jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (110 posts)

Rush Limbaugh is REALLY crazy ("nuts" would be a better word)

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image30
    fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago

    Limbaugh has gone too far with his latest attack on Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy: ""Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill". THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. Rush, it's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but this statement makes it sound like you WANT someone to die and that's disgraceful

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, and nobody here makes personal attacks on Rush? You want a list of people here who have not only said they want Rush to die, but have offered to speed up the process?

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think anyone here said anything like that.  Anywhere.  Against my personal code, actually.  Inquired as to his pain.  Used some satire.

        Unethical behavior is unethical behavior--and actually, calling that out may even be a free speech duty.  Doublespeak isn't ethical, either, frankly.

        1. BDazzler profile image82
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You aren't on the list ... you just make personal attacks on him "in bounds", neither is Ralph ... you're both liberals but keep it more or less civlized ... there have been a couple of  hot head trolls have posted things to that effect.

          I used to think that his style was just a "put on" ... but I knew someone who knew his family, he said "no, he's really like that".

          Rush enjoys the personal attacks, "in bounds" he feels like it proves he's being an irritant to liberals ... which he is.   And that's his goal. smile

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Rush and Cheney and other political figures, as long as they aren't Democrats, are fair game. In the interest of a modicum of congeniality a bit of restraint toward other hubbers is in order. I recognize that I don't always follow my own advice on this!

        1. BDazzler profile image82
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, that reminds me, Ralph, Cheney called, he wants to go duck hunting with you. big_smile

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ha! I'll dig out and oil up my old Model 12 Winchester and see if I can find a steel army helmet and full metal jacket!

  2. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    He's truly over the top.  Wants to debate Obama.

    Which, actually, I would love--just love to see.  You think McCain looked bad next to Obama...that's nothing compared to Limbaugh.

    The rampant--beyond personal attacks--vitriol that is Limbaugh is beyond tasteless.  He's a great big fat idiot--and that's precisely why that book was written.

    1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image30
      fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very true. I couldn't agree with you more

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Drug Rush Limbaugh makes over 50 million a year, defending the working class with moral indignation.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The "working class," if that's what we want to call them--are confused.  Was it you who was talking about Thomas Frank and "What the Hell is the Matter with Kansas?"

      Yep, and Rush makes all that money and still has no class.

      But, for the record, I don't particularly like 'liberal hate radio,' either--though those shows are far and few between.  There is a channel in Phoenix like that.

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    ""What the Hell is the Matter with Kansas?" May have mentioned that some while ago. Put it another way, Rush tries to make sure that the poor be mad at anybody and everybody, except the rich like himself, who are the poor's real problem.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

      No wonder he has a drug problem.  You could not pay me enough...

  5. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    But it gets better. Rush was doing like 70 oxicontin pills a day. And when he got caught, this defender of the working class, blamed it on his house keeper. She was probably doing him a big favor or maybe just keeping her job, but if she hadn't helped him get those pills, he would a never done it.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Poor Big Fat Baby.  Hmm, Oxicontin is for pain, isn't it?  Wonder where that pain is coming from?

      Perish the thought of ever being a woman involved with him (omg oh ick, oh) or ever ever working for somebody like that.

      1. Make  Money profile image73
        Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        70 oxicontin pills a day?  Holy man.  Is Rush his real name or his drug name? big_smile

        Rush the fatty for Pres, eh Nicky?  big_smile

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He also buys Viagra by the case!

      1. Josh Frusciante profile image60
        Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, insightful! Look at Fred bashing well known politicians on an internet forum! Lets put on our keyboard muscles and rally all of our liberal buddies to do some hate mongering! Get the lynching rope! How can you even attempt to judge people when you are no better yourself. Pathetic.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Josh, you are the one who is bashing other participants here in this forum. Think about it. There is a difference between bashing public figures like Limbaugh and bashing others here on this forum. "Flaming" is frowned on here on HubPages. We'll cut you a little slack until you're house broken. You strike me as a human time bomb with a short fuse.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this
            1. Josh Frusciante profile image60
              Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You strike me as a hypocrite who quickly passes judgment without logic or reason. I will forgive your ignorance. I am not required to agree with you or condone your childish antics. You know that if there was a similar thread bashing Obama that many would call that offensive or uncalled for, it could even just be simply deleted, well, I would be there on both fronts defending both parties. What makes bashing Rush ok? The fact you disagree with him? Clearly you must see  I see nothing wrong with having a fundamental disagreement with someone, but resorting to saying people are drug addicts and they take Viagra is absurd. How about using some common decency? Have a really super day!

              1. 0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You strike me as someone who does not pay attention to the tenor of language, concerning  Ralph or others who have posted here (satire, ie).  That's a lot of vitriol and judgment for only being on the forum for a day and not knowing the players here very well.

                You also don't seem to have researched either Obama or Limbaugh at all.  So why should we listen to anyone who purports to 'defend' both parties?

