Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 51 of 51

Thread: Rush Limbaugh is deaf

  1. #46
    Member Atomic Rooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    310
    If you want the "straight facts" try listening for more than 5 minutes. You will not get them from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The Wasington Post, New York Times, Time, Newsweek, etc. ( I could go on and on) Good sources for the "straight facts" would be the FOX News Network, National Review Online, the Drudge Report, and , of course Rush Limbaugh.com. There are more but it's late and I'm tired.
    KT7A-RAID
    64 bios
    1ghz AMD Thunderbird
    TaiSol CGK760092 hsf
    Micron 256mb pc-133 cas 3
    Maxtor 40gb ATA-133 7200rpm
    Visiontek GeForce4 Ti 4200 agp
    Plextor 40x12x40 cdrw
    SupraMAX 56i modem
    Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
    Win XP Pro

  2. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    0
    Last edited by disgruntled; 10-12-2001 at 10:27 AM.

  3. #48
    Member Atomic Rooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    310
    Scorpio69 -

    While perusing the threads that I had responded too, I noticed that I had failed to expand on my "Typical" remark in this one. Here is just a small example of what I meant:

    You claim to be "Republican and a "Conservative", though fairly moderate" and then you say "I do not fully understand the terms conservative, moderate, and liberal. It really is not important to me. Afterall, what's in a name?"

    You say that Rush is "rude and offensive" and that he's "just about the king of shock value. It has probably benefited him more than facts ever could."
    You also say that you "do not listen to the show. I am basing my views on conversations with closed-minded people who do listen to him" Then you claim "I did not say that I have never listened. I said that I do not" and that you "have listened to very little of the show."

    Sometimes when a "Moderate" is presented with the facts (or their own words) they tend to backtrack or try to change their stance. I also apologize for the over use of the . I'll try not to let it happen again.
    KT7A-RAID
    64 bios
    1ghz AMD Thunderbird
    TaiSol CGK760092 hsf
    Micron 256mb pc-133 cas 3
    Maxtor 40gb ATA-133 7200rpm
    Visiontek GeForce4 Ti 4200 agp
    Plextor 40x12x40 cdrw
    SupraMAX 56i modem
    Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
    Win XP Pro

  4. #49
    Member Scorpio69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    290
    Okay,

    I never claimed to be an expert in matters of politics. I believe I have stated that several times. Over the last month I have felt the need to get a little more into it. I believe that intolerance for others' views is one thing causes many evils such as wars and terrorist attacks.

    I really don't think that backtracking is exclusive to moderates. I have seen it done by professional politicians both on the left and right. I really don't think that I'm guilty of it in any case. As I've said also, I'm not running for office or being paid by sponsors. The views I express are 100% my own. If I find fault with them, they may change, but I don't see how anything I have said in this thread contradicts anything else.

    I HAVE listened to Rush, although not very long because I feel he is rude and offensive, that's why I CURRENTLY DO NOT listen to him. I do not care what his political stance is. I don't know how else to phrase this to make it simpler, and I don't see how I've "backtracked" here.

  5. #50
    Member Atomic Rooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    310
    Ok. fair enough. I would like you to clarify though why you feel that Rush is rude and offensive. I have listened for nearly 10 years and have never heard him be rude or offensive to any of the callers. Maybe you are taking offense to some of the parodies he does. On the other hand, I have heard many "Liberal" callers become very rude and offensive towards him.
    I hope your not saying that our intorlerance towards Japan's view of world domination caused the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or that Europe's view towards Nazi Germany caused the start of WWII. The terrorist attacks on America have been caused by only one thing, Osama's sick hatred of everything American. The terrorists hate us for what we are, not what we have done. You should read War Myths from Victor David Hanson.
    KT7A-RAID
    64 bios
    1ghz AMD Thunderbird
    TaiSol CGK760092 hsf
    Micron 256mb pc-133 cas 3
    Maxtor 40gb ATA-133 7200rpm
    Visiontek GeForce4 Ti 4200 agp
    Plextor 40x12x40 cdrw
    SupraMAX 56i modem
    Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
    Win XP Pro

  6. #51
    Member Scorpio69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    290
    Atomic Rooster - Let me start by saying that I appreciate the respectful manner in which you are continuing this thread. That alone indicates you are an open-minded and freethinking individual, and that is all I have asked for here.

    As I said politically I am fairly conservative. I do not blame America for WWII, though how could I know for sure? The winner always writes the history book. (Just food for thought.) As I understand it Japan did feel oppressed, or at least that was the excuse given. I personally take it as an excuse only.

    I think terrorists hate us because they have been deceived. I believe they come from oppressive conditions at the hands of their own rulers who convince them that America is the oppressor. (I am only speaking of the terrorists involved in the current situations; there are other varieties.) This, to me is much the same plight as the ordinary citizens of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. As far as middle to upper class Arabs and/or Muslims begrudging our culture? Why die for this when they can just immigrate here anyway and share the wealth? I can't see a connection between jealousy and martyrdom.

    I do think America's foreign policy could be a bit more responsible. What I mean is this: America dishes out many different varieties of foreign aid. I speculate that because most Americans are driven by Capitalism (would it be fair to say greed?), they feel that to give their hard-earned tax dollars away is necessarily charitable. As the cliché goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Something is to be gained by assisting other countries; it's not entirely charitable, as some people seem to think. Typically once America's interest has been served, the object of our assistance becomes rapidly neglected. (This is purely my opinion, and is subject to change.)

    Don't get me wrong here; I am anything but anti-American. We live in the greatest country that has existed to date, in my opinion. But to say that our government commits no evils is to be deceived. It is our responsibility as citizens and voters to see this and to correct it. It is a fact that many of our politicians lobby certain positions because they are receiving monetary contributions. You can water this down by calling it "soft-money" or "campaign contributions" if you like. I prefer to call it bribery. How many of our lawmakers have made what they know to be the morally wrong decision because it puts some money into their own pocket? They are only human; most of us would do this. It just turns my stomach that most people know about it and turn their heads.

    The main thing I dislike about Rush is what I feel are sweeping generalizations. Rather than pigeonholing and subsequently bashing an entire group of people for a vague reason, why not just take one specific topic and give your opinion of it. You cannot automatically denounce a particular view simply because it was presented by a "liberal" or someone of a special interest group you happen to not care for. The word liberal seems to roll of his tongue like a malediction. Listen to the argument and offer your opinion. The person may just have a valid point. Use reason to decide, what do you have to lose? This is the part where I tend to infer from followers what the content of Rush's show is, as I do not currently listen to him. If I am wrong, then I apologize. If you would like to point this out, please give me specific examples.

    Another example is his referral to Clinton as "The draft dodger". How many times have we heard the phrase "never trust a draft dodger"? First of all, let me say this: I have almost zero respect for Bill Clinton. I do not care for him in the least and think he is nothing short of a criminal. Everyone knows he is a draft dodger, and presumably a philanderer, thief, liar, adulterer, etc. possibly even a murderer. Some people actually don't care, but I do. However, if I were going to have a serious debate about his policies, I would refer to him as Bill Clinton or some variant. To do otherwise tends to influence people in a negative way, IMHO. The best-case scenario is that you discredit your own position by using slander rather than a lucid, factual argument. I like to look at one individual topic at a time, so as to separate all of the other baggage.

    Can you explain some of the parodies of which you speak?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •