Rush Limbaugh is a Pathetic Windbag

[KAWDUP]

OK, Champ, I would've given you a cookie if you made some case about how I was Reagan lover.

S'pose I just left off everything after:

. . . and you're not part of the American public? That make it any better for you?

BTW - to answer your question - I can't imagine you deferring to anyone or anything. Wouldn't have you making an exception just for little OLD me.

 

[Michchamp]

I was born in 1980, so do the math.

yeah, I thought Reagan was a great president and he beat communism and all that, and also that witty quips were an acceptable substitute for substantive responses to policy questions in debates... up until I started learning things.

The Simpsons' skewered this better than I ever could that's for sure...

by the way, was anything I said about the Iran Contra Crisis wrong?

 

[KAWDUP]

He was an actor, so his witty quips certainly made him more well liked.

"I certainly won't hold your age against you . . . "

Also Reagan certainly did deny knowing much of anything about it, although his memoirs seem to contradict at least some of that. I think Bush Senior (just a few years removed from the head of the CIA at the time) was the one who skated with the most knowledge.

I get it about your age - just the actual statement about the public that kind of irked me as I lived through every painful moment of it.

Don't think there has been a single president going all the way back to Eisenhower that didn't have serious "questions" raised about their abuse of executive power. Some worse than others, but pretty standard. It seems to be part and parcel of the job, unfortunately.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Don't think there has been a single president going all the way back to Eisenhower that didn't have serious "questions" raised about their abuse of executive power. Some worse than others, but pretty standard. It seems to be part and parcel of the job, unfortunately.

It doesn't have to be, but that won't matter, because the public at large is stupid and complacent and will vote for the guy who "they'd rather have a beer with" an image wholly manufactured in by the press-and-DC insiders... so anyone who tries to engage in substantive debate, and avoid abusing their executive power, from Ralph Nader to Ron Paul, will be marginalized and disappear during the electoral process.

consequently I feel honor bound to attack the stupidity.

my "one vote" is pretty meaningless in the face of it, no?

 

[Michchamp]

glad we all agree that Rush Limbaugh is a pathetic windbag though, and no one here is trying to defend him.

 

[KAWDUP]

glad we all agree that Rush Limbaugh is a pathetic windbag though, and no one here is trying to defend him.

Actually think more windbag than pathetic - but it is tough to defend sometimes. He is an entertainer, ala Maher (not getting into who is worse please), so I tend to distill most of what I hear from him.

 

[KAWDUP]

It doesn't have to be, but that won't matter, because the public at large is stupid and complacent and will vote for the guy who "they'd rather have a beer with" an image wholly manufactured in by the press-and-DC insiders... so anyone who tries to engage in substantive debate, and avoid abusing their executive power, from Ralph Nader to Ron Paul, will be marginalized and disappear during the electoral process.

consequently I feel honor bound to attack the stupidity.

my "one vote" is pretty meaningless in the face of it, no?

In a national election - yep your one vote means little - other than you doing your civic duty (which is important).

One minor point: attacking stupidity on a message board is a bit different though than getting out on the campaign trail to further your goals (probably much more rewarding too) and actually influence that stupidity.

I do get your point - possibly responding with a snarky post should not be my only modus operandi either. Point taken.

 

[KAWDUP]

It doesn't have to be, but that won't matter, because the public at large is stupid and complacent and will vote for the guy who "they'd rather have a beer with" an image wholly manufactured in by the press-and-DC insiders... so anyone who tries to engage in substantive debate, and avoid abusing their executive power, from Ralph Nader to Ron Paul, will be marginalized and disappear during the electoral process.

consequently I feel honor bound to attack the stupidity.

my "one vote" is pretty meaningless in the face of it, no?

Hey I meant to ask - how about that one man filibuster?

<prepares to duck>

 

[Michchamp]

Actually think more windbag than pathetic - but it is tough to defend sometimes. ...

I can't imagine why one would ever want to.

 

[KAWDUP]

I can't imagine why one would ever want to.

. . . because he is not always pathetic. I don't mean defend what he says.

 

[Michchamp]

. . . because he is not always pathetic. I don't mean defend what he says.

I think by nature he is.

Pandering, misleading, often racist, sexist, politically inconsistent, hypocritical, fat, and balding.

I don't recall him ever being reasonable, heroic, just, honest, altruistic, or caring; he's not some tragic hero, with any redeemable personal traits.

 

[Michchamp]

In 1984, Limbaugh returned to radio as a talk show host at KFBK in Sacramento, California, where he replaced Morton Downey, Jr.[5] The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine?which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast?by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987 ... and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination."
​

Wonder if Rush's show would be as popular if broadcasters had to give equal time to someone else to refute all the BS he spewed for an hour? Probably not.

