And that seems to sum up most people, apparently, who post on this board. An Article in the LA Times, certainly not a right wing newspaper, comes pretty close to summarizing them, I would say.
Article says: Take the Limbaugh Challenge

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klavan29-2009mar29,0,545689 2.story

The headline pretty well sums it up....

Well Harv,

I have listeed to Linbaugh many times.
I have not listened to him for a while, but I used to quite a bit.

Does character count?

Do you admire a drug addict that would send his housekeeper to score Hillbilly Heroin for him?

Do you respect a person who takes Viagra that was not prescibed to him on a Prostitution holiday to the Dominican Republic?

Wait. I thought that Rush was purely an entertainer. And just like many entertainers, I can appreciate his unique skill; Pretending NOT to be an entertainer, but a real voice. A real leader. Able to fool listeners into following him so fervently. Phil Hendrie WISHES he had a joke that good to tell. But I am not entertained by Rush Limbaugh.

That's fair, right? I mean, I listen to Elton John. He was a massive coke addict. I happen to like what he created in spite of that. I like listening to Elton John. Conversely, Lindsay Lohan has had some drug issues. It's not that I dislike her for that. It's that I don't like anything she's created. I'm not entertained by her.

It took me a while to catch on to Rush's act. But you know where I was set straight about it being an act? HERE! By Republicans who went out on a limb to kind of defend his actions and to give perspective. And for that I am grateful.

In conclusion, Rush Limbaugh = Lindsay Lohan.

First, please note that this writer does not give an example of Rush Limbaugh being taken out of context. Only the writer's rhetoric.

Second, I have better things to listen to on the radio.

Third, 18 years ago I listened to him sitting at my desk at work. Over time I learned that I was rejecting my Republican upbringing. (I voted only for Republicans, now it's pretty much the opposite.)

I don't see anybody hating Rush Limbaugh.

Lots of people don't like him, and don't consider him authoritative.

CJ, that's a priceless post! Well done!

He's a well paid, ratings getting, buffoon. That's all.

"Does character count? "

Am I given to understand that none of the self righteous liberals posting on this forum have ever used any drugs?

From Rush Limbaugh's own mouth:

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." -- in 1995

"I am addicted to prescription pain medication." -- in 2003

See the hypocracy? How many day's did Rush Limbaugh spend up the river?

My 2 cents, Rush is an attention whore. I don't care about his drug use. But he will do just about anything to get in the headlines and stay there while propagating Necon talking points ad nauseum. His show is only successful, in my opinion, because you can't drive from Maine to California without dropping a signal that carries his "broadcast." He regularly gets his butt kicked in markets where he isn't the sole voice of the Talk AM bandwidth. So, carry on Mr. Limbaugh. Republicans are doing a fine job of recasting themselves as the Barry Goldwater style party they should be.

There is a slight difference between being treated for severe pain by a doctor and becoming addicted and the addiction to street drugs for no reason except doing it.

It's not Rush's drug addiction that bothers liberals, it's the truth of his message. You're a funny bunch.

>>Maine to California ... carries his "broadcast."
Theres a reason for that.

You can always tell when a Conservative speaks the truth. They get trashed on this forum. No need to check further.

"It's not Rush's drug addiction that bothers liberals, it's the truth of his message."

How about the hypocrisy of his message versus his personal behaviour?

If he were a liberal, this would all be very uninteresting. It's call "the double standard".

"There is a slight difference between being treated for severe pain by a doctor and becoming addicted and the addiction to street drugs for no reason except doing it."

In the eyes of the law or the lemmings who listen to his radio program?

I don't think that's the real point, Deane. Cigarettes and alcohol are drugs, too, so it's hard to find any media person from any generation or genre of media that can't be tied to some kind of "drug."

The main point, covered well by CJ, is that those that wish to make their living entertaining should be expected to be scrutinized to the nth degree, as much by the competitive media as by the public.

Rush is a buffoon to many people. Many overlook how unsuccessful he was in radio before his big break out. He got his act by culling many who had come down the pike before him, and as he perfected it his success grew. However, when you live by the sword(ratings) you die by the sword. The most telling part of his success is that his appeal and his success are pretty much corollated to a big void on AM radio when music picked up and left for the FM dial. His success is just as much rooted in the explosion of talk radio as his own formula of rhetoric and hyperbole.

