Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

Goobieman said:

Another Mickey Mouse response.
:roll:

Click to expand...

Gonna do another song and dance for us Goobie?
Is it called the "Hokey Pokey" or the "Goobie Shuffle"?

aps said:

I can't believe we agree! :shock:
:2wave:

Click to expand...

Egad!
:2wave:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

Click to expand...

The -real- story here is the Dems being outraged over someone having the audacity to question The Obama.

I thought legitimate debate was GOOD for America?

disneydude said:

Gonna do another song and dance for us Goobie?

Click to expand...

It would be better than your sad kabuki, after all there is only up from down. Most of the liberal posters on this topic have managed to post thoughtful comments. Thoughtful is not an adjective that can be associated with your post, either today or any other for that matter.:roll:

Sir Loin said:

It would be better than your sad kabuki, after all there is only up from down. Most of the liberal posters on this topic have managed to post thoughtful comments. Thoughtful is not an adjective that can be associated with your post, either today or any other for that matter.:roll:

Click to expand...

I think what I posted is quite thoughtful. Many have said that the Democrats are afraid of Rush....that may be true. I am a Democrat and I think Rush should shout his propoganda to the sky. Most people see him for what he is...only the extreme right give him any credibility. The more the Republican party is linked to Rush in the eyes of the Moderates/Independents, the better it is for the Democrats.

You may disagree...but it doesn't make it not "thoughtful".....:doh

disneydude said:

I think what I posted is quite thoughtful.

Click to expand...

Of course you do, so in the interest of fairness let us examine how thoughtful you are being.

disneydude said:

Many have said that the Democrats are afraid of Rush....that may be true. I am a Democrat and I think Rush should shout his propoganda to the sky.

Click to expand...

Since Rush broadcast his show over the air and has the largest audience in political talk programming, you sure did not put much thought into that comment.

disneydude said:

Most people see him for what he is...only the extreme right give him any credibility.

Click to expand...

Wrong in almost every measurable sense. But then a sensible and thoughtful approach to reality would prevent anyone but a proud partisan from making such a fatuous claim.

disneydude said:

The more the Republican party is linked to Rush in the eyes of the Moderates/Independents, the better it is for the Democrats.

You may disagree...but it doesn't make it not "thoughtful".....:doh

Click to expand...

You’re just a couple decades too late for the linking you so thoughtfully speak of. Yes your participation in this thread has been as thoughtful as a puddle is deep.

HEre's my take:

Rush doesn't give a **** about what's best for the country, he cares only about what's best for Rush. I'd lay odds that he secretly in his heart of hearts was ROOTING for Obama to win the election.

And now he not so secretly wants Obama to fail.

This isn't because he wants what's best for the country, it's because the worse Obama does, the better his ratings will be. The more unhappy the people of the country are with "liberals" the more his ratings will increase.

The more pain and suffering they endure, the better for him.

And for the last 8 years gooftards like Oberman were hoping for the same ****. It was a boon to them for Bush's policies to fail. They don't really care that the country is in dissarray, they only need to pretend to care in order to sell advertising and increase ratings.

Like it or not, these people exist solely because they say the things that the disenfranchised want to hear.

The more disenfrachised the people in their target demographic are, the better they do.

Captain America said:

You didn't see any sissy-boy whiners bitching about Keith Olbermann in Bush's posse did ya?

Click to expand...

I guess people sorta forgot this...

The Senate approved a resolution on Thursday denouncing the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org over an advertisement that questioned the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html

Click to expand...

Neither deserves any attention from elected officials.

Why give an attention hog like Rush attention? Such a freakin' waste of time. :doh

Let him keep spewing his bullcrap. "Exposing" him will not get his ditto-head audience to finally see that they've been brainwashed. In fact, I think it would have an opposite effect.

Zyphlin said:

YAY for propoganda.

Click to expand...

LOL, on the part of Rush, or of me?

Zyphlin said:

Since at least one of those I know for an absolute undisputable fact that its taken out of context, and knowing your love to go completley hyper partisan to the left at times, I'm going to assume the vast majority of these are taken out of context.

Click to expand...

Yawn, I talk about Rush. And Zyphlin talks about niftydrifty.

Zyphlin said:

Moderator's Warning:

This thread is about a topic, not about niftydrifty, keep your responses to the topic and the posts and not just posts dedicated to nothing but targetting a poster

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Zyphlin said:

Thank you niftydrifty, you've proven that if you take a single sentence out of a 3 hour show that's on 200+ times a year for over a decade now you can find a number that can appear questionable. You've definitely swayed me.

Click to expand...

I'll do it on any given day. Within any hour. Rush speaks in generalizations and hyperbole. and all the meanwhile he peppers them with mistruths.

btw, what is the difference between proof and evidence? enlighten us.

Tucker Case said:

HEre's my take:

Rush doesn't give a **** about what's best for the country, he cares only about what's best for Rush. I'd lay odds that he secretly in his heart of hearts was ROOTING for Obama to win the election.

And now he not so secretly wants Obama to fail.

Click to expand...

Actually that is not quite true, but why bother with context? It is utterly normal to argue Limbaugh ignores context while ignoring context to complain about Limbaugh. And the band played on……………..

Tucker Case said:

This isn't because he wants what's best for the country, it's because the worse Obama does, the better his ratings will be. The more unhappy the people of the country are with "liberals" the more his ratings will increase.

The more pain and suffering they endure, the better for him.

And for the last 8 years gooftards like Oberman were hoping for the same ****. It was a boon to them for Bush's policies to fail. They don't really care that the country is in dissarray, they only need to pretend to care in order to sell advertising and increase ratings.
Like it or not, these people exist solely because they say the things that the disenfranchised want to hear.

The more disenfrachised the people in their target demographic are, the better they do.

Click to expand...

Not to deny you your speculation, but demographics long ago destroyed the claim that Limbaugh’s audience is disenfranchised, stupid, uneducated and insert claim here.

Middleground said:

Let him keep spewing his bullcrap. "Exposing" him will not get his ditto-head audience to finally see that they've been brainwashed. In fact, I think it would have an opposite effect.

Click to expand...

Actually I think it is that kind of narrow minded knee jerkery that lead to this very story. Way to diagnose and illustrate how people arrive at making public comments and gestures that defy common sense.:doh

BWG said:

I guess people sorta forgot this...

Neither deserves any attention from elected officials.

Click to expand...

Attacking a General who is on active duty and in command of combat troops DESERVES denouncement by congress.

Getting excited by a radio talk show host... silly.

Zyphlin said:

Like him, hate him, Limbaugh is an extremely influential and important character in the landscape of American Politics and many of the liberals in power are extremely afraid of that fact to the point of feeling the need to make stupid stunts or idiotic comments like those in the past week.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. He might be influencial over the "lazy" (i.e. those who can't be bothered to think for themselves), but I doubt he has influence over the majority of Americans, let alone those in government.

He show is quite popular, but I can bet a lot tune in purely for entertainment value.

niftydrifty said:

LOL, on the part of Rush, or of me?

Click to expand...

In this particular instance, you. Yes, Rush speaks a LARGE amount of propoganda. You've never seen me state differently, nor will you ever find me stating differently. However, you using propoganda and mischaracterizations to attack someone that does the same does not make your action right or....more to the point...doesn't make your action something then it actually is.

Yawn, I talk about Rush. And Zyphlin talks about niftydrifty.

Click to expand...

Actually no. You talked about Rush, I talked about your comments about Rush and used your historical political lean on this forum as a means of explaining my rational.

Indeed.

Click to expand...

Nice swipe, but no surprise, selective. Addressing the person making a statement, their motivations behind such statement, and then relating that to your argument is a valid form of debate. You've shown yourself to be someone who routinely posts from an extremely hyper partisan standpoint on the left, which gives insight into the likihood of what source you recieved your information from and the likely partisan nature of it. This opinion about your political lean is related to then to your comments, which are related to the topic, and to my argument against it.

On the contrary, if I just said "There's Niftydrifty blabbering bafoonary" and nothing else, that has nothing to do with debating, that's just attacking.

I'll do it on any given day. Within any hour. Rush speaks in generalizations and hyperbole. and all the meanwhile he peppers them with mistruths.

Click to expand...

I never said that Rush does not speak in hyperbole, or mistruth. However, thanks for proving my point. You posted up those quotes, without any source, without any context, and made it out to be Limbaugh's actual beliefs. Then you talk about Hyperbole. Let us look at the definition of Hyperbole, shall we?

"A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect"

Wow...lookie here. Intentional exaggeration used to make a point? And what's exaggeration.

"To represent as greater than is actually the case"

Wait, so he's intentionally reprsenting something as greater than it actually is to make a point?

Well by god! YES! That DOES sound exactly like he's saying these things literally, so that one could take a single line of hyperbole and present it as if its his actual thoughts and views. By God thank you, thank you for showing me you were correct.

Yes. Rush uses Hyperbole. And yes, Rush does peddle propoganda and mistruths. That does not mean that using propoganda and mistruths, or presenting his hyperbole as his legitimite views is acceptable or honest to do

Middleground said:

I don't know about that. He might be influencial over the "lazy" (i.e. those who can't be bothered to think for themselves), but I doubt he has influence over the majority of Americans, let alone those in government.

He show is quite popular, but I can bet a lot tune in purely for entertainment value.

Click to expand...

Yes because Rush listeners are just empty fools till they turn on Rush and get their marching orders :roll:

Middleground said:

I don't know about that. He might be influencial over the "lazy" (i.e. those who can't be bothered to think for themselves), but I doubt he has influence over the majority of Americans, let alone those in government.

He show is quite popular, but I can bet a lot tune in purely for entertainment value.

Click to expand...

I agree that not all those that listen to him are easily swayed by him.

That said, the amount that does IS a large enough amount that it demands attention. If Limbaush was truly only marginally influencial then there would not be this great need or concern by democrats in power to urge people to stop listening to him, to make attempts to silence him, to look at legislature to supress him. It wouldn't be worth the time, money, or headache that is assossiated with it.

I also think you're underestimating the way in which the average news goers mind works. Most people are very easily manipulated by repeated bombardment of information. The news functions on this in some way, especially ones specialized in "opinion" shows like Fox or MSNBC. You continue to speak something as truth over, and over, and over again and pretty soon even some of those that disagree with you will find their views slightly altering in ways that take into account the thing they hear over and over and over again.

Rush has a large enough crowd that if 50% of them follow him strongly, and another 25% listen enough to where he wins them over to a few ideas or his views permiate their subconsious to influence their views at least a bit, that is more than enough to be considered a sizeable realm of influence. And its an amount I think is probably somewhat close to accurate based on the reaction by those that are so staunchly opposed to him.

I garauntee you though that the "majority" of that huge audiance of his are not people listening simply for "entertainment" that do not share his views at least in some way shape or form.

Also, a note in regards to taking the time to try and silence him or condemn him or warn others in government to stop listening to him. There's a reason why its generally Burger King that attacks McDonalds in commericals and not the other way around. There's a reason why Pepsi will at times go after Coke, but you rarely if ever would see Coke reference Pepsi. There's a reason why it wasn't until Mac started going on strong that Microsoft did anything even REMOTELY close to referencing mac even in a perephial way in their advertisements despite Mac's mentioning PCs in every one of theirs.

If something is not a threat or doesn't matter, you don't waste the time, effort, and money in advertising or fighting against it because...it doesn't matter

I don't listen him, but I know others do, so what's the problem. If people like him, why would anyone try and take him of the air because they don't? :shrug: Besides, it's not like he's on FM radio or anything

MrVicchio said:

Attacking a General who is on active duty and in command of combat troops DESERVES denouncement by congress.

Getting excited by a radio talk show host... silly.

Click to expand...