 

[byco42]

Fairness Doctrine does not demand equal time or even quid pro quo exchanges. It merely stated that a station had to offer "some time" for "opposing viewpoints on controversal topics." The local station RL was on in the '80s and '90s had a litany of liberal talk-show hosts that bracketed his program, even after 1987. Now a days, even the White House takes runs at broadcasters it does not agree with and others make a living out of targeting and refuting them. That's been ongoing since RL and others were on the radio.

 

[KAWDUP]

I think by nature he is.

Pandering, misleading, often racist, sexist, politically inconsistent, hypocritical, fat, and balding.

I don't recall him ever being reasonable, heroic, just, honest, altruistic, or caring; he's not some tragic hero, with any redeemable personal traits.

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

He actually understands sports pretty well-at least football and baseball; once upon a time, he was an employee of the Kansas City Royals.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

or so he says. given that 99% or so of his persona is morally repugnant to just about any values system, even from a Christian perspective (like as in the beatitudes in the Bible, not the Rev. Jim Bakker's or Pat Robertson's), I don't really buy the idea that the remaining 1% of him is genuine... More like the charity work provides a great tax write-off that benefits him financially.

plus, he has openly and repeatedly criticised vegetarians and vegans on the air. so... maybe he only likes some animals, not others. I wouldn't call this a "real soft spot" though.

 

[tinselwolverine]

or so he says. given that 99% or so of his persona is morally repugnant to just about any values system, even from a Christian perspective (like as in the beatitudes in the Bible, not the Rev. Jim Bakker's or Pat Robertson's), I don't really buy the idea that the remaining 1% of him is genuine... More like the charity work provides a great tax write-off that benefits him financially.

plus, he has openly and repeatedly criticised vegetarians and vegans on the air. so... maybe he only likes some animals, not others. I wouldn't call this a "real soft spot" though.

"My Pets Eat Meat, and so do I."

 

[KAWDUP]

or so he says. given that 99% or so of his persona is morally repugnant to just about any values system, even from a Christian perspective (like as in the beatitudes in the Bible, not the Rev. Jim Bakker's or Pat Robertson's), I don't really buy the idea that the remaining 1% of him is genuine... More like the charity work provides a great tax write-off that benefits him financially.

plus, he has openly and repeatedly criticised vegetarians and vegans on the air. so... maybe he only likes some animals, not others. I wouldn't call this a "real soft spot" though.

You're equating eating meat to not having a soft spot for animals? That is just nuts. I have a tremendous soft spot for nearly all animals I come in contact with, but I am certainly not going to stop eating meat either. Wow what a hypocrite I must be to you.

I am guessing that the huge majority of people are more like that than "OMG, I just ate that butchered fish, so it must mean I hate all animals - or I can't possibly be considered to have a soft spot for animals." Silly argument.

 

[Michchamp]

You're equating eating meat to not having a soft spot for animals? ... Silly argument.

I also said that given his public persona - his stances on everything from race relations, to the plight of the poor, to gender equality, environmentalism - any charity work is probably done more for the tax benefits he receives than any altruistic intent.

and if my personal actions of insulting minorities, insulting feminist activists, mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons', advocating harsh sentencing and zero tolerance for drug users, then getting busted smuggling oxycotin into the country... make it easy to tar me as "a complete rat bastard" ... sure... I can spend 0.001% of my time running a charity for leukemia to refute that.

"Hey, I'm not ALL bad..."

 

[KAWDUP]

I also said that given his public persona - his stances on everything from race relations, to the plight of the poor, to gender equality, environmentalism - any charity work is probably done more for the tax benefits he receives than any altruistic intent.

and if my personal actions of insulting minorities, insulting feminist activists, mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons', advocating harsh sentencing and zero tolerance for drug users, then getting busted smuggling oxycotin into the country... make it easy to tar me as "a complete rat bastard" ... sure... I can spend 0.001% of my time running a charity for leukemia to refute that.

"Hey, I'm not ALL bad..."

I get it - you hate the guy - no need to exaggerate stuff to discredit him, he does fine on his own, but I maintain my original statement on the matter - he is not always "pathetic" or even mostly when compared to his windbagginess. That is all I was sayin'.

It is ok for you to disagree and argue with one facet of someone's comments on something, but not OK when someone disagrees with part of yours?

I guess I will continue to call spade a spade, and you can continue to paint everything in your world a single color. Just gets banal.