After all is said and rehashed, I think everyone from slightly right of center to the whacko left extreme don't hate the guy, they just think he is mostly full of shit. He was less full of it when he was on the rise as opposed to now, where he is just riding his own wave. As the traditional Republicans search for identity, they are rejecting him and rightfully so. Most entertainers lose their touch long before they are rejected by their loyal followers.
He can only survive as long as he adapts to the changing wave of conservative ideology, which I don't believe is a constant. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are not fixed in meaning. The history of the country backs that up.

Deane is working the dodge list today. Good. Maybe I will see a new form to add to the list.

Deane, he's an entertainer. That's it. If you want to assign any authority, or TRUTH to his message, then he isn't an entertainer.

Which is it?

I don't agree with a lot of Rush's positions, but I apparently feel much less threatened by him than many here do.

I don't think anyone here feels threatened by him anymore than they feel threatened by the darkness of Pink Floyd or the blandness of Kenny G.

How can anybody be threatened by a buffoon?

It's laughable.

"How can anybody be threatened by a buffoon? "

Are you referring to Rush or Deane?

Deane said - " I don't agree with a lot of Rush's positions, but I apparently feel much less threatened by him than many here do."

Fair enough. But why is that? I mean, I find that to be a kind of important point. You don't agree with a lot of Rush's posiions. Me either. Heck, I'll even cop to feeling threatened by some of them. You can ask me why if you wish and I'll answer. But for now, I am really curious and honestly asking; Why don't you agree with his positions? Is it because he says things for effect and you see through that? Is it because he fosters and feeds the very thing you use against me; Feeling threatened?

Is it because you are above being fooled and you know that's what he's doing to those who believe what he says and they mobilize accordingly? That's the part that I admit, I fear. It does bother me. I'm not above admitting it.

Where are those people being led to if not somewhere good? If it's not a good place, then why do people follow him so fervently?

I don't feel that it is ME that is having to navigate this double standard or tightrope or conveniently shifting motivation. I honestly feel the only reason I have to try and cover seemingly disparate angles is because they have been placed right before me as proof of motivation every time this topic comes up.

Rush has gone from -

Insightful commentary to stumbling onto the ability to motivate others to enjoying the power that comes aling with that to deep hypocrisy to manipulating people to a degree that, regardless of my politics, really bothers me. Some may say I am even threatened by it.

Now if someone can explain why I am wrong to think, see or feel this way, I really would like to hear it. I have as much of an open mind as I can muster about Rush. But it feels like there is some truth to really be stated here - at least for little ol' CJ's benefit. I'd really like to hear it.

What's wrong with me for noticing all of these things?

Wow!!!
Musta hit a nerve. 20 posts in about 9 hours. Proves my point. All rehash previously stated opinions and personal viewpoints but none have addressed the points that the article states.

This could easily have been written about Rachel Maddow or any of the talkers from the opposite side and I would venture to say that the points are the same. It could just as easily have been written that most people who complain about Rachel or Hartmann, or anyone for that matter, don't or haven't really listened to them and are only going on perception based on one or two short samplings and more on attitudes perpetuated by those opinions based more on personal views than actual reality.

Sure, Rush gives his opinions, as do other talk show people. One thing he does do is to first tell you what he read and where he read it from (cites his sources), and then proceeds to tell you his opinion of it. That's all. You can agree or disagree.

I am not saying I agree with Rush because I really don't agree with everything he says. I also don't have time to listen to him or anyone all day and night. I have sampled other talk shows and find myself agreeing with some points by many of them and also disagreeing with some of their points. They all have valid points from time to time. Rush, Maddow, Hartmann, Larson,Taliaferro, Gene Burns, etc. Even Savage has interesting points from time to time. You may find you even agree with some of what he says even though you hate the messenger.

But, alas, it seems most people are intent on bashing and name calling those that disagree with them rather than engaging in rational dialogue. It seems to be ok to rip the past of those you don't agree with but not the past of those you agree with.

CJ, the things I don't agree with are perhaps his extreme conservatism. For instance, he's in a lather over the government issue with the Wall Street bonuses. I feel the opposite. If we give them money, then we (taxpayers) have a right to make certain demands. Otherwise, no money.

Same with the auto industry. He objects to the firing of the GM CEO. They guy was apparently a dud. What financial source is not going to demand he be replaced before giving them money.