I disagree. How is attacking the President of the United States--the most powerful person in our country--any different than attacking a General? I thought it was stupid that Congress gave a joke of an organization like MoveOn any importance.

aps said:

I disagree. How is attacking the President of the United States--the most powerful person in our country--any different than attacking a General? I thought it was stupid that Congress gave a joke of an organization like MoveOn any importance.

Click to expand...

Hey never mind Limbaugh did not attack Obama, ya know because why should that trifling little detail be considered. Jesus.

Rush is one of the most annoying Talk Radio hosts I've ever heard.

The Democrats doing anything at all that happens to recognize his existance will do nothing more than raise his voice.

sigh.

Zyphlin said:

In this particular instance, you. Yes, Rush speaks a LARGE amount of propoganda. You've never seen me state differently, nor will you ever find me stating differently. However, you using propoganda and mischaracterizations to attack someone that does the same does not make your action right or....more to the point...doesn't make your action something then it actually is.

Actually no. You talked about Rush, I talked about your comments about Rush and used your historical political lean on this forum as a means of explaining my rational.

Nice swipe, but no surprise, selective. Addressing the person making a statement, their motivations behind such statement, and then relating that to your argument is a valid form of debate. You've shown yourself to be someone who routinely posts from an extremely hyper partisan standpoint on the left, which gives insight into the likihood of what source you recieved your information from and the likely partisan nature of it. This opinion about your political lean is related to then to your comments, which are related to the topic, and to my argument against it.

On the contrary, if I just said "There's Niftydrifty blabbering bafoonary" and nothing else, that has nothing to do with debating, that's just attacking.

I never said that Rush does not speak in hyperbole, or mistruth. However, thanks for proving my point. You posted up those quotes, without any source, without any context, and made it out to be Limbaugh's actual beliefs. Then you talk about Hyperbole. Let us look at the definition of Hyperbole, shall we?

"A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect"

Wow...lookie here. Intentional exaggeration used to make a point? And what's exaggeration.

"To represent as greater than is actually the case"

Wait, so he's intentionally reprsenting something as greater than it actually is to make a point?

Well by god! YES! That DOES sound exactly like he's saying these things literally, so that one could take a single line of hyperbole and present it as if its his actual thoughts and views. By God thank you, thank you for showing me you were correct.

Yes. Rush uses Hyperbole. And yes, Rush does peddle propoganda and mistruths. That does not mean that using propoganda and mistruths, or presenting his hyperbole as his legitimite views is acceptable or honest to do

Click to expand...

how tedious this can be, Zyphlin. I challenge a claim made by a poster, and you come along, like you often do, blasting away about partisanship. it's not an argument. the tragic thing is that I shouldn't have to tell you that.

discussing what niftydrifty tends to do in some other thread and bringing it up here, as if it is some matter of relevance isn't an argument, and is ad hom. evidence isn't proof. rationalizing motivations of a fellow poster isn't an argument. this is a debate website. brush up on these debate concepts.

my quotes were Rush's beliefs. you've spent a great deal of time talking all around it, but not about it.

I'm glad we agree about what Rush is and does. as for the rest, ... "I'm right, you're left," ... "niftydrifty resembles his rhetoric" ... completely pointless.

BWG said:

I guess people sorta forgot this...

Neither deserves any attention from elected officials.

Click to expand...

After digging a little deeper, one sees the irony of that one, too.

That article mentions Boxer's resolution, so I decided to dig further.

The text of Boxer's amendment:

SA 2947. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:


At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC.X--SENSE OF SENATE.

(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible'';

(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.''

(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Click to expand...

Now compare that to the text of Cornyn's amendment:

SA 2934. Mr. CORNYN proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for Mr. LEVIN) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:


At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

Click to expand...

Here's the issue I have on this. One specifically askes to repudiate any attacks on those who have served honorably, Including Petreaus by name; while the other seeks to repudiate the attacks on Petreaus and MoveOn specifically.

What I don't understand is how one could vote Yea for Cornyn's but vote Nay for Boxer's or vice versa.


The only senators who get my respect on this issue are those who voted the same way on both amendments.

They are:

Feingold (the only "nay" to both), Baucus, Bayh, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstien, Hagel, Johnson, Klobuchar, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Salazar, Specter, Tester, and Web.


Just an interesting aside regarding a related issue.

niftydrifty said:

how tedious this can be, Zyphlin. I challenge a claim made by a poster, and you come along, like you often do, blasting away about partisanship. it's not an argument. the tragic thing is that I shouldn't have to tell you that.

discussing what niftydrifty tends to do in some other thread and bringing it up here, as if it is some matter of relevance isn't an argument, and is ad hom. evidence isn't proof. rationalizing motivations of a fellow poster isn't an argument. this is a debate website. brush up on these debate concepts.

my quotes were Rush's beliefs. you've spent a great deal of time talking all around it, but not about it.

I'm glad we agree about what Rush is and does. as for the rest, ... "I'm right, you're left," ... "niftydrifty resembles his rhetoric" ... completely pointless.

Click to expand...

What a hack.

aps said:

I disagree. How is attacking the President of the United States--the most powerful person in our country--any different than attacking a General? I thought it was stupid that Congress gave a joke of an organization like MoveOn any importance.

Click to expand...

Sadly its different for a slight societal reason.

In general, while the President IS the commander in chief, its not his only job. He is the top political figure in the country, elected by the people, and so is general to open to critisism and attacks.

Generals are not political figures, they're not elected, and their job at all times is to pretty much lead our men and women in war. They also are forbidden from making certain political statements and other things while in uniform leaving them rather vulnerable to political attacks.

So there is a difference, at least societally, on how its viewed and been viewed for many years. Clinton wasn't free of attacks, and Bush most CERTAINLY wasn't free to attacks, its just the nature of being a politician...not a general.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying it is on a different level than others.

That said, I think people need to actually address Limbaugh's actual comments in context whether than how its being percieved.

Saying you want Obama to fail, flat out, cut and dry, is pretty bad.

Saying you want him to fail in the context that you do not want his specific policies he preaches to be successful because you deep down in your core principles believe that in the long term they will be disasterous for this country is different.

For example, lets take a Republican in office instead.

Lets say they've said they want to cut welfare benefits in half, completely do away with the department of education so its completely a state issue, get a ban on abortion passed, and repeal a huge number of environmental regulations.

I think it'd be perfectly understandable for someone on the opposite side of him (or even maybe the same side) to say that they hope he "fails", in terms of hoping that things like a huge cut to welfare or a ban on abortion fails, because even if they DID help the country in the short term that persons deep down, personal principles say those things are going to be bad for this country in the long term even if they may be good in the short term.

I too hope most of Obama's policies that he stated while running fail. I hope we don't see National Healthcare. I hope we don't see massive government intervention into businesses and more and more take overs of businesses. I hope we don't see amnesty given to everyone illegal in the U.S. right now or an immediete full withdrawl from Iraq mandated. I do hope all those initiatives fail to happen.

I do not hope Obama's Presidency "fails" in regards to it helping America though.

I hope that his goals and things will be tempered by those on the other side, and that those republicans still in some kind of power are able to forge compromises that reduce the negative affects I believe Obama's policies would do. I hope that on things like immigration, his policies fail from the voices of the nation rising up again as they did last time. I hope that through listening to the public, changes in his own beliefs through getting more information in the position he's in, and staunch opposition by the Republicans working for compromises that he DOES succeed as President and America DOEs prosper under him.

But I, deep in my core, in my base principles, do not think such success and goodness in a long term way will be had if certain portions of his policies pass. And it is those things I hope he "fails" at.

And that was what Rush was saying if people took him on context, instead of people seeing Limbaugh, knowing he can be a blow hard and is a typical slimy hyper partisan, and immedietely going "how can we misconstrue his words to get extra angry today". I'm not saying EVERYONE that believes he honestly said he wants Obama to Fail, as a blanket general statement, is looking to misconstrue his words and just do it for the sake of being angry at him...but I am saying the sources that started this campaign, which has then reached into blogs and news, which has then reached into peoples minds and given them the impression are.