                This is more than a fundamental disagreement between two equal parties--Obama and Limbaguh-- ie, they are far from equal.  Also, Limbaugh IS a known drug addict who thrives on bashing to make his millions. 

                So!   Maybe he'd actually appreciate our entrepreneurial spirit here on this post.  Yeah!  Maybe we'll hold the masses of liberals in thrall by bashing Rush, and make them all say 'ditto' and give us money, wink

                1. Josh Frusciante profile image60
                  Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  As for the comment about being new... I have lived my life outside this forum. I have been on many others. I am not sure what you think you are saying to me... If you want me to be impressed that you have been on the site longer... I am not. If you want me to hold back my opinions because you view youself as above me... I wont. Thx for the offer though. I am not here for you.


                  Actually I know Obama and Limbaugh very well, maybe just not well enough to put my keyboard muscles on and start throwing hateful insults at them. I suppose I should just let you rant on and on about how much you hate Limbaugh because he does not share the same views. Of course you are turning your little keyboard muscles towards me, because I roll my eyes at how you choose to talk about people. Disagreeing is one thing, but insulting is another. Why must you throw brainless accusations at those who disagree? To make yourself feel a little better. I thrive on shutting down hypocritical hate mongers who point the finger at others while at the same time practicing the same kind of behaviors that they condemn. Why would you say "This person is a hate monger and a drug addict" and then turn around and use the same kind of hateful tactics as they do? So you see where I am going with this? Alas, I will not argue, I do find Limbaugh to be an unpleasant person. That doesn’t mean I am then going to practice some of his mannerisms I disagree with. If you want to play judge and jury then try to have some dignity.

  6. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Bob Cesca

    The Dittohead Party: Why the GOP is Screwing Itself


    The "leader of the Republican Party" question has been thoroughly analyzed and debated. And after many days and many cable news roundelays, I think we can all agree that, yes, the GOP has been inextricably grasped within the meaty, sweaty mitts of that familiar planetoid of addiction, racism and self-indulgence known as Rush Limbaugh.

    And that's just fine and dandy.

    But contrary to what Drudge and Politico are reporting today, this isn't some sort of wicked conspiracy cooked up by Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs from within the same underground war room where they keep the president's madrassa diploma and his secret Kenyan birth certificate.

    This Limbaugh situation is entirely the fault of the Republican Party. The White House is merely exploiting it -- and rightly so.

    Throughout the last several decades, the Republican Party has been careening willingly towards this destiny. Year after year, the Republicans have been magnetically drawn ever closer to the simplistic worldview espoused by far-right talk radio: a segment of American society that's perhaps a little too comfy with laughing at a racial or sexist joke, or repeating nearsighted bumper sticker slogans like, "Your mortgage is not my problem."

    The Republican Party has become the purview of The Dittohead: the thoughtless undead automaton who lazily yet proudly announces on the radio that he or she doesn't simply "ditto" but, in fact, "mega-dittos" everything spoken by Rush Limbaugh. "Mega" as in millions of times over.

    Michael Steele has proved himself to be a Dittohead. Mike Pence and Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay? All dittoheads. You'd be hard pressed to find a Republican politician who hasn't in some way expressed his or her Dittohead status while also genuflecting at the bloated cankles of their radio warlord.

    So it should come as no surprise that the leader of the dittoheads has become the leader of the Republicans.

    The Republicans have positioned themselves in such a way that publicly renouncing their Dittohead status will provoke the furious anger of their leader who has so often retaliated against disloyal subjects with a Mr. Creosote caliber geyser of acidic hell, effectively emasculating any attempt at escape. Limbaugh has indeed broken the Republicans and I'm pretty sure they know it. Yet they're powerless to do anything about it.

    We can only assume that they understand the hazards involved with being absorbed into Limbaugh's universe -- and they especially have to know that the Democrats know. And that leads to the big question: Why is it supremely awesome that the Republicans have become the Dittohead Party?

    So far, the establishment press and cable news hasn't fully examined this all-important "why" factor. Sure, there's been plenty of talk about Limbaugh's famous "wanting President Obama to fail" remarks and how wishing for failure makes the Republicans seem like they're okay with the American economy failing, just as long as they can start winning elections again.

    That's pretty bad. But the problems inherent in becoming trapped inside the Limbaugh tractor beam go much deeper and, as Chairman Steele's gut instinct spilled out, uglier.

    It's easy to temporarily forget Limbaugh's record of awfulness because the latest controversy tends to obliterate memories of past controversies -- controversies to which the Republicans have, by proxy, tethered themselves. If Limbaugh is the leader of the Republicans and the Republicans are, indeed, willing to embrace Limbaugh as such a leader, then the Republicans are embracing the whole nasty package.

    To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have sealed their status as the party of race-baiting. In Limbaugh's world, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama simply because Obama is black -- excuse me, Halfrican American. In Limbaugh's world, all blacks say "axe" instead of "ask." In Limbaugh's world, it's hilarious to pronounce Mayor Ray Nagin's name as Mayor Nay-ger. In Limbaugh's world, black contestants on Survivor are at a disadvantage because "blacks can't swim."

    To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have become the party of sexism. In Limbaugh's world, women who seek equal rights are making up for the fact that they're "ugly." In Limbaugh's world, it's hilarious to compare pubescent teenage girls to "the family dog." In Limbaugh's world, women live longer because their lives are somehow "easier." I can't imagine that would apply to Limbaugh's three ex-wives, but okay.

    To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have become the party of comparing torture to fraternity pranks. They've become the party of multiple divorces. The party of Oxycontin addiction. The party of "phony soldiers." The party of mysterious all-male excursions to foreign nations while in possession of erectile dysfunction medication prescribed under a false name. They've become the party of wild conspiracy theories like the one Limbaugh was repeating in October -- maybe you've heard this one. Did you know that Barack Obama traveled to Hawaii, not to visit his then-gravely ill grandmother, but instead to participate in the cover-up of his secret birth certificate?

    To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have become the party of this:

    The Republicans are bowing to the leadership of a man who physically mocked the involuntary tremors of a Parkinson's disease victim. I can't underscore this enough. Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party, actually imitated and exaggerated Michael J. Fox's Parkison's tremors.

    Governor Jindal: "I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives."

    Chairman Michael Steele: "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh."

    Congressman Mike Pence: "I think Rush Limbaugh -- who I admire, and like millions of Americans, I cherish his voice in the public debate."

    And so the Republicans expect to be taken seriously now?

    No wonder the White House is gleefully winking and nudging everyone in the direction of this Republican clown car of awfulness -- if not for the political advantage, for the sheer spectacle of watching the once mighty Republican Party effectively screwing itself. The Democrats, on one hand, appear to be busily going about the business of cleaning up the mess left behind by three decades of Reaganomics while, on the other the hand, the Republicans are duct-taping themselves to the ample bosom of the most self-satirical political sideshow geek in American media history, while also expecting this will help their electoral chances.

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Pain in the ass. No back pain he claimed. Which may be true, but guessin' he got to like it. Or else why now is he not still doing something over 30 day?

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There have been legitimate studies that back pain (or pain can manifest anywhere) is very much related to the main corridor of the central nervous system--the brain.  Sometimes this is unconscious--a way to cope with complete irrationality or something deeply disturbing to the individual.

      His unethical behavior, maybe?  Has a lot of pain?

      I'll guess he's still on the meds.  It's easy to get drugs or prescriptions if you know a doctor.  The burning of his housekeeper was just another show to the audience in the three ring circus.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    Probably actually all that heavy lifting, slinging all that bs everyday and carrying the ruling class on his shoulders. And of course the weight of being the head of the republican party.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That too!  Party of the Dead.  (!)  Oh, I am engaging in highly partisan humor... Oh, well.  smile

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    OK kiddo. Nighty night. Got to go prepare for the church of Bill Maher.

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I need to turn on CNN and order some take out... smile

  10. 60
    NewRepublicanposted 7 years ago

    As a conservative/Republican, Rush has alot of good points.  However, I do not want him to represent the party.  He gives the party a negative image and quite frankly I think he's an a*shole.  His attitude is damaging to the image of the party.  When people label us Republicans the "bad guys" it's due to people like him.  There are better ways to display the ideals of Republicans.  I feel that if the Republican party wants to recruit more people on its side it needs to be more positive.  On the other hand, I'm not too fond of Steele.  I feel he was put into the party to try to change the GOP's image, that's not the way to do it either.  In fact it's kind of insulting.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I heard a rumor that Rush is running for president with Ann Coulter as his VP running mate.

      1. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What a wonderful ticket!  An even more attractive couple than McCain & Palin.  Maybe Limbaugh will answer his campaign hotel room door in nothing but a towel, too.  That would be inspiring!

        1. Make  Money profile image73
          Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.  How scary.  That would pretty much bring an end to the Republican party, wouldn't it?  Or would it?

  11. Nickny79 profile image87
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Rush is my hero and inspriation.  One day I'm going to help turn Obama's America upsidedown (which means back to normal) all because of him.

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    "Rush is my hero and inspriation.  One day I'm going to help turn Obama's America upsidedown (which means back to normal) all because of him."
    You forgot the fat part. You gotta get really really fat.

    1. Nickny79 profile image87
      Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We must celebrate diversity with regard to size and not discriminate on the basis body type.  Please refrain from using the word "fat"--the correct alternative is "alternative body-type".  You are so offensive!  Off to
      PC school for you.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Would you buy "porcine?"

        1. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Porcine's good!  Creative.  I can picture it, lol.  Language diversity.

  13. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Wow, Rush really must excite you--you posted here three whole times.  Well, anything for a hero....