I don't agree with Rush on his view on environmental issues. I'm more of a moderate. We need conservation, but not the extremes the liberals want, and not the "to hell with it" Rush wants.

I do agree with him on certain people he thinks are total losers. Polosi, Dodd, Frank, Reid just to name a few.

Where I am confused is how dangerous Obama may or may not be. I'm troubled by Obama's saying one thing and doing another. Whether or not he has totally hidden and ulterior motives is something I'm not clear on. Rush is convinced Obama has a secret agenda.

May no mistake, Rush is there to tweak people and to annoy liberals and he certainly accomplishes his goal.

"But, alas, it seems most people are intent on bashing and name calling those that disagree with them rather than engaging in rational dialogue."

And the puritanical Rush Limbaugh would never stoop to name calling, making veiled racial slurs, spreading innuendo, outright lying or even making fun of a child's looks because he doesn't like her parents?

A serious discourse? With whom? He almost never speaks with people on his radio show who disagree with him. I find it a stretch calling his program a "serious discourse".

He's a carnival barker. If you want serious discourse, listen to NPR or the BBC.

Exactly.

And this would not be so easy to write about Maddow. Go ahead and try. You will find her to be very solid in her presentation, and completely honest in where her bias is.

Where the facts are clear, those are presented in an extremely clear contrast to opinion.

Maddow has few peers in this.

As for being threatened BY Limbaugh, I stand by what I posted above. A buffoon doesn't do that for me.

However, the movement that has latched on to him as some kind of authority, is threatening! That's the 23 percenters and they are growing increasingly pissed at the reality they are highly likely to be marginalzed over this next few years.

Frankly, I think many of them are no different than the Taliban, and that is very worrysome to me. And their ideas range from uncomfortable to criminalizing who people are, to violence in both the name of their faith and country.

Scary stuff. And stuff I am threatened by.

That's the kind of thing you speak about, push back on and educate others where possible, unless you want to let it fester and continue to grow into something ugly.

What chaps my ass about Limbaugh is that he unabashedly exploits this. That 23 percent audience, along with some smaller fraction of otherwise ordinary people, is where his money comes from.

It's an easy, sleezy sell and he knows it. Take your average bigot, for example. That bigot can tune to the Limbaugh show and hear it's ok to be a bigot, when it's really not.

As a result of that affirmation, the bigot will be the most loyal, engaged, responsive listener there is! They've got no where else to go, and a vested interest in seeing their affirmation continue.

That's a very LOW way to make the dollars, particularly coupled with this bizzare back and forth about being an entertainer or not. When something ugly happens, it's always "he's just an entertainer, relax!". When it's defending some failed ideology, or affirming things like bigotry, sexism and other discrimination, we then hear "he's a fine American, and a leader too!".

The line between fact and opinion, as presented on the Limbaugh program is so damn blurry it might as well not exist. That's a purposeful move too.

That's just shitty, sleazy selling.

To contrast Maddow, she doesn't do that. Her bias is clear. Her status as a media personality is clear. Her opinion is clear, and well supported by the facts presented, and there is NO support for ugly things like bigotry, sexism, racism and such.

Whole different ball game.

And, BTW, that's a harder sell. If the material doesn't stand on it's own merits, then she is done.

On the other hand, Limbaugh can always pander to the lowest of the low and know they will go NOWHERE. Ever. That's a built in handicap for Limbaugh. That's why he's on so many stations too!

He's not on a ton of radio stations because he's right about things, or that he's some authority. He's on those stations because he's willing to go to the mat to sell to the lowest of the low, every day, any place, any time and do it consistently.

Air his program, and you get those 23 percenters. They are in the bag, live everywhere and will absolutely listen and respond.

Air the Maddow program and you will get listeners from all over the map, but it's not a sure thing like it is for Limbaugh.

If you were to factor that out, he's a buffoon that would probably rate a local program at best.

Maddow has a doctorate in social science. Limbaugh has nothing but his ability to sell the slime hard.

Deane vs. Deane:
First
...it's the truth of his message.

Then
I don't agree with a lot of Rush's positions...

Huh?

Deane must be hitting the silage today.

Count me as someone who hates Rush Limbaugh. Yes, I hate the guy. He's a racist and a hate monger, and I hate people that fall into that category. And worst of all, he's a first class hypocrite and his opinions are not based on facts, they're based on how Rush sees the world. Simply put, he's bad for America. We need less people like Rush Limbaugh.

And as for the joker who wrote that article, I look forward to his next article on defending all the principles Rush stands for that have been rejected by the mainstream and are now proven failures.

Limbaugh challenged: In LA Times op-ed, Klavan claimed he's "never heard" Limbaugh "utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word"

>> I hate the guy. He's a racist and a hate monger, and I hate people that fall into that category
So much for hate speech...

The Man Who Ate the G.O.P.

Let's see...Limbaugh was quick to blame the falling stock market immediately following Obama taking over...let's see if he's as quick to assign credit to him following the markets' best monthly performance since October 2002.

I bet he doesn't.

"We need less people like Rush Limbaugh"

We need fewer people like Vitology. When they run out of anything else to piss and moan about, they trot out the race card.

I don't listen to Rush.

I know-I'm such a thread killer.

"...they trot out the race card."

Facts are facts, and Rush Limbaugh lost his gig on ESPN because of racist remarks he made about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. Remember Al Campanis of the LA Dodgers organization? He did the same sort of thing while being interviewed on Nightline and was fired for it.

Those weren't racist remarks. This race thing is totally out of control. Fuck PC.

deane sez: Fuck PC.

Yeah, I know, it puts fat old white guys at a disadvantage these days. At least you guys can sit around and remember the good old days when the playing field was slanted . . . er, make that lopsided in your favor.

It must chap your hide to treat people equally these days.

"It must chap your hide to treat people equally these days."

I don't.

We know.

Rush Limbaugh on race courtesy of newsone.blackplanet.com:

1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Limbaugh, on Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb:

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL,'' Limbaugh said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well ... McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve."

Former Dodgers GM Al Campanis on African-American baseball managers:
"...blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager."

Campanis continued on about the lack of prominent African-American swimmers:
"...because they don't have the buoyancy."

Deane, care to take your comments back about those not being racially charged comments?

For the record, Donovan McNabb had ZERO issue with Limbaugh calling out his play or leadership. The only issue was that it was tied in with the color of McNabb's skin.

I am with you on the whole PC thing being, in a lot of ways, bullshit. That said, it is flat fucking wrong to EVER correlate the performance of a person with their ethnicity, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. That is over the line, and we as a society NEED to denounce that whenever it surfaces.

Limbaugh, as cited above, has made many disparaging remarks about African-American people being "inadequate". Deane, whether you like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is the face of the conservative movement, the Republican Party. I lauded the RNC naming Michael Steele as its chairman, now if the conservative rank-and-file listened to Steele and embraced him, and his seeming to want to move the party more to the middle, and embraced his heritage and banded around it instead of listening and worshipping this aging blowhard that spews hatred and intolerance, the Republican party and the conservative movement would have more clout, more traction, and would consist of far more than the "23 percenters" KSKD always points to.

Don't you want MORE than that, Deane?

"Deane, care to take your comments back about those not being racially charged comments?"

I do not. But, you added in comments of others not relative to Limbaugh. What is there with that I don't understand?

By the way, I don't follow sports so I have no opinion on these things. I don't know if any of the comments are true or are not. I didn't hear Limbaugh say what he did, only read about it later.

I brought up what Tal said above about Al Campanis, because he was in a position of power, a highly successful general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers who was the architect of multiple World Series-winning teams. He had a lot of clout in baseball circles ... and with a couple of statements on Nightline, he lost it ALL. Because of off-colored comments about African-Americans ...

Why should Rush get a free pass here? Because of his immense talent and ability to generate revenue and sponsors for his employer? Nobody is questioning that here about him. He is the very best at what he does, and the proof is in his longevity. But to condone, or just ignore the racial comments that Rush has spewed over the years is wrong.

Don Imus was knocked down several pegs for much less than what Rush has said.

Race gets brought up here, mostly because comments of a racial nature are contributed here.

It's that simple.

Sometimes they are a gaffe, and when that happens, it's easy enough to see it for what it is and move on.

Other times they are not. And I'm not the only one to see it and call people on it.

Discrimination is flat out wrong. It violates equality, and that is a very important and core American ideal. We know it happens, and we are obligated to push back on it, or we see it gestate into something worse.

There is a difference between PC and racism. I use the word Black, because I think African American is stupid. What are we? European Americans then?

