Why Do People Listen to Rush Limbaugh?

reply to post by grover

It is this type of rhetoric I was talking about.
It is this type of rhetoric that makes dialogue impossible.
It is this type of rhetoric that divides the country.
It is this type of rhetoric that must stop if we are to move forward.

Why is my point of view, rhetoric and your point of view not?

Perhaps what makes dialog impossible is that YOU consider any point of view that is different from yours, Rhetoric
Perhaps what divides this country and your, and the other libs, inability to accept any other point of view.
Perhaps we can't move forward because only your point of view is correct and you not only don't listen to anyone else, you refuse to even allow them a point of view.

You are not helping your cause much RR... those are among the most idiotic quotes of his I've read. They aren't reasoned arguments... they are histrionics.

Andddddd

You prove my point perfectly...

I liked them..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Perhaps what makes dialog impossible is that YOU consider any point of view that is different from yours, Rhetoric
Perhaps what divides this country and your, and the other libs, inability to accept any other point of view.
Perhaps we can't move forward because only your point of view is correct and you not only don't listen to anyone else, you refuse to even allow them a point of view.

.

Gross and broad generalizations about what I and other liberals accept and do not accept and a lame attempt to deflect the argument back on to me as opposed to actually engaging in a discussion.

I never said any of that about only conservatives ya know... yet somehow it becomes liberal intolerance.

No matter how you cut it the fact remains that Limbaugh engages in inflamatory rhetoric and indeed specializes in it.

The fact that you guys eat it up and take it for serious political commentary is just too funny... there is no one on the left... absolutely no one like him thank god.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by grover]

"We don't have a Constitution anymore. Do you realize that if they can just singularly disregard the Constitution with this 90% retroactive tax on bonus payments, they can discard the Constitution anytime they want?"

Nonsense... if that law had passed it would have ended up in the Supreme court... and would probably been rejected before then... which is how the Constitution works so tell me again how is it we no longer have or or its being disregarded?

".... they get to make regulations impossible..."

Oh that's rich coming from the party that pushed deregulation for decades.

"What the ignorant do when they don't have their demands realized is they get on buses and start harassing executives in Connecticut..."

Wanna place odds that those protesters were both liberal and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and independents?

"We say no to socialism!"

You guys have no idea what socialism is and is not and I've grown tired of trying to educate you.

And you take this tripe seriously?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by grover]

Arghhhh! How did I miss this thread up till now?

Some of my favorite people are debating here, both sides of the fence.

But to answer the question in the OP (and I listen to Rush several times a week, when possible):

Because he is entertaining.

Because I admire a man that took such a chance on his career (turning down a comfortable salary, and instead betting on a 'piece of the action') when he was young. Such an American success story!

Because he always brings a perspective to the table that I had not considered.

Because the libs hate him so much. Half kidding here.

reply to post by jsobecky


I think this thread topic was lost long ago, everyonce and a while you might catch something about Rush, but for the most part its a Right vs. Left thread now.

Limbaugh is an entertainer and that is all he is. He is not a politician but reports on their antics and actions from an entertainment point of view.

Only people who disagree with him have claimed him to be the head of anything to make it appear that he is more than he is... a very well paid entertainer that has very good ratings and a valuable source of advertiser dollars for the network he works for.

Originally posted by grover

"What the ignorant do when they don't have their demands realized is they get on buses and start harassing executives in Connecticut..."

Wanna place odds that those protesters were both liberal and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and independents?

There are ignorant people on both sides of the aisle. Notice he didn't say ignorant Democrats. The Republican party is full of ignorance. Look at John McCain, Arlen Spector, and the Maine twins...Snowe and Collins. We all know about McCain, and the latter were the only Republicans that voted for the spendulus bill. Not very smart.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by RRconservative]

reply to post by RRconservative


Excuse me but I personally know Olympia Snowe from my years of living in Maine and she is anything but ignorant... she is a very serious, sober and intelligent person...

... just because you disagree with her doesn't make her ignorant.

Both parties need more like her in congress... willing to put ideology aside and vote for what they think is best for the country and not the party.

To get back on the topic, they listen because they want to hear what he has to say for any number of reasons. Entertainment, current issues, anything new [Rush recycles a lot], and general rant-talk. It is what it is, there is a paying market for it and it is not illegal. As far as I know he does not promote sedition, revolution, murder, drug use, speeding, running red lights, or selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.

Other people listen to Bible thumpers and "Praise the Lord" at every breath, some listen to Howard Stern to see what radio will allow on the air, and some listen to Limbaugh to get their rant fix for the day.

While all of these may be distasteful to some, they are not inherently evil.

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Limbaugh represents everything that is wrong with the Republican party and conservatives in general. The fact that he has millions of conservatives listening to him only continues the stereotype of conservatives not having intelligence and an argument beyond "gawd", and rightfully so. Let's look at their arguments.

Against abortion. Why? God.

REPLY: 80% of Americans have a belief in a Creator; what's the problem then?

Against homosexuality. Why? God.

REPLY: Those who believe in a God believe that Homosexuality is an abomination and against His teachings, the rest, with common sense, believe that it is what it is: an abhorrent and/or abnormal behavior, which it is. Only 3 to 4% of the population is Homo or Lesbian, which doesn't exactly make it "normal."


Against evolution. Why? God.

REPLY: Without Creation evolution would not be possible.

Against science. Why? God.

REPLY: Against science? Which science? If you're talking about the human-caused climate change farce, then I'm right there with him, as is over 30,000 earth scientists in America, alