Rush Limbaugh calls on conservatives to take back nation

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I believe that some of these "conservative" pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are simply co-opting choice arguments from the populous rhetoric that has been stated for years by people like Alex Jones and Ron Paul. These guys are worried about losing listeners, especially since people are starting to "wake up" to the aforementioned peoples attempts at enlightening the public to the ideological fraud that is being a neoconservative. We must not forget that these guys (Rush and Beck) were espousing the policies of Delay and Bush when they were busy doubling the size of the federal govt. People are starting to be more suspicious, even Rush's listeners. I believe that this is because of the results of these failed policies affecting people negatively in all walks of life. The listeners remember, and I am sure that his ratings have gone down as people start to realize the difference between what was promised and what has been delivered by the people Rush has supported.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
One of the great questions in life: why does anybody political extremism seriously?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
My observation and description of Rush Limbaugh - The Carnival Barker

Con Man's Word Games - Don't be Fooled by a Carnival Barker Pitch
By Jack Payne

Seemingly eons ago, the word, "mark," was born. It was in the 19th century era of the carnival barker that the practice of labeling "marks" originated. Once a victim proved his suckerhood, a shell games operator would slap him on the back with a chalk-filled hand, thus making him identifiable to the other crooked operators on the midway. The carnival con man of the day usually got away with these small-time scams because local authorities wrote such thievery off, "because they'll be gone in 3 days."

This practice has evolved. No longer must you worry about such messy tracking methods. The skilled con man, now a polished orator, resorts, largely, to spellbinding prose, a strictly verbal assault on your common sense. So, how do you keep the chalk off your back? How do you now detect when you are about to be ripped off?

Listen closely to the language. Hear each and every word penetrating your ears, on into your head, circulating about your cerebrum seeking analytical judgment. When the con man thinks he has got you in his cross-hairs, certain words will spill forth from his lips. Like the intellectual who uses more words than necessary, he will try to overwhelm you with his charm, wit, and charisma, along with his verbosity. Measure him, and what he says, carefully. Examples of the words:

- Anyone can make a killing. Anyone? C'mon. Obvious, even though the con man thinks, a good slogan will stop research for 10 years. It's still tried, over and over again.

- Sure-fire. Automatic. Easy money. Airtight. Painless. Foolproof.. Safe. Sure, these words reassure alright. Don't they? Anyone who falls for this claptrap probably also believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, and truthful politicians.

ezinearticles.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian
...while pandering to the hearts, minds and souls of Americans, there is no disrespect to that but it was a time when "Leave it to Beaver" Ruled, when the Ku Klux Klan really ruled visibly also invisibly and when everyone in the world was afraid of a cowboy and most assuredly blacks and other minorities had 0 stakes supporting or identifying with the conservative or republican idealogy because when one thought of or envisioned the epitome of the American Nuclear family or what may have been the example of being a conservative family, they resembled the majority of the wonderful family oriented shows out on television during the 50's and more recently they resemble the conservative movement in America, the majority devoid of any color.

Wow, what a load of garbage. Maybe the 50's were the golden years of America, but it had nothing to do with the KKK. If I'm deciphering your incoherent rant correctly, you seem to be bashing the ideal family. The breakdown of that ideal family unit you hate so much is perhaps the #1 reason this country is so screwed up.

When talking about the bad republicans we are not speaking about the Lincoln years because much is in question about that and what the reasons were, Rush your ideologies are akin to what you were raised with as values and the people you were around and unfortunately are a culmination of how the Republican party and the stereotype lived itself out in the most negative ways, unfortunately yourself and people like Anne Coulter sort of define conservatism as something tied to anglo values only sort of bordering on the NAZI ideal or diminish any other group that might not be about white, or white power did you not learn a lesson from the past election?

You seem to be implying that Rush (and Anne Coulter) is a racist. IF that is what you are saying, then you are either completely ignorant or are knowingly lying. Either way, it's false and you don't know what you are talking about. Bill Clinton once had to apologize to Rush for implying that he was racist. I'll bet you don't even have that much decency. Imagine that - your ethics are worse than Bubba.

What I am saying is Rush, you are a relic of the past, no longer relevant, the people your are touching nerves with and connecting with unfortunately, no disrespect are also in denial, but what else can they do, the multicultural, liberal melting pot that started to take its roots and beginnings in NYC and Ellis Island has come full circle, more of the nation is beginning to look like that, than Mayberry RFD.


LOL! Rush no longer relevant? Is that why 20 MILLION tune in every day to hear what he has to say?


I can't believe that at one time in the 90's I used to tune into your show, lets see, there was G Gordon Liddy, and you, my favorites in like 98-99 time period, also there was one other on WJFK here in DC, Howard Stern I think,but it seems something happened to you, it seems like the real you and the possible effects of all that drug use has gone to your head and you have possibly been affected by these drugs so much, I really believe that you are mentally ill and perhaps teetering on the insane.


No, Rush isn't the one that changed. You did. Rush is the same guy he was 20 years ago. That's why true conservatives love him, because whether it's good times or bad for conservatives, they can always count on Rush to be true to conservative principles. My guess is Rush isn't the one with a drug problem.

On one more note, IMHO politicians like Michael Steele need to get with it, he is being pimped and used to be the ultra magnetic magnate for blacks
when there is absolutely no reason for anyone that is a minority to identify with in any way shape or form what the Republican party or with what true conservatism represents at any time.

Study your recent political history/science and the 60's southern Republicans and that might be what epitomizes the conservatism he preaches and what it really stands for, lets confine those reasons to the last 50 or so years, you will find some valuable ammunition to flood Mr. Steele with email to answer and also the ultra conservative talker, Rush or even the more extreme loonatic, Coulter.


One lie after another. Southern Republicans? You tell other people to study their history and then you want to slam "60's southern republicans"? You are kidding, right? You can't be this ignorant, can you? It was SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS that opposed racial equality. It was the REPUBLICANS that freed the slaves, and it was the REPUBLICANS that delivered them their equal rights. Maybe that's why MLK JR was a REPUBLICAN. Ever heard of Wallace that tried to block racial equality in the South? Democrat. Gore's father fought it - democrat. Clinton's mentor fought it - democrat. I could go on and on.

The point is, YOU are one trying to stir things up with outright lies made up out of thin air.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead

so sorry to all you conservative pirates, taking more than you can swallow in ten life times. your pie is up. you can pretend you intend to give to the people. you'll only give what YOU want to give. someone now has the power to take it and it scares the poop out of you.

now its everyone else's PIE.

gobama!


I see your master has taught you well in the ways of envy, jealousy, and class warfare. "Pretend to give it to the people"? What kind of jibberish crap is that? Fact is, most wealthy people in this country EARNED their money by working hard, and most of them are very generous. Did you know that your master Obama wants the "rich" to give LESS to charity? He wants it ALL for himself, so HE can decide what to do with everyone else's money. Evidently, that's what you voted for and can't wait for it to happen. And people thought Bush was next Hitler? ROFL! He's got nothing on your master Obama.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by daeoeste
I believe that some of these "conservative" pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are simply co-opting choice arguments from the populous rhetoric that has been stated for years by people like Alex Jones and Ron Paul. These guys are worried about losing listeners, especially since people are starting to "wake up" to the aforementioned peoples attempts at enlightening the public to the ideological fraud that is being a neoconservative. We must not forget that these guys (Rush and Beck) were espousing the policies of Delay and Bush when they were busy doubling the size of the federal govt. People are starting to be more suspicious, even Rush's listeners. I believe that this is because of the results of these failed policies affecting people negatively in all walks of life. The listeners remember, and I am sure that his ratings have gone down as people start to realize the difference between what was promised and what has been delivered by the people Rush has supported.


Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Rush has been very critical of Bush when it came to spending, bailouts, etc. If you think Rush's rating are going down, you will be sorely disappointed. The way this will work out is as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. Rush first became nationally known during Bush I's term. Then BJ Clinton got in and everyone said "well, Rush is now irrelevant...his views are out of date and passe...etc.". Of course, the Clintons over-reached and the public reacted quite strongly against him. The GOP "that was finished" absolutely CRUSHED the dems in 1994, taking BOTH houses of Congress and all sorts of offices around the country. Who did the GOP make an honoray member of the new MAJORITY congress? Rush Limbaugh, who it was said was more resonsible for the GOP revolution than anyone. Rush's numbers went way up during the Clinton years, because it is so much easier to play offense and attack than have to play defense and defend. Obama is making the same mistakes as Clinton (what else to expect with all of the Clinton re-treads?), only 10X worse. The results will be devastating and disastrous. We are already seeing the seeds of discontent sown, and Obama is suppodesly still in his honeymoon stage. The gig is about up. There will be more anger against Obama than their was against Clinton, and where will a lot of these angry Americans go to for support, encouragement, information, strategy, etc? Rush Limbaugh. These next 4 years will likely be Rush's biggest years yet with more listeners than ever before. Of course the democrats will try everything they can imagine to shut him down. I fear for his safety.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
it is because of complete dependency on big business in our countries that we are all screwed.
they now hold all the money we need


Umm, no, it's actually complete dependency on big GOVERNMENT that we are all screwed. It's the government STEALING money from ALL of us that needs to be given back. The "War on Poverty" has taken TEN TRILLION dollars from the producers of society since the 1960s and created an entire segment of the population that can't go to the bathroom without the government creating a new agency to tell them when to go. Really, all the government is capable of actually doing is providing opportunity for individuals to succeed.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
One of the great questions in life: why does anybody political extremism seriously?