Yeah, thought so.

Nigger is a racial comment. Niggardly is something seen in the book "Tom Sawyer" and is an older world word that means roughly frugal. Black is neither, and is most often the word heard when we ask somebody, who is black, to self identify.

PC prevents these conversations, and I think that's wrong. Expression should only be limited when there is a clear harm attached to it. Niggardly, given our American history, is valid expression that sadly, just sounds like nigger. Bummer.

However, not being able to say "Black", because it somehow diminishes how American somebody is, really reveals the speaker being uncomfortable with minority issues, and attempting to compensate for them with excessive emphasis on the American part.

Bummer on that too.

Better to just say African, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc... this treats people equally, unless we all want to be [some kind of] American.

BTW: Anyone have a better expression for the 23 percenters? That one actually works well, but outside of circles where I've put in the work to define it and make it part of the local lexicon, it's useless! And some means of characterizing that group is valuable for concise discussion.

Ideas?

We are entering a time where frank and honest discussion about PC expression and it's impact on us is escalating in importance. A big part of racism in this country is our general insecurity about it, and our pride about it.

That's the difference between a gaffe and intent to utter a racially discriminatory or diminishing statement.

We all should be humble and selfless enough to see a gaffe for what it is, laugh about it, get educated some about it, if warranted, then move on, secure in the understanding no harm was meant.

How to get there, I don't know, but we need to get there.

It is my opinion that PC is in the way of us getting there.

Edit: I think PC gets in the way in that if we buy into the idea that politically correct expression is somehow preferred, we imply that we then harbor enough racially negative intent to warrant extra attention to the matter.

That's a cycle that will feed itself, thus denying us the real remedy; namely, simple tolerance and understanding of one another. Where we are different, this is cause for celebration! The world is a much better place because of that.

If we can handle that idea, then there is absolutely no need for PC expression then.

Be proud, stand tall, be honest, and express yourself with direct and where appropriate humble language! When it ends up being a gaffe, laugh and let the other know you want to understand, then do understand and make a friend, instead of another layer on your shield.

The closest analogy I can think of is the wrong greeting. When this happens, we feel embarrassed, and usually try to dodge it, or power over it. When we stop and just express our misunderstanding and try to laugh about it, the other is honored instead of diminished.

This is a basic people skill thing that requires we expose a bit of our selves. The rewards are better friends and a happier day.

PC expression hides this exchange and real conversations don't happen because of it. Understanding of one another then does not happen because of it, and where there is ignorance of these things, racism and discrimination in all it's form breeds and grows.

---

quote:

Don Imus was knocked down several pegs for much less than what Rush has said.

---

Jabba the Rush

Missing, I was just ready to post that I could agree with most of what you say in your first post, then I read the second and that sort of went out the window.

When people don't like what Rush says, his ratings will go down.

Now, back to the discussion. Isn't Negro French (or something) for black? I get ink cartridges that list the color in several language, and on the black cartridges it says negro. If this is the case, why did they stop being called Negros?

"When people don't like what Rush says, his ratings will go down."

Pro wrestling and Jerry Springer get ratings too. Ratings are not correlated with the quality of programming.

Junk sells and there's no shortage of idiots in America ready to buy.

"idiots in America"

These would be the people who disagree with you, right?

No. They would be the ones that agree with you.

Same difference.

How do you figure????????????

Vitalogy has it right.

And Deane, the two posts are different. Glad we see eye to eye on PC then

The thing about ratings is this: Most Americans DON'T like, or agree with what Rush has to say. The 23 percenters do like what he has to say, and they also are not hearing it in very many places because what Rush has to say is discriminatory, and it's wrong, and most people know it.

In radio, there are audiences right? Within that there are demographics that can be broken down in various ways.

If a station can secure a niche, then they claim a nice share on that niche and that is marketable.

So then, a majority of Americans not liking Rush Limbaugh will have very little impact on his ratings over all!

The reason is he does the lazy, sleezy radio sell. By entertaining the bigots, racists, theocrats, fascists --those 23 percenters among us, he gets an absolute lock on them. They are enough for your average radio station to compete!

This is why he's on so many stations. They profit by delivering affirmation to people who wouldn't otherwise get it!

Clearly then, it does not matter how wrong Rush is. His ratings do not depend on him being authoritative or insightful in any way. His ratings are all about making assholes feel a whole lot better about being assholes.

