Rush Limbaugh is a Pathetic Windbag

[tinselwolverine]

It's deja vu, all over again...

 

[zyxt9]

While not a RL fan, he should be given credit for stirring up debate and trying to get people to be more involved with politics.

Conversely, I had voted for gore in 2000, but actually glad he lost as he might actually be batshit crazy even more than Bush. However, he has made people think more about trying to be more responsible with the environment, which is a good thing.

What I'm saying is, focus on the negatives if you want, they make for great debates sometimes. However, as kawdup was trying to say I believe, take a second to see if there isn't something positive to be gained even when it appears that there is nothing.

While certainly I am not trying to defend Hitler, there were things that came as a result of his actions that have brought about positive changes. He pushed his scientists toward technological breakthroughs that in their own right were leaps forward, but couple that with the additional leaps the Allies made to overcome his scientists resulted in even more amazing leaps in technology. Landing on the moon, computers, satellites, advances in cars, ships, airplanes, radar, and more had huge advancements in part because of all the money directed to them. We likely would not have this discussion right now without them. Was the cost in lives worth it? Of course not, but that doesn't change their history nor our using of technologyy advancements that resulted from hitlers thirst for world domination.

Sometimes we have to look at things from a different perspective to see them in a different light which is able to illuminate something that is good. Yes it is easier to argue about the dark, but challenging oneself to look at the light can be good.

Not a fan of rush, but he is a has-been so not really much else to say about him, other than he should remember to be an American above all else. But hey, I read an article about how the Dixie chicks should be recognized for being right 10 years ago. No they shouldn't. Their comments were unnecessary and uncalled for. Not what they said, but how they said it. Same goes for rush and his comments. But entertainment people like rush and Dixie chicks live in a different world from the rest of us, yet we continue giving them influence and power even after they have demonstrated they don't deserve it along with an unapologetic attitude.

Now instead of listening to these people we can become more rational and moderate contributors to society or we can pursue paths of hate, intolerance, extremist views, or worse, strive to make our views so extreme we inspire the next hitler. What is your view on that cost/benefit analysis? Is it worth perpetuating the hate, or should we crack on and work toward a more civilized society, which neither extreme will ever accomplish?

 

[Thumb]

I read an article about how the Dixie chicks should be recognized for being right 10 years ago. No they shouldn't. Their comments were unnecessary and uncalled for. Not what they said, but how they said it.

I have one problem with that, the Dixie Chicks were no different than Rush, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Trump, or that fucking nutcase Ted Nugent. Each exercised their right to free speech. Now we can disagree with their point of view, or just say they're idiots and brush them aside.

The Dixie Chicks cut their own throats, they alienated their fanbase by not jumping on the propaganda wagon that was circling at the time, and it basically killed their careers. But now we have you, who's somehow acquired a divine right to know what's necessary and called for.

Plenty of people have badmouthed Obama far worse then the Dixie Chicks ever did Dubya, but I have yet to see in the Constitution any mention that free speech had to be necessary or called for. Unless there has been a zyxt9 amendment I missed.

The Dixie Chicks stuck to their beliefs at the cost of their livelihood, and it turns out many people would now agree with them, but the idea that they should still be vilified 10 years later for doing something that's done around the clock on talk radio and cable news today, is absurdity at it's best.

 

[Michchamp]

...

While certainly I am not trying to defend Hitler...

you could've saved a lot of time by just typing, "I agree with what KAWDUP said, and I'm also real stupid."

 

[zyxt9]

I have one problem with that, the Dixie Chicks were no different than Rush, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Trump, or that fucking nutcase Ted Nugent. Each exercised their right to free speech. Now we can disagree with their point of view, or just say they're idiots and brush them aside.

The Dixie Chicks cut their own throats, they alienated their fanbase by not jumping on the propaganda wagon that was circling at the time, and it basically killed their careers. But now we have you, who's somehow acquired a divine right to know what's necessary and called for.

Plenty of people have badmouthed Obama far worse then the Dixie Chicks ever did Dubya, but I have yet to see in the Constitution any mention that free speech had to be necessary or called for. Unless there has been a zyxt9 amendment I missed.

The Dixie Chicks stuck to their beliefs at the cost of their livelihood, and it turns out many people would now agree with them, but the idea that they should still be vilified 10 years later for doing something that's done around the clock on talk radio and cable news today, is absurdity at it's best.

Panties seem pretty tight there and you completely decided to try turning what I said into a defending the Dixie chicks stance because of your extremism.