    The correct term for that body type is "endomorph," actually.  And don't worry Knol, I think he can work on the fat thing.

  14. Josh Frusciante profile image60
    Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago

    {Insert typical conservative bashing sentence here} Lets all hate on Rush Limbaugh because we disagree with him. Liberals are much better people and Conservatives! Lets trash those we disagree with! Such predictable little insects.

  15. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Oh!  We're just having fun.  Sometimes, despite always having to clean up conservative's little (or humongous) toddler-like (and dangerous) messes, liberals like to do that--at the perpetrators expense, of course.  smile

    "Disagree"  with Rush?  That has to be the under/mis-statement of the century. He himself is a walking endomorphic hate monger.

  16. Josh Frusciante profile image60
    Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago

    I love how people attack others, label them and then try to make themselves sound any better.

    "He himself is a walking endomorphic hate monger." That statement would ultimately lead to the conclusion that you yourself are an endomorphic hate monger.

    “Conservative’s little (or humongous) toddler-like (and dangerous) messes, liberals like to do that--at the perpetrators expense, of course.”  - Hey look a snotty liberal comment!

    This is typical snobby liberal, conservative bashing garbage. Predictable behavior from a liberal.. Such predictable behavior… Both parties are filled with the same things, just a bunch of old asshole who shit all over each other. Petty little political morons. Scum of the earth.  Both sides bashing each other, constantly trying to make the other look bad. I feel sorry for all of you little twits who get caught up in that game. I just love to pop in and torment both sides. Ignorance is bliss though isn’t it.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Josh, have you looked in the mirror lately?

      1. Josh Frusciante profile image60
        Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Brainless response. Typical. Assuming I may be conservative! Let the bashing commence! You of all people Mr.Ralph Deeds should look in the mirror... or shall I quote some of the mindless dribble you have laid out here?

  17. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Notice the use of the word "fun."  wink

    And I'm NOT, I'm really NOT...I'm NOT a endomorphic hate monger.

    I'm a meso/ectomorphic twit to be exact.  (Never call a female fat--those are fighting words.)

    1. Josh Frusciante profile image60
      Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Amusing response.. Ill leave you to your dignified conservative bashing.

  18. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    I'd argue it's a little out of bounds.  I also hope they don't seriously see him as a leader, for that does not inform the public debate (which is necessary) in a valid way.

    And I feel inflaming the working classes of a certain mindset (and no dis--I come from the working class & my own dad is a Republican) to make millions isn't especially ethical.

    Glad I'm not on the list, though, lol.

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's called free speech ... I feel like Obama, Ralph and even you have "dangerous" and even "wrong"  ideas.  But damn if I won't fight like hell for your right to present them.

      There is a liberal mindset that just irritates that snot out of a lot of people ... Rush may be loud, obnoxious and out of line sometimes, and sometimes he does make me cringe, not necessarily because I disagree with him, but because it's a bit over the top  ... but yeah, he's an entertainer.   His saying outragoues things about Kennedy - a public figure - is no worse than outargous things about Bush that have been said ...  Yeah, it was probably out of bounds.

      HIs obnoxiousness resonates with a lot of us who really find the elitest attitude offensive. 

      There was a time when no respectable commedian would use "the F word" now it's almost expected.  There are a lot of things that liberals do that offend conservatives ...  Rush is an entertainer .. so he's offensive he's also a practicioner of free speech.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, Rush is a practitioner of free speech. And I'm sure the liberal "elitist" ACLU would support him if the government tried to suppress him. I've heard the term "elitist" applied by conservatives to Democrats but it seems to me that the Republicans are the elitists. Bush is the one who can't wait to cut taxes for the billionaires and who wants to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. The "liberal elitists" support preserving Social Security, health care reform, more money for education, roads and transportation, etc. I have a hard time seeing where this "elitist" stuff comes from. Perhaps because liberals don't support teaching creationism in public schools, criminalizing abortion, capital punishment, and do support gun control, comprehensive sex ed in schools, etc. Yet, those positions don't strike me as "elitist." Please explain your use of the term, Just why about our attitude is "elitist?" BDazzler.

        1. BDazzler profile image82
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          In my opinion at the national level there is no difference between republican and democrat in practice.

          Education - Or indoctrination, this is not money for teachers or class rooms but money for "compliance" and "right thinking" ... I used to work for a company that did educational administratiion software, and I couldn't stomach some of the data that was being collected on children and families and had to get out.

          Social Security - The biggest ponzi scheme on the planet. They (both republicans and democrats) have stolen the money that should have been saved for us and have spent it on paying back their campaign contibutors.  The only reason it has been working is that more people have been paying in than getting money out, until now.  The boomers are ready to expose the ponzi scheme. Madoff will look like small potatoes.

          Health Care Reform - "We don't have enough money so you have to die earlier" Let's spend more money on administration and compliance regulations than medicine and treatment. 

          Roads and Transporation - You mean like the bridge go no where?

          You (and yes Ralph I mean you personally) believe that the govenement, as long as they are democrats, knows better than me how I should spend my money and how my friends and I should educate our own children.



          I want smaller govenemtnt at the national level. I don't want abortion to be a national issue. I don't want gun control to be a national issue. I don't want health care or education to be national issues.

          These are local issues that should be dealt with at the local level, not at the national level and for you or anyone else, democrat or republican  to say you know how to run my life better than I do is offensive and elietst.

        2. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Amen. And if my ideas are a little 'dangerous,' I'm glad to be in good company.

          1. BDazzler profile image82
            BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, seriously, has the ACLU ever stood up for any conservative or Christian free speech?  Is there such a case?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely! I'll do a little research and get back with you.
              Here's one. http://www.aclu-em.org/pressroom/2007pr … cision.htm
              There are plenty more. Another--
              http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology … case.shtml

              http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acluofp … gescou.htm

              Here's a list of ACLU free speech cases
              http://www.riaclu.org/freespeech.html

              Here's a case where the ACLU supported a church group's right to wear anti-gay & lesbian T Shirts
              http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/ … ?AID=17607

              Is ACLU an anti-Christian organization?
              http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/11/12/i … zation.htm

              1. BDazzler profile image82
                BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I concede the point. The ACLU will defend conservative causes.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow! Thanks! That's one of the few times anybody has conceded to one of my points. You've made my day! (I know what I'm talking about re ACLU. I've been a member for several years. It defends the Constitutional free speech rights of Christians, gays, lesbians, Nazis, Commies, Corporations and even Republicans. It also takes on unpopular separation of Church and state and other cases.)

                  1. BDazzler profile image82
                    BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Honestly, Ralph, I don't have to be right.  If it's a valid point, you got it! I really don't attack liberals just because they're liberal.

          2. BDazzler profile image82
            BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            BTW ... My point was that your ideas and Rush's ideas are both 'dangerous' and both deserve an open and free airing.

            During the Larry Flint vs. Jerry Falwell thing, I contacted Falwell's offce and told him if he was successful in shutting up Larry Flint, it would hinder our ability to print Sunday School material.  His office didn't agree ... and I just stepped out of the mess after that ... still Free Speech ... vital ... espescially with 'dangerous' and unpopular ideas.

            1. 0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              All ideas are NOT created equal.  I am thankful for the free market of ideas--though not necessarily excited about many of the buyers, lol...  They don't know how to budget or pick the right kinds of food, unfortunately.

              Anyway--that was a compliment to Ralph--since you were saying Obama and Ralph & EVEN my ideas were 'dangerous.'  I am happy to be in the company of such people, who I believe know what they are talking about.  smile

              1. BDazzler profile image82
                BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, I never doubted for a minute you know what you're talking about.  I just don't happen to agree  with the basic premise y'all start with.  I agree that all ideas are not equal ... but without a free airing of the ideas, people can't evaluate them. smile

  19. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Gotta go.  Giving Ralph support.  smile

    Yes, of course there is.  No time right now...

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Bye! Always fun!! smile

  20. RKHenry profile image80
    RKHenryposted 7 years ago

    Ummm, yes.  The ACLU is very active in cases of Capital Punishment.  They are the reason Christian families get to have their say.  They are the reason the death penalty is being wiped out.  They openly embrace Christian free speech. 

    The whole concept of the ACLU goes against every fiber of the Ring wing Conservative Party of now.  But it makes no difference to them if you're Conservative or Liberal, Christian or Agnostic- if INJUSTICE is being done, it is the injustice they will fight. 

    So the answer to your question is, yes.  There are many proved cases of where the ACLU has defended freedom of Speech, Christian or not.
    Yes many ACLU lawyers are Conservatives fighting for American rights.  Case in point is Charlie Rogers out of Kansas City, MO.  He works with about 50% of all death penalty cases.  In the world of the ACLU, he is a true "Conservative Christian" Hero.  Despite what his beliefs are, I admire him for his talent as a gifted defender.

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I concede your point ... still ... Ralph's arguments are better ... He gave specifics big_smile

  21. RKHenry profile image80
    RKHenryposted 7 years ago

    Better question would've been, how many average Evangelical Christian Conservatives support the ACLU?  Care to make a donation?

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hell no big_smile

      1. RKHenry profile image80
        RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Is it rather the fact that "Christ"  approves of the ACLU, that has you running scared or just your true colors?

        Donations to the poor.  Donations for the poor.  Donations to save life, anyone?

        1. BDazzler profile image82
          BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol 

          Do you know what I've personally done for the poor ... nope ...
          Do you know what I've personally done to save lives ... nope ...
          Do you know how many would be homeless people I've taken in over the years ... nope...


          You don't know me and yet you accuse me of my mean spiritedness and cowardice because I don't give money to your favorite cause,and I'm showing my "true colors" ...
          My,  my you are open minded aren't you?  lol 

          OK, Ralph, Lita ... this is what I mean by "elitist" someone who assumes that becuase I don't agree with them or give my money to thier cause that I'm morally inferior. big_smile

          1. RKHenry profile image80
            RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            My, my took my post personal did you?  Personal need to brag means you've not done enough.  Need I remind yet another hubber, I made no declaration against you and your support of the poor.  I never mentioned that the ACLU was my favorite cause.  Ge  If you don't like my attitude, pray to your God for acceptance.  I will not tolerate yours.  This is ridiculous behavior and not even a preschool teacher would stand for it.

            1. BDazzler profile image82
              BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Are you actually saying it was not directed at me personally?

              1. Is it rather the fact that "Christ"  approves of the ACLU - You attack my faith
              2.  you running scared  - Is that not a personal attack and anaccusation of cowardice?
              3. your true colors - Is that not a personal attack on my honor?

              Two of these three are directed at me, personally note the use of the personal pronoun "you".

              Which of these have I mis-construed? And put "words in your writings"

              So, you attack my faith, my courage and my honor with the deliberate intension of giving personal offense, then pretend to have a greivence that I have taken offense?

              You are elitist.  You not only deliberattely give offence, you expect people to just sit there and say "Thank you, may I have another".

              I demand satisfaction!!!

              I challenge you to supersoakers at 20 paces! big_smile  -Chill yourself lol you dindn't see all the smiley faces ... Yeah, I think you deliberately intended to offend me, personally. ANd I made fun of you for it.

              Sorry, you just made it so easy. big_smile

              1. RKHenry profile image80
                RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Boy, this is a true blue Christian.  Im sure Christ would be proud.  You've just made a mockery of your faith and yourself.  Way to go Christian Brother.  ridiculous.

                1. BDazzler profile image82
                  BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol lol - I said "Sorry" lol lol lol

                  Oh, yeah, I know you didn't mean that as a personal attack big_smile

                  1. RKHenry profile image80
                    RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure your Christ will be the last one laughing.  Excuse me while I puke.

    2. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If it's a low number, it's because evangelicals have been brainwashed by their leaderships to take a deeply partisan, right-wing view, even when it comes to their own civil liberties. For many of these churches' hierarchies, both civil liberties among their parishioners and left tax policies are anathema.

  22. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    Personally I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh, never have, never will, however I due have an unusual respect for somoene who enjoys conflict, as we are all certainly discussing him.smile

    1. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Me too. 

      The man is a loud mouth drug addict.

  23. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    I've often felt humor to be a powerful weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.  Witness many a political cartoon.  Very standard.

    And nope--not interested in shutting you up or having you be impressed with me. (Actually I was trying to de-flammatize you with humor, if you must know.  Did it work? lol)  smile  No?

    You may even be surprised by reasons why I would be calling Limbaugh out. (Well, besides the fact I think he is an idiot--an opinion, which like you, I have a right to voice.)  Trust me, liberals have every reason to WANT him to be known as the leader of the Republicans.  Because with a voice like that, it guarantees failure on their part.

    Not worried about my dignity at all....  lol  Why are you?  Let me be very, very undignified then.

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol See, this is why you're dangerous .... you're so reasonable big_smile

    2. Josh Frusciante profile image60
      Josh Fruscianteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am actually a very easy going peace loving person.If you were trying yo "De-flammatize" me.. consider it done.I would never refuse an offer of peace. ☺

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Joe Conason on Limbaugh in Salon today:

        While Limbaugh may or may not be a racist himself, he has never hesitated to indulge bigotry among his listeners -- sometimes in the whining tone of the victimized white male, but often in an aggressive skinhead style. Not long ago, he mixed up a cocktail of slurs to express his contempt for the man he calls "the magic Negro," complaining that we all have to "bend over" for Barack Obama merely because "his father was black."

        Then again, Rush is the kind of compassionate conservative who cannot imagine why anyone would support aid to the genocide victims of Darfur except for "the color of their skin," which happens to match that of a certain Democratic "voting bloc" here at home.

        Limbaugh’s catalog of slurs, both ugly and incendiary, dates back to the earliest days of his radio career, when he brusquely ordered an African-American listener to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and sneeringly asked, "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" He once suggested that the NAACP, an American institution devoted to nonviolence and the rule of law, "should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

        His obnoxious remarks drone on and on in a depressingly long monologue that also targets other minorities, women, gays and so on. It used to be excused as "politically incorrect humor" but it was always just unfunny and hateful bilge.

  24. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 7 years ago

    I have met a few Limbaugh listeners, walking around with the earphones on laughing. Talk to them and they are dumb as a stump, but nice so long as you are not obviously the enemy.

  25. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    I have never met a female Rush Limbaugh fan.  I think it's all about victimized white males.

    And the only time, interestingly, I ever heard Limbaugh's show for a length of time (I read of him in the press) was in Iowa City, IA, in an art studio, where the first card carrying socialist on any US city council, Karen (also an artist) was listening to it until the rest of us told her to turn it off.  Don't know why she was listening to it--perhaps to understand or get perspective.  ?

    It is drivel; its annoyingly high pitched and excruciatingly stupid and by no means funny.  It also has the tendency to embarrass any fairly well educated white person within listening range I noticed, and embarrass me for them. 

    (I was just trying to de-flammatize Josh.)

    1. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I know a lot of them, but I live in a more conservative part of the country ...  These are not "just housewives" either. (Which, by the way, they find a is used as derogatory term by 'Yankee women' who ... well just don't get me started ... I thought I was conservative till I moved down here! )

      Most of them are women who have managed a successful balance between family and career. 

      More of our ideas about "right" and  "left" and "right" and "wrong" are more cultural than we like to believe.

      We, all of us, at some level judge others by our own cultural norms.  For example, I notice that the UK members of this forum want to "eliminate all guns" ... that's a cultural thing.  I don't own a gun, maybe never will, but I live in the Southern US and I like knowing I can if I want to.  The idea of gun control here is considered ludicrous.

      Culture is an odd thing, and we cling to it in so many ways, I never settled in one place very long (I've never lived more than 12 years in a single place) ... and still I do...  The customs and norms of the cajuns originally seemed primitive and uncouth to me ... but I've also found them to be a warm loving people.  Many may find it appalling, but I was fascinated by the description of how to hunt, kill, cook and eat an alligator ... using an air rifle.  Yeah, an air rifle.  Yikes! yikes 

      Still I wanted to try to eat fresh alligator after hearing that story.  Not sure I'm up to hunting one with an air rifle, though.

      All of this fussing and fighting between the left and the right is based on "I want your culture to be more like my culture and I want my culture.

      For example I've seen dozens of arguments along the lines of ... The US South should eliminate guns because they don't have them in the UK and the UK is culturally superior.

      Everybody then posts links to statistics, news stories and/or articles that support their side.

      It's interesting, and fun ... but seriously ... we all know my culture is superior big_smile big_smile big_smile

      1. Nickny79 profile image87
        Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So true--liberals celebrate every sort of diversity except intellectual diversity.  If you don't think and live like them, you are an oppressive white male or some ignoramus programmed to submit to an oppressive agenda.

        That Rush has female listeners is proven by the calls he takes--at least half are female.  Of the millions of listeners he has, surely they cannot all be oppressive white males like myself.     wink



        Obama = Jimmy Carter

        1. RKHenry profile image80
          RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Excuse me while I put on my BS waders.
          Rush= Boris Yelstin

          Good morning Nick.  Whats up big guy?

        2. 0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Excuse me while I put on my 'pseudo intellectual psychoanalysis' lenses, but I have a hard time seeing you as speaking for anyone other than a 'wannabe' of any sort, Nick, wink

          Limbaugh has to say outrageous things because his shrinking listener base counts on that to re-enforce their prehistoric views of American life. If he didn't say totally outlandish things, Limbaugh wouldn't get any press.  He does nothing to make this a better country and plenty to degrade it.

          And the turn of phrase I think is definitely ‘oppressed white males.’  Or, dinosaurs.

          1. Nickny79 profile image87
            Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            His ratings are up by 35% since Obama took office.

            1. 0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I hear Britney Spear's ratings are up, too!

      2. 0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Note the use of the word 'met,' as in I have never met a female Rush Limbaugh fan.  Though I am sure the poor things do exist.

        I do know of the kind (certainly it must be a certain segment and absolutely not all) of southern women you are talking about however.  I'm good as long as they keep themselves down in the gulf region with their contractor internet married 6 times husbands they just met and don't come west to start a cookin' in our kitchen cuz the kids need food and all you do is order pizza when we get in at 11pm, and dadgummit, I just whipped my ex-husband and got all the money, even tho I never worked all that much in my lifetime.

        'Culture' is complicated.  Proud to be, lol, a 'Yank.'  wink

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Polls on gun control indicate a majority of Americans support sticter regulations and/or more effective enforcement.

          Scan recent surveys that touch on guns and gun control and you realize quickly that it has not been a matter of political debate in quite some time. Last fall, a question on gun control was included in an October Post/ABC News survey.

          The sample was asked whether they favored or opposed "stricter gun laws." Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations.

          Not surprisingly, Democrats were generally more supportive of more gun restrictions than Republicans. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favored stricter laws, compared with 52 percent of Republicans who said the same; 56 percent of independents supported tighter strictures.

          The same trend was seen when voters were differentiated by ideology. Seventy-one percent of liberals backed stricter gun laws, followed by 61 percent of moderates and 55 percent of conservatives.

          It's interesting to note that the Post/ABC poll was in the field shortly after the the shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania -- the third fatal school shooting in a week's time. Events like the Amish school shooting or even Columbine incident -- i.e. ones that managed to make gun violence in schools a part of the daily debate for several years -- don't have any long-term impact on Americans' overall beliefs about gun laws. Since 1989, an average of 63 percent have expressed support for stricter gun laws -- regardless of external events.

          Gallup provides more historical perspective. A survey conducted at almost the same time the Post/ABC poll was in the field last fall (after the Amish shooting) found that 53 percent of the sample favored stricter enforcement of current law while 43 percent backed the idea of stricter enforcement of current laws as well as new regulations.

          1. Nickny79 profile image87
            Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well aren't you a bundle of interesting trivia!  I propose we repeal the 2nd Amendment.

          2. BDazzler profile image82
            BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Dude, I'm in favor of more effective enforcement of existing laws ... making a law you can enforce weakens your entire legal infrastructure.  I'm also in favor of repealing truly unenforceable laws (thus freeing up resources to enforce the others.)

            If the current laws were enforced stricter laws wouldn't be necessary.
            Furthermore, if current laws cannot be/are not enforced then stricter laws are pretty worthless, because there's no expectation of those laws being enforced either.

            1. Nickny79 profile image87
              Nickny79posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well said.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I haven't researched the issue, but my impression is that there are quite a few loopholes in the current laws, especially wrt gun dealers. Last week I read about Texas gun dealers selling all kinds of sophisticated weapons to Mexican drug gangs to the point that they are better armed than the Mexican army. Seems to me there should be a way to stop that. I'm not too worried about the "2nd Amendment rights" of Mexican drug lords (or American drug lords for that matter!).

                1. BDazzler profile image82
                  BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It's possible (though I haven't researched it either) that your impression is similar to the impression I had that the ACLU never defends conservatives.

                  Unsure about specifics.  I do know that most of the drug lords will probably ignore the gun laws anyway - unless a way is found to endorsed those laws.  If such loopholes exist closing them in congress/state legislatures will be meaningless unless there is a means of enforcement.

                  My point was that when you said "Polls on gun control indicate a majority of Americans support sticter regulations and/or more effective enforcement."

                  That depending on how the question was asked I may have said "Yes I'm in favor of more effective enforcement"  ... even though I'm a strong supporter of a fully armed and trained citizenry.

                  I would for example, argue mandatory fire arms training and qualification on any gun purchased. In other words, if you don't have a good chance of killing what you point at, you have no business pointing that gun. So, if you need to prove you can drive a car to get a drivers license, maybe you should have to prove you can shoot to get a gun license.
                  Pass a gun safety test.  Prove you can clean and care for your weapon. Prove you know how to secure it.

                  Common sense stuff. That doesn't limit your right to bare arms.  It enhances it. And makes for a more responsible and safer gun owner.

                  Is that "stricter" ?... maybe.  But I think it's in the spirit of the 2nd amendment .. "a well ordered militia"

                  So "polls" kind of depend on what question is asked and why. Besides, when you and Cheny go hunting, you certainly want options wink

              2. 0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                However, on the topic of this post, I think the 'victimized white male' defense must rest, wink.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Speaking about victimized white males, what about victimized American taxpayers?
                  http://hubpages.com/hub/Crook-Alert-AIG … yers-Money

  26. Nickny79 profile image87
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    I just want to check in and speak on behalf of the "victimized white males" wink...that I'm proud listener of Rush Limbaugh and the only regret I have about being a part of his audience is that I don't have an opportunity to listen to him as much as I would like.  I don't speak for myself, but for many an educated white male in NYC who finds his program to be an oasis right thinking in an ideological wasteland.   Rush speaks for himself and needs no defense--indeed, the ceaseless bashing and the incessant effort to discredit him herein is a testament to his enduring genius.  Keep bashing, haters.  The current administration's days are numbered. 

    Obama = Jimmy Carter.

    1. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Rush= Boris Yelstin

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Bush=Alfred P.Newman
        Rush=Bobo the Clown

  27. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Yes...numbered to 8 years...

  28. Nickny79 profile image87
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Hi hater.

    1. RKHenry profile image80
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi.

  29. Nickny79 profile image87
    Nickny79posted 7 years ago

    Obama = Carter

    1. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Limbaugh is the new Hip Hop face of the GOP.  His new name is SpongeRush Fatpants.  They should, like, totally start a band!  Dude!

  30. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Limbaugh = Bobo the Clown

  31. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    The link doesn't work anymore, but yep:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/1 … 74997.html

    TMG should get in on a discussion of this one--he worked for them!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I must have been editing/adding to the link. It now works.

  32. Lena M. profile image61
    Lena M.posted 7 years ago

    If he could present his points without all the Rush Limbaugh crap attached, the Republican party would be much better off

    But that's not going to happen, because Rush Limbaugh comes with the Rush Limbaugh crap.

 
working