And, this is why him being called a buffoon, or entertainer is so touchy with the Rush loyal. When he is threatened or marginalized, THEY are threatened and marginalized because he speaks for them and they identify with that speech.

If he really is an entertainer, and that is not challenged, then that affirmation doesn't ring true, does it? It's not really something that a person can point to and say, "that's me", "and I'm ok", if it's just entertainment.

That only works if Rush Limbaugh carries some authority. (which he does not)

We then end up with this bizzare have your cake and eat it too kind of a deal. When Rush gets called on the carpet for infalmmatory hate speech, he's just an entertainer right? No worries, just kidding.

When he expresses those ugly things, and isn't getting called out on it, then he's a great American, who speaks the truth.

Bunch of goddammed double speak, if you ask me.

This is no different than your average bigot floating out their bigotry in a way that speaks to other bigots "hey? are you in the club?", while at the same time having plausable deniability should that message be "no, I'm not and you are an ass for asking!".

Between "friends", members of the club, it's the gospel. Truer words were never spoken. That's in the car, in the quiet office, head phones, the bar, internet, etc...

Officially, he's a buffoon!

All depends on whether or not you are in the 23 percent club!

This game is how he makes his money. That stream of money is such a sure thing that he is allowed to play it to a degree that nobody else can, not because he is actually authoritative about any of it.

If we didn't have the level of media consolidation we do today, the Limbaugh nut would be cracked wide open, and it would not take long. All it would actually take is fair airing of other voices, that don't pander to the 23 percenters, and those voices would compete very nicely.

This does not happen, because there are members of the 23 percent club holding a lot of media cards.

Vitalogy has it exactly right. Shit sells. It always sells, and if that's the main thrust of the programming, it's a very lazy sell. That is what Rush Limbaugh does. He's the king of it.

Making money encouraging the worst of us to continue to be the worst, helping them with some relief from the realities of being the worst, is a net loss for the industry as a whole.

There is a reason so many people characterize "AM Radio Politics" as some kind of sub-human playground where the nuts all gather. They do this because in the case of Limbaugh and many others like him on the conservative side, this is exactly what they do!

Because of these things, no reasonable person will attach ANY authority to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al. at all! That isn't what they do.

...and the only people upset at these kinds of statements are those either making money off of his shit selling, or who need to hear the shit he is selling.

Everybody else knows he's a blow hard, nut-bag.

That's about 60 percent of us really, allowing for the morbid and stupid factor.

Given plenty of people don't like what he has to say, and given the absolute, sure thing lock he has, because of what he says and how he says it, ratings won't be impacted by anything other than pressure applied directly to Rush and those that air him.

He's not authoritative. He's an entertainer.

That means a sustained push back against his hate speech.

-contact his sponsors to let them know you don't do business with them because of that hate speech (and that also advertising on quality programs doesn't cut it)

-contacting the stations that air his shit

-registering complaints with the authorities

-encouraging others to do the same

-airing his hate speech, in context, in public venues so that others know what he is doing

-supporting those that do not do this.

These things will raise the cost of airing that asshole, and will lower the margins received. Both together will make that expensive contract less worth it.

I'm all for free speech. I am absolutely not for it being hate speech, particularly when it's so prominent.

Go ask the folks at KSFO how that all works! They lost a lot because a few people decided to take their hate speech to the streets and businesses trying to profit from it.

He does conservatives the same kinds of harm that extremist evangelicals do to religious causes.

Want your party back? Want to see real conservative values be seated at the table again? Lose this asshole and that healing can start.

I absolutely welcome that. Frankly, we need that.

We don't need people like Limbaugh egging on the 23 percenters.

Missing, when you're wrong, you're really wrong.

I feel pretty damn good about where I stand on Limbaugh and why.

Show me where I've got it wrong.

...and you actually listen to that jackass? LOL!!! That actually stings doesn't it? He's a buffoon and he's got you bamboozled! Hilarious!

Never mind. Step away from the Radio --maybe closer to the TV, or better in the yard having a good grill with friends or something!

"Show me where I've got it wrong."

All of it.

It's obvious you don't listen to him.

Now he's just making a fool of himself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/limbaugh-obama-may-give-g_n_181888.html

"It's obvious you don't listen to him."

Likewise, It's obvious you do.