It isn't a zyxt9 amendment you idiot, it is a common sense on how to speak in public reality. You can express your opinions with the freedom of speech, but HOW you express it determines whether or not you get the treatment that they did or are still able to preserve your fanbase.

By saying he isn't their president, that basically is saying they are not Americans. Obama is my president even though I did not vote for him and disagree with some of his policies. There are some things he has done I like. You take the good and bad as they come whether you voted for the president or not.

Their choice of words led to losing fans. They could have said they oppose the war,but support the troops the way many dems and libs did. They chose not to be PC, and in todays world that can destroy your career. It isn't about whether they were right or wrong in their opinion of the war, it is a matter of voicing their opinion in such a way as to alienate people. Their fans have the right to no longer be their fans when they exercise their right to free speech. Those fans should never have sent death threats or behave like idiots, I have as much disrespect for those fools as I do the Dixie chicks

Get it yet? Other stars have lost their fanbase for things they have said and done. Conversely I'm sure people are extreme liberals and believe they acted appropriately started to become fans. They choose to elaborate where they stand, their fans could follow or leave as they wish. But what really ienated their fans was the way they expressed their opinion and choice of words.

Get it yet? Just state something PC instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

And yes, this same thing applies to anyone in the spotlight. How many other celebrities have said or done things that were not PC and lost fans as a result? Stop acting like the fans are not allowed to change their allegiance. But again, that does nor mean it is ok for people to send death threats. Simply express that they were not PC and you prefer not to be a fan anymore.

Not my "amendment", just a natural course of reaction. Or are you suggesting that people don't have the right to speak against them in a PC way? I didn't think so.

My complaint with the article is it slants toward a chastising of those who chose not to be fans anymore. They have that right just like many moderate reps and cons no longer listen to rush. He's gone too far too often, and more than once said or done things to alienate his fanbase. Over time the attrition has left him where he is today, andnpersonally I'm surprised he is even still considered relevant, but then again the media still reports on Lindsey Lohan, so that should tell you something about the quality of news today.

 

[zyxt9]

you could've saved a lot of time by just typing, "I agree with what KAWDUP said, and I'm also real stupid."

Did u read what I wrote or just chose to be an asshole as usual? Try reading for a change and express what you find to be a flaw or disagreement. Go ahead, you claim you are the smartest person ever, so put up or ahut up.

 

[zyxt9]

Oh,and thumb....I'm not a big fan of those conservative stars u listed anymore than I am of the liberal ones like Matt Damon. I can separate my views of politics from what some celebrity says and from what they create professionally. I was never a Dixie chicks fan to begin with. I do watch Matt Damon movies and Clint Eastwood movies. I like the entertainment value of certain things but would never look to entertainers for anything beyond thar. Celebrities are nut jobs most of the time, so why listen to them?

 

[Thumb]

Get it yet? Just state something PC instead of acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

This sentence sums up everything about your post. Stupid.

The right to free speech means we DONT have to say something PC if that's not what we believe, we can say whatever the fuck we want, it doesn't make us "a bunch of spoiled brats" it makes us Americans.

 

[zyxt9]

Show me one instance where someone says something non-PC and doesn't get called out for it.

The beautiful irony here is the you liberal extremists are the queens of requiring people to be PC. In this case it came back to bite ur sorry asses and u cry about it because u have zero integrity and honor.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Libs r constantly holding Cons to PC requirements that r not written down, are without law, yet Cons get bashed constantly for saying something wrong. Oh, but the moment a Lib says something non-PC we should just accept it as their 2nd Amendment right.

But to expect extremists from either side to not be hypocrits is expecting to much, so no surprise you fall into that category.

Now Libs will force us to be fans of who they deem worthy. Great. Talk about removal of freedoms.

 

[zyxt9]

This sentence sums up everything about your post. Stupid.

The right to free speech means we DONT have to say something PC if that's not what we believe, we can say whatever the fuck we want, it doesn't make us "a bunch of spoiled brats" it makes us Americans.

Cuz if the Dixie Chicks came out and used a non-PC comment along lines of killing towelheads, they would have been completely left alone by the Libs, right? Hell, most moderates have issue with saying stuff like that.

They use Dixie in their name, something by its own right is no longer PC by extremists to theoint Disney was essentially forces to change the name if their Dixie Landings Resort to Port Orleans Riverside.

The hypocrisy astounds me that they get a pass on these PC things by Libs. .

When discussing politics especially they need to be PC..after all the P does stand for Political, duh.

But just defend them by calling me stupid and scream some more about the violation of their 2nd Amendment rights as if they were jailed for their comments or had the government do something to them. People forget the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect you from unlawful imprisonment or forced editing by the government, not that you could say whatever to whomever and not suffer consequences like alienating a fanbase.

