His 3 hour runtime would be cut in half with spam. Currently they are trying to do local content rules to force more variety on talkradio stations which would presumeably cut on his runtime as well. To me this is Hugo Chavez lite. With upwards of 20 million listeners the demand speaks for itself. He's a tycoon now from the loyal subscriptions. He's currently setting himself up as a freedom of speech martyr so as much as Obama would comment that people shouldn't listen to him and to try and divide and conquer the conservative base versus the centerist Republicans, he's probably having a career high right about now.

He's also one of the few voices on the right that was against the stimulus packages (TARP and such) and still is with Obama. Both Obama and Clinton are irritated with him because of his stance on the stimulus packages.

In regards to race he is not a racist (why would he work with Bo Snerdley?)and almost all attacks on him are quotations taken out of context (especially TV reports). The online transcripts are available so people who keep track will see through the bull. Eg. If he jokes in third person the media will sometimes take it as a verbatim quote from his personal point of view.

His views on women? Well he's okay with Sarah Palin being allowed to be president and has no problem with Margaret Thatcher so I doubt he would stop women from working. He hates feminists (calls them FEMINAZIS) because he feels they are Marxists first and feminists second. He would look at some of them as sexist and hating men. He also coined the term "Drive-by media" for left-wing media when they partake in character assassinations (Eg. Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill).

He's very confident and likes to act egotistical to tweak the liberals and irritate them so he has a style of "I know the truth" and has a great sense of humor.

His personal relationships with women are a trainwreck. His constant devotion to politics at work poisons his relationships. I think he's a workaholic. It must be toxic to be in a job like that constantly in a war-room mode.

He has a herniated disk in his back (probably from overweightness) and he got addicted to pain medication. The media went wild on him hoping to see the end of his career. He got cleaned up and came back.

Bottom line you would like half of what he says and probably hate half of it. The show is so entertaining that many liberals listen in anyways, even if they hate his guts.

You sound like a real ditto head.

Quote:
On his radio show, Limbaugh said President Barack Obama's proposed health care revisions will be championed by "the liberal lion Teddy Kennedy."

"Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill," Limbaugh said.
Is this a 3rd person remark about Ted Kenendy?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:40 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
You sound like a real ditto head.
Meaning I actually look at the transcripts so I don't get fooled? Calling someone a dittohead is just a way of saying that a person is being brainwashed by Limbaugh when really there is a HUGE demand for his show precisely because liberal media doesn't satisfy it. That's why liberal radio shows don't have the same success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Is this a 3rd person remark about Ted Kenendy?
Well Ted Kennedy wanted this bill and felt it was his life's work and he's on his deathbed. So yes it would be something emotionally invested for him. If Bush had to tolerate movies being made about his assassination then liberals will just have to eat it. If liberals can forgive Chappaquiddick then they can forgive Limbaugh's morbid humor. If it's okay for Rahm Emmanuel to stab his stake after the Clinton election while naming all the conservatives who lost followed by "Die! Die! Die!" then too bad.

An out of context comment (there are so many) that happened recently is attacking Limbaugh for wanting Obama to fail. Nevermind that he wants Obama to fail at left-wing policies. If Obama took a turn to the right and actually moved towards a balanced budget Limbaugh would be handcuffed and would have to defend him.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:47 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Nevermind that he wants Obama to fail at left-wing policies.
Even at the expense of the common good. That's Rush for you in a nutshell.

Bloviating fool with the approval rating that is roughly the same as that of George W. Bush. Must be everyone else is crazy.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 02:24 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Limbaugh's recent (White House black ops-aided) annointment as the de facto face of the GOP is a bad situation for them getting much, much worse.

Personally I think it's hilarious.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 08:22 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
But I agreed with most of it, and don't really understand why this guy is some kind of hate figure for some.
There is a vast difference between this speech and his radio show. He trumpets out the conservative line well enough and he is quite a skilled propagandist. He appeals to a large niche group and appeals to the lowest elements of that group. There are certainly intelligent and educated people who listen to him, but the vastness of his niche appeal isn't intelligent discourse. His show is a celebration of sexism, racism, classicism that he will self-righteously deny. You see what somebody is about by watching how they behave, not what they say, so his denials run a little thin. You can often tell someone who listens to him religiously because the phrases he coined will come tripping out of their tongues and they will repeat his arguments verbatim as if they are their own without any attempt to research if what he said is actually true. They want them to be true. (That is not limited to Limbaugh listeners. I've engaged in it myself for other things, then caught myself in embarrassment and gave myself a good look-see)

He allowed the older, white and wealthy (or striving to be wealthy or just tired of not feeling they had a voice) men to feel good about themselves again. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but the tactics he employs brings everything down to an ugly level (Michael Steele was right).

