• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is rush limbaugh serious?

does rush limbaugh believes in what he says?

  • yes

    Votes: 19 73.1%
  • no

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • not sure

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Total voters
    26
We don't get Rush Limbaugh on any of the stations here. I don't think there is enough of a market for him around these parts. But it would be interesting to see a map of Limbaugh's market areas. I think it would be quite telling.

You guys can debate whether Rush is serious all you want. But in a city of two-million or better, even if just 3% or 4% of the inhabitants are political whackos, from one side or the other, that's still a LOT of people to advertise to. I suspect, in the rual areas, Limbaugh's marketshare increases somewhat.

But in a midwestern city of less than a million, with a dozen other radio stations and TV channels, even if there are 5% whackos, that still isn't enough marketshare to justify the expense.

It's all about the money. Rest assured, there will always be some blowhard mouthpiece to cater to the needs of those who need to be told what they want to hear. Rush does NOT have the monopoly on this. He just happens to blow the loudest.

We used to have a really kooky guy to listen to, that was a rightwing whacko in a liberal sorta way, :lol: named "Mancow." I used to listen to him all morning. But some reason he went bye-bye. His show is no longer on our airwaves up here. :confused:
 
I think Limbaugh is available everywhere in the US.

Where in wisconsin are you? (approx if you don't mind or nearest big city).
 
Those statments were over 10 years old when the addiction to pain killers happened.


Do you hold Obama to this same tough standard in regards to his honesty? :2wave:

Does this mean that Limbaugh has not been ideologically consistent throughout his career?

These quotes show something that is consistent about Limbaugh. He only cares about himself and those who validate him. He has no compassion and empathy for others. He is part of the "I got mine" culture.
 
I don’t buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.’... What he’s saying is that if there’s a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we’re blaming not them, but society for it.

This doesn't sound hypocritical to me from what Tucker's said, it seems right in line with what he's saying. He wasn't going "woe is me, society caused me to do this, a disease made me do it". He made a choice, a wrong one, and one that was a mistake, and owned up to it.

That said, yes, he was a bit hypocritical. I find it rather hillarious though that Liberals seem to only rant, rave, and insult people over being hypocrites when its someone of the opposition. As rev pointed out, and I agree here, if Obama starts talking about drug use being bad will we have calls from the left of "Oh yeah, listen to that former coke-fiend lecturing about drugs". I'm going to guess no. But they'll sing it to the skies about Rush.

He has a principled view on drugs, he made a poor personal choice, he's owned up to that choice and doesn't shift the blame onto society or his upbringing, and he specifically tells people he was wrong and not to look at him as a role model.

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd rather that than someone who purposefully didn't want to have any principles because they're scared to death they may not live up to them.
 
Does this mean that Limbaugh has not been ideologically consistent throughout his career?

I think as Ideologically as consistant as most people yes.


These quotes show something that is consistent about Limbaugh. He only cares about himself and those who validate him. He has no compassion and empathy for others. He is part of the "I got mine" culture.


By this logic, there is no way for you to argue that Obama is not a racist, since he could no more disown one than he could his racist granmother who is like all those racist whiteys.....



In fact you are showing yourself to be less "idealogically consistant" than anything Rush has shown.
 
Those statments were over 10 years old when the addiction to pain killers happened.


Do you hold Obama to this same tough standard in regards to his honesty? :2wave:

After the 2006 election:

I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.
 
We don't get Rush Limbaugh on any of the stations here. I don't think there is enough of a market for him around these parts. But it would be interesting to see a map of Limbaugh's market areas. I think it would be quite telling.

You guys can debate whether Rush is serious all you want. But in a city of two-million or better, even if just 3% or 4% of the inhabitants are political whackos, from one side or the other, that's still a LOT of people to advertise to. I suspect, in the rual areas, Limbaugh's marketshare increases somewhat.

But in a midwestern city of less than a million, with a dozen other radio stations and TV channels, even if there are 5% whackos, that still isn't enough marketshare to justify the expense.

It's all about the money. Rest assured, there will always be some blowhard mouthpiece to cater to the needs of those who need to be told what they want to hear. Rush does NOT have the monopoly on this. He just happens to blow the loudest.

We used to have a really kooky guy to listen to, that was a rightwing whacko in a liberal sorta way, :lol: named "Mancow." I used to listen to him all morning. But some reason he went bye-bye. His show is no longer on our airwaves up here. :confused:
You don't get WLS up there?
 
Does this mean that Limbaugh has not been ideologically consistent throughout his career?

These quotes show something that is consistent about Limbaugh. He only cares about himself and those who validate him. He has no compassion and empathy for others. He is part of the "I got mine" culture.

I don't think a man that does as much charity as him simply has no compassion or empathy for others. I think you're right to a point though. He has little to no empathy for people who have the ability but not the drive to help themselves. He has a principled belief that those who are able to help themselves should be encouraged and given the oppertunity to do so, but that helping such people who refuse to help themselves only enables laziness, apathy, and underachievement.

Now, you may disagree with that principled view, and I can understand disagreeing with it. But that is NOT the same as having 0 empathy or compassion for anyone. Rush has demonstrated repeatedly that he DOES empathize and have compassion for those that can not help themselves, for example people stricken with serious illnesses.
 
This doesn't sound hypocritical to me from what Tucker's said, it seems right in line with what he's saying. He wasn't going "woe is me, society caused me to do this, a disease made me do it". He made a choice, a wrong one, and one that was a mistake, and owned up to it.

That said, yes, he was a bit hypocritical. I find it rather hillarious though that Liberals seem to only rant, rave, and insult people over being hypocrites when its someone of the opposition. As rev pointed out, and I agree here, if Obama starts talking about drug use being bad will we have calls from the left of "Oh yeah, listen to that former coke-fiend lecturing about drugs". I'm going to guess no. But they'll sing it to the skies about Rush.