 

[Thumb]

Strawman argument.

You're making this about left/right or con/lib. It's not.

Trump says dumb shit all the time, and as I posted I can call him an idiot for it, same with the Dixie Chicks, but I don't have some holier-than-though attitude about what they should or should not be ABLE to say.

The Dixie Chicks, Trump, Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, they can all say what they want and how they want and we can have our opinions about it. But let's not argue about what they have a right to say or how they say it, in case it might offend some people, because you're just making yourself look stupid.

 

[zyxt9]

They have the right to say whatever they want but society also has the right to stop listening to what they are saying, do they not? Some still bought their music, some took some time to work through how they felt and have returned as fans of the music because they can separate out the musical quality from the politics. However, others have decided they can never buy their music again. They have the right to do those things, do they not?

I was never a fan of them, nor Bono, nor Nuggent. All the political rants of these musicians should be something people ignore and stop giving them power in the political arena. If u like the music, that's your taste and so be it. But when they do say something considered to be ill mannered, controversial, or have extreme prejudice then they have to face the consequences of those statements. Everyone who hears their statements have the right to no longer buy their product or follow them. That doesn't violate their right to free speech, and to tell people who decided they will no longer support them that they are wrong is an infringement of their freedom of choice.

The author of the article was acting as though people who stopped listening to them are wrong. They were not wrong, they behaved according to their beliefs. Well, the ones who sent death threats were wrong and I hope they were prosecuted for their criminal behavior. But just cause someone hears a statement like theirs and decides they will no longer be a fan they are not wrong, they are simply making a choice. They are not infringing on freedom of speech, they are merely exercising freedom of choice. Far more people simply stopped listening to them than those who behaved in a far mor beligerant manner. They have the right to say what they want, but they don't have the right to force fans to agree with them, nor continue purchasing their music.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I read Natalie Maines is leaving the group anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_sQzp2aVA

 

[tinselwolverine]

Billy and the Pumpkins did a really good cover of that song, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU_eq1oDNuA

 

[tinselwolverine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMVBP_0OOZY

 

[zyxt9]

Strawman argument.

You're making this about left/right or con/lib. It's not.

Trump says dumb shit all the time, and as I posted I can call him an idiot for it, same with the Dixie Chicks, but I don't have some holier-than-though attitude about what they should or should not be ABLE to say.

The Dixie Chicks, Trump, Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, they can all say what they want and how they want and we can have our opinions about it. But let's not argue about what they have a right to say or how they say it, in case it might offend some people, because you're just making yourself look stupid.

And don't act like they could go onstage and use the N word in a friendly well intentioned way, like a rapper comes out on stage with them and they say, "what up n---" that there would be no repurcussions. Just like you cannot yell fire in a theater nor setup a flash mob without approval, freedom of speech is not all inclusive as it might appear to be, and like it or not depends on who is saying what to whom. Blacks refer to each other using N--- all the time and it is acceptable, even laughed about when used in comedy routines. Whitie does it and they might as well sign the death certificate.

Look at Jimmy the Greek for crying out loud, tell me about how he was just using his freedom of speech and it was illegal for CBS to fire him.

What we say has consequences. That isn't an infringement of freedom of speech, it is demonstrating there are things considered unacceptable, right or wrong.

 

[zyxt9]

I read Natalie Maines is leaving the group anyway.]

I bet she will have a very successful career as a solo artist focusing on songs that appeal to the lib/dem views, and I mean that sincerely not sarcastically. She has an audience, and now she is wiser about appealing to that audience to make more money.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I bet she will have a very successful career as a solo artist focusing on songs that appeal to the lib/dem views, and I mean that sincerely not sarcastically. She has an audience, and now she is wiser about appealing to that audience to make more money.

Maybe.

Here are the expected song titles for her first solo album:

1. Hug Me Back, Tree

2. Help Prevent the Global Warming Landslide

3. The New Pope, He On

4. Where Have All the Flowers Gone (this is a cover)?

5. Ty and Able Should Be Able to Tie the Knot

6. So What if Obama is as Big a Warmonger as W? At Least He's Black

7. Go Public Transit Polka (She's expanding her horizons)

8. Progressive Polka (Now she's going overboard)

9. My Husband Played the President on a Subscription Cable Series Loosely Based on the Clintons

10. I Left My Heart in San Francisco (Another cover)

 

[zyxt9]

Rofl, she should hire u as her manager!

 

[zyxt9]

How about another cover...

It aint easy being Green?