Huh? Are you asking why anyone takes it seriously? Good question. When you come up with an answer, you'll know how Obama won the election.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
This is just a ploy by the PTB to keep us divided, Limbaugh wants to use history to prove liberal policies do not work. Yet our current situations was not caused by liberal policies. We currently have the largest Federal government in history, largest dept, eroded constitution a increase in our Empire needed to be funded at all of our expense.


Having the largest government in history IS LIBERAL, regardless of who was/is in office. This is why so many conservatives ripped Bush.

I'm past caring whether or not a policy is good or bad (morally), I'm only interested in results and if it works or not.

That's nonsense. So you want immoral policies if they work? LOL Doing the moral thing is always the right thing. This is what Rush was talking about. Standing on principles. I just love it when a liberal bashes Bush for "ignoring the Constitution" and then elect Obama and beg him "please steal money from somone else ("the rich") and give it to me!"

The "conservatives" had there chance to fix the USA and look at where we are.

Again, there's nothing conservative about a huge government. Who ran Congress for the past 2 years? The democrats. They PROMISED to slash the deficit if they got into power. Did they? LOL. Oh, but they didn't have the White House. That was the problem right? So now they have the White House and have they slashed the deficit? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Firing the GOP and putting democrats in power because you think the government is too big is a little like firing your police force and hiring the mob because their was too much crime and corruption.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Obama is the "Carnival Barker", not Rush. Your analogy is so backwards as to make it laughable. The "Carnival Barker" is one who gets your confidence, so you put your trust in him, but he ends up taking your money. Now, how much money has Rush Limbaugh taken from you? Not a penny is my guess. How much money is Obama going to steal from everyone he can with his smooth-talking con game?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 



You said, "Umm, no, it's actually complete dependency on big GOVERNMENT that we are all screwed. It's the government STEALING money from ALL of us that needs to be given back. The "War on Poverty" has taken TEN TRILLION dollars from the producers of society since the 1960s and created an entire segment of the population that can't go to the bathroom without the government creating a new agency to tell them when to go. Really, all the government is capable of actually doing is providing opportunity for individuals to succeed."

I couldn't agree with you more my friend. I gave you a star.

What no Democrat ever wants to admit is that we have spent 10 Trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty", far more than all the wars in all of human history, but we still have just as many poor. In fact we have many more poor people. It is no coincidence that our national debt is also 10 Trillion dollars. That is enough money to give a million dollars to every man, woman, and child who was ever on welfare, yet they are still broke. We are taking money from our children and grandchildren and throwing it down a giant toilet that we call "Social Programs" and we get no benefit from it.

Why do we still have poor people more than 70 years after the New Deal and nearly 50 years after the Great Society? Well, it's because we have made the poor so comfortable in their poverty, with other people's money, that they have no incentive to lift themselves out of their situation.

Before you get on your class warfare soapbox, I was raised poor. Back in the 1960's and early 70's. My mom and dad had six kids, and they split up when I was 3. My mom raised us on a waitress' salary with a lot of help from relatives. She worked hard and tried to keep us off welfare but we were on and off welfare until I reached high school. My mom eventually completely swore off any government assistance, when they told her that she needed to sell her house in order to qualify for assistance, due to a new law. My mom had worked for 9 years to save enough money for a down payment on the house. She did this because rent prices had risen so high in our area it was actually cheaper to buy a house.

We were not deadbeats but there were many on welfare even at that time who were. We were taught how to work and to work hard. All of my mom's kids graduated high school, and 4 of us went to college. None of us got pregnant out of marriage and none of us impregnated anyone else outside of marriage.

I have done OK for myself and I am back in college working on a Masters in International Business. I plan on being one of the very rich. The opportunity is still there for anyone in this country who wants to rise above the mediocrity, but it is getting harder. It is getting harder because the government is making it harder and using class warfare jealousy to do it.

By the way folks, the government will never make you rich, only comfortable in your poverty. If you want to be rich, you must do what my mom did and swear off any government assistance.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
All good points. I just don't understand the mentality of those that think the government has the right to steal money from someone and give it to someone else. Sure, if someone gets wealthy by illegal means, they should punished and their ill-gotten gains taken away, but if someone works hard and is successful, why is that something to be attacked and punished? I'm nowhere close to being wealthy, but I sure don't want the government stealing from someone who is and handing it to me. It would be the same as if I was walking down the street next to a nicely dressed wealthy person who gets mugged. The mugger then tosses me the guy's wallet and says "here, you need this more than he does!". Guess what? I don't want his wallet or anyone else's wallet. I just want an opportunity for my own "pursuit of happiness".