I listen to him often enough to have an opinion on what he is about. He is about self-promotion. Once you get that about him, you've gotten pretty much everything.

A year or two back, I posted that during his radio he promoted that instead of his offering subscriptions and premium memberships to his website soldiers stationed in Iraq (a dubious "treat" that would have cost him nothing), he encouraged listeners to sponsor a soldier's membership so they could show their support for the troops and feel a part of it. Not send, oh--
supplies or treats or maybe air conditioners or better flak jackets, or maybe even socks--but a 24-7 membership to his website that he would be paid for.
He used soldiers' coffins to fill his coffers. Oh, yeah, he said all the right things about them, but then sought to profit from them.

But we all choose our heroes, I guess.

That being said, he falls well within the boundaries of free--if distasteful--speech. And I'm not a big fan of the bloviators of any ideology. The good ideas that might be had get lost in the loss of credibility I find.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 10:51 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Even at the expense of the common good. That's Rush for you in a nutshell.
He clearly doesn't believe Obama's success with implementing socialism as being helpful to the common good. You may disagree with his right wing ideas but you can't assume he's speaking from the same assumptions. He doesn't assume that stimulus plans and huge deficit spending is good for the public. This is especially detrimental for the tax payer. He believes in social programs only up to the level of what you would see with the contract with America in the '90s. He wants some safety net but is aware that there has to be a large pool of financially independent people paying for it. Entitlements only exist if they can be paid for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Bloviating fool with the approval rating that is roughly the same as that of George W. Bush. Must be everyone else is crazy.
Then why stop him from voicing his opinion with the "Fairness" doctrine or local content rules? There is a demand for his service why not compete with it? With the government openly trying to force him off the air or reduce his show running time is to reduce competition of ideas. The left has schools/TV/Pop culture. No wonder left-wing talk radio hasn't been as succesful. The public knows what the left stand for. Anybody who provides something that is refreshing and unique will make lots of money in the marketplace.

Biden mentioned 7-11 with Jindal. Why does he still have a job? When Letterman called Limbaugh a fat Eastern European gangster should Eastern Europeans be offended? Should fat people be offended? The discussion is more crude now because competition brings out desperatation and effort on both sides. That's why democracies can look messy and dictatorships clean. I prefer the messy.

My favorite hypocrisy is when Barbara Walters was trying to equate Limbaugh's financial success with Wall Street corruption totally ignoring her own financial success. Face it. What ever hypocrisy is on the right there is plenty on the left to exploit, and that's what Rush does.

BTW approval ratings have a tendency to change as Obama can testify to that. If the public is deluded into thinking the government can eliminate the business cycle then the approval rating denotes how many people in America are deluded in their opinions on economics.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:28 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Then why stop him from voicing his opinion with the "Fairness" doctrine or local content rules? There is a demand for his service why not compete with it?
Oh I think he should be allowed to speak, and as loudly as possible. The vast majority of people hate him and his approval ratings among the under-30 crowd is dismal. Same goes for women.


Quote:
My favorite hypocrisy is when Barbara Walters was trying to equate Limbaugh's financial success with Wall Street corruption totally ignoring her own financial success. Face it. What ever hypocrisy is on the right there is plenty on the left to exploit, and that's what Rush does.
This leaves the impression that you don't understand what hypocrisy means. Barbara Walters has not made her fortune by claiming that she is the "common man", and that she channels "real" America and people like Joe Plumber. This is a woman who has embraced financial success and happily lived on 5th Ave. How that has anything to do with Rush Limbaugh is beyond me.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 01:10 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 06:25 AM
The Fairness Doctrine was in effect between 1949 and 1987.

Somehow, the world continued to spin on its axis.

It's not "Hugo Chavez lite". That's just silly, like the hysteria of "socialism" being the top tax rate being raised 3% to 39%, despite the US fighting the Cold War with a ~90% tax rate.

Quote:
Biden mentioned 7-11 with Jindal. Why does he still have a job?
It's not surprising that you're taking Limbaugh's jokes as fact. Please, find an actual quote from Joe Biden linking 7-11 and Bobby Jindal.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 03:42 PM   #15
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Then why stop him from voicing his opinion with the "Fairness" doctrine or local content rules?

You're so funny, it's so obvious you listen to this guy and believe everything he says hook line and sinker.

Rush has been bitching about the fairness doctrine since the election because he had a "hunch" if Obama won he would bring it back, he had absolutely no evidence that Obama wanted to bring it back. He invented the fairness doctrine debate because he wanted to create an enemy, "see these guys want to shut me up", when actually the fairness doctrine doesn't even do that. But Obama has stated he has no interest in bringing back the fairness doctrine, but you guys are still bringing it up. It's like so many of you and Rush's arguments, it's the ultimate straw man argument.

Have you ever seen Rush actually debate someone of intellect? Ask yourself why you haven't...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com