He has a principled view on drugs, he made a poor personal choice, he's owned up to that choice and doesn't shift the blame onto society or his upbringing, and he specifically tells people he was wrong and not to look at him as a role model.

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd rather that than someone who purposefully didn't want to have any principles because they're scared to death they may not live up to them.

I think the difference is in how addiction is dealt with. It's a medical issue and should be treated as such. Sending them up the river isn't effective. Rehab is far more effective.
 
I think as Ideologically as consistant as most people yes.





By this logic, there is no way for you to argue that Obama is not a racist, since he could no more disown one than he could his racist granmother who is like all those racist whiteys.....



In fact you are showing yourself to be less "idealogically consistant" than anything Rush has shown.

I see you are still twisting his comments. :roll:

You are consistent.;)
 
That doesn't address the fact that the second thing you quoted as evidence he was a hypocrite is actually right in line with how he handled the situation involving himself.
 
How is that even relevant IT?

You brought up honesty. That was dishonest.

I wasn't even talking about honesty. I didn't say Rush was lying when he made those comments. He had no compassion until he was in that predicament.
 
You brought up honesty. That was dishonest.

I wasn't even talking about honesty. I didn't say Rush was lying when he made those comments. He had no compassion until he was in that predicament.




:lol: talk about twisting facts and words..... Your hatred for the man clouds your judgment and allows your hypocrisy to shine through.


Good for you...... :lol:
 
That doesn't address the fact that the second thing you quoted as evidence he was a hypocrite is actually right in line with how he handled the situation involving himself.

I know, but people are making excuses for Rush's doctor shopping.
 
:lol: talk about twisting facts and words..... Your hatred for the man clouds your judgment and allows your hypocrisy to shine through.


Good for you...... :lol:

I don't hate him.

I see why you need me to though. :lol:
 
What was your point about

I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

Is this back to the topic of the thread in regards to if he believes what he says, or is it something to do with the current topic?

Essentially, he was saying the asme thing many conservatives did. There were a LOT of things being done by republicans over the past 8 years that we were unhappy about. And Rush, like others, DID talk about those things negatively. But, when the time came for election season, if it came down to that republican we were unhappy with and a democrat he would back that republican fully. And year after year he, and other conservatives, continued to do it with hopes it'd start moving back right and year after year we were getting the same bad results.

His rant there came partially out of frustration it seemed, and partially out of entertainment hoping it'd cause a stir (which worked at the time). But I don't think its an inconsistancy in stance, nor does it show he doesn't mean what he says. He was doing the same as you, and many others, have stated we have to do sometimes...support the lesser of two evils. His rant was in frustration of having to do such instead of having a chance to support someone he actually likes.
 
I know, but people are making excuses for Rush's doctor shopping.

So your argument is that since OTHER people are making excuses for his doctor shopping that makes RUSH a hypocrite.

I'm sorry IT, you're argument is filled with as many holes as swiss cheese.
 
I think he truly is conservative...but he probably exaggerates his beliefs a bit for money. Saying outrageous things boosts his ratings.

Same with Ann Coulter.

This is precisely my view.

Also, a lot of what he says is facetious, to demonstrate a point. But most liberals never realize this because the partisan propaganda mills that spoon-feed them their talking points (Media Matters, FAIR, ThinkProgress, MoveOn, etc.) regularly take unmistakably facetious comments of his and deliberately misrepresent them as literal, serious statements of his opinion.

The "post-partisan" candidate for "change" even did this in a reprehensibly dishonest campaign ad in 2008, smearing John "Amnesty" McCain as racist for agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, who had railed about “…stupid and unskilled Mexicans” and had told them, "You shut your mouth or you get out!”

The problem with this of course, other than the fact that McCain is completely opposite of Rush on immigration and almost everything else, is that these quotes were from a facetious Rush rant where he was pretending to endorse all the immigration policies that Mexico enacts (which are insanely intolerant of illegal immigrants) to make the point that the Mexican government is in no place to smear us as inhumane for enforcing our already incredibly lax immigration laws. Even ABC and the Politico chastised Obama for his disgustingly sleazy partisanship on this one:

Political Punch: From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo

By the way, notice how Obama spent the entire campaign sniveling and crying about guilt-by-association for people noticing his terrible character judgment, while preaching about "gutter politics," yet the very centerpiece of his own campaign was the constant use of ACTUAL guilt-by-association (Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain), even when there was absolutely no basis for it?

:liar2

Must be nice to be able to say anything, no matter how outrageously false, and never be held accountable.
 
Really? Who is making excuses for his doctor shopping.


Please quote and link.


Thanks. :2wave:

the addiction is scientifically the same, but i do not think people who get perscribed medication and suffer the side affect of addiction are in the same boat as someone who chooses to do recreational drugs and get addicted.

You are rationalizing here. Once you are addicted how you got there is irrelevant. It goes against personal responsibility to think it's somehow different because your dealer has a PhD. He had to lie to continue to get prescriptions. He had a valid excuse to start taking the drug. But he didn't ask his doctor for help to get off of it. Alcoholics have legitimate reasons for starting to use. It's how they deal with their addiction that people judge. The same standard applies here.
 
So your argument is that since OTHER people are making excuses for his doctor shopping that makes RUSH a hypocrite.

I'm sorry IT, you're argument is filled with as many holes as swiss cheese.

No, Zyph, did Rush waive treatment so he could be sent up the river?

That is his hypocrisy.

The other quote is others' hypocrisy.
 
Back
Top Bottom