The only possible good to come out of Obama's extremis socialist policies is if he goes all the way and bankrupts the federal government. That would give us the opportunity to start over with what the fed government should actually be providing for the American citizens. There's actually very few things that the federal government is supposed to be doing Constitutionally, like protecting our borders, but of course, the liberals don't want us to do even that.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Well, the way that I see it is that we are indoctrinated very early in our lives that socialism is something noble and honorable.

One case in point is the story of Robin Hood. Robin Hood and his "Merry Men". See, his men are merry, they're happy and having a good time.

They steal from the rich and give to the poor. We are told that this is something noble, and the subtext is that it is OK to steal as long as it is for a noble cause.

In the story the government is made to be the bad guy but this is only a cover for the true moral of the story. The King is out of the country and being held hostage, his evil brother is in power. Robin Hood is a government man and he is working to restore the previous government. So, we learn that some governments are good, particularly the ones that steal from the rich and give to the poor.

In the end of course, Robin Hood and his men send the ransom to free the legitimate King. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Wait a doggone minute there. Robin Hood was supposed to be giving all that loot to the poor! Yet, he had withheld a King's ransom, a big pile of loot, and had enough to send for the King's release? Wow! There is something in this story that doesn't add up. It seems that when you steal for a noble cause, it is best to steal more than you need. Then you will have plenty for other programs, like bailing out the King.

We all know the story, but how many of us have thought about the subtext? Yet it is there, plain as day, and it is securely planted in the subconsious mind. Stealing is OK if it is for a good cause.

The Democrats and the other big government types simply play to the preprogramed Robin Hood message.

Our Founding Fathers rejected the idea of the Divine Right to Rule, a long time ago, and with it the concept of a King. Yet, they did not dislodge the idea of the noble thief working for the King with sufficient force.

If you want to end the age of big government, then teach your children that Robin Hood was a thief, a rogue, and a scoundrel. Teach them that it is never, ever, OK to lie, cheat, or steal, no matter what. Also teach them the Golden Rule and that it applies to everyone, rich and poor. Then they have a chance to learn and grow, and to put the government back in its place as our servants.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
reply to post by Annee
 


Obama is the "Carnival Barker", not Rush. Your analogy is so backwards as to make it laughable. The "Carnival Barker" is one who gets your confidence, so you put your trust in him, but he ends up taking your money. Now, how much money has Rush Limbaugh taken from you? Not a penny is my guess. How much money is Obama going to steal from everyone he can with his smooth-talking con game?



I was speaking about Rush.

My bad - - I thought this was about Rush - - not just another Bash Obama thread.

. . . . permanent exit - stage Left



[edit on 1-3-2009 by Annee]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Rush Limbaugh is paid over $25 million a year to convince you he and the Republican party are just "average 'mericans", and fools eat it up like candy.

Reagan runs up more debt than ALL the presidents before him, and Bush2 ran up more than all of HIS predecessors after being left $150 Billion surplus, and this fool wants to rant about "Liberals" running up the debt and creating "big government."

Got any bridges in Brooklyn you'd like to sell us, Lush?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alupang
Rush Limbaugh is paid over $25 million a year to convince you he and the Republican party are just "average 'mericans", and fools eat it up like candy.

Reagan runs up more debt than ALL the presidents before him, and Bush2 ran up more than all of HIS predecessors after being left $150 Billion surplus, and this fool wants to rant about "Liberals" running up the debt and creating "big government."

Got any bridges in Brooklyn you'd like to sell us, Lush?


just make sure you evenly cut up those bridges.. wouldnt want anyone to get less of a piece than anyone else



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
One of the great questions in life: why does anybody political extremism seriously?


Huh? Are you asking why anyone takes it seriously? Good question. When you come up with an answer, you'll know how Obama won the election.



Oh, well in that case, because of financial interest. A lot of Black people who voted for Obama were racist idiots.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Wait a minute, smaller government? Less spending? Is he talking about the Bush Administration? They expanded government to a size never seen before. They spent more money then every president combined for the first 200+ years of this nations existence! Where was he when Bush was doing all this? Oh that's right getting caught at an airport with viagra after coming back from a nation known for child prostitution.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
Wait a minute, smaller government? Less spending? Is he talking about the Bush Administration? They expanded government to a size never seen before. They spent more money then every president combined for the first 200+ years of this nations existence! Where was he when Bush was doing all this? Oh that's right getting caught at an airport with viagra after coming back from a nation known for child prostitution.


^ obama spent more than every president combined too, in less than a month of his inauguration even beating Bush out





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join