Actually, I do listen to the Limbaugh a few times per month.

So, scratch that off your dodge list entry for this thread. Show me a new dodge at least! You've got a coupla really good ones to your name Deane. I know there is a couple more in there.

Like the President, I tend to speak from direct experience. I can say that Limbaugh is a buffoon, because I've personally experienced the program. And that goes for the hate speech too.

I listen out of morbid interest, and to see if he's changing things up. (not yet)

You, Deane, listen because you buy in! Huge difference.

If it were me, I would feel pretty bad about that.

It's not Rush's drug addiction that bothers liberals, it's the truth of his message. You're a funny bunch.

You can tell when a neo-CONer is telling a lie... His/Her lips move....
CONers are a HILLARIOUS bunch to watch. They would eat their young if it meant they could make a dime.....

LOL!!!

..or sell their young! You got me today Trixter. Laughed at that one.

Funny and true at the same time...

Yep. Too bad we can't turn them on to EAT THE RICH!

Greed is good right! So, let them all pull a highlander, consume one another, then we can break up the winner and give them an island to live on.

Done! Next!

Rusty and Me.

During the conversation about Rush Limbaugh and his addiction to prescription medication, someone mentioned that there is a "slight difference" between a prescription medication addict and a street drug addict.

The Oregonian has a story on the topic, published yesterday. What it points out is that in Oregon, the leading cause of death by drug overdose is caused by prescription medication.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/prescription_drugs_top_oregon.h tml

Both of these guys want America to fail.

Throughout reading this discussion the thought kept popping into my mind... if Rush was broadcasting explicit audio description of sexual acts, there would be no question that he'd be off the air. His type of speech, pandering to the base instincts in all of us -- it is only education that makes us tolerant of people who are different -- is equivalent to pornography to the simple minded.

mental porn... that is all it is...
So where is the warning label?

Maybe we need to tell advertisers that they are sponsoring mental porn!

Savage has it in his intro and a book...Psychological Nudity.

He's probably right about that too!

The warning label is "entertainment only". He resists the label, because it then breaks the game, shatters his credence and that inhibits the money flow.

If we, as a society, were actually up front and honest about Limbaugh being an entertainer, then those people who depend on him for "the truth" would be easily marginalized.

That's no good for Limbaugh, or those that need his affirmation.

So the game continues on...

Funny thing too. You could put such a label on the Maddow or Hartman show and it would have ZERO impact on their presentation, or the listeners that enjoy them.

Why?

Because they do entertain! They are completely honest about their bias, their opinion and how it's supported by the facts at hand. Neither of them is threatened by debate, or has the need to distort and manipulate facts.

Because of these things, their positions either stand on their own merits, or they don't, or they reconsider them over time.

The "entertainment" is the enlightenment that comes from participating or just listening to reasoned discussion about the issues of the day. It's food for thought --thought that they encourage you, the listener to engage in, and feed back to them, agree or no.

Putting such a label on the Limbaugh program would impact the listeners. It would impact the presentation too! And it would do so, largely because Limbaugh does not do those things I just mentioned, and he does deliver mental porn to those who need it.

God, that's such a good analogy! Love it. Thanks for it!

Bigots need to hear bigot porn to feel normal, like ordinary people need to hear ordinary porn to feel normal.

Limbaugh: There to help the very worst of us, feel as good as the rest of us.

Apparently, the Republicans who hate Rush Limbaugh are growing in number. Yesterday, the addle-headed corpulent spittle tosser slagged on a Veteran just for speaking his mind.

The dial is well populated with loud head cases that did not serve this nation for so much as a day. "Charles from Chicago" did more for his country at his induction ceremony than Limbaugh has done in a lifetime.

What herpes are to sex, Rush Limbaugh is to radio. Popular, permanent, painful and easily avoided with just a little bit of common sense.

"What herpes are to sex, Rush Limbaugh is to radio. Popular, permanent, painful and easily avoided with just a little bit of common sense."

Quote of the day from Littlesongs. Missing this has to go into that book your writing.

http://coverawards.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/newsweekrushlimbaughcoveraward smarkpasetskycoverawards.jpg

"Yesterday, the addle-headed corpulent spittle tosser slagged on a Veteran just for speaking his mind."

I just spewed water all over my laptop. Holy crap LS, that's funny.

And true.

Thanks guys. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

And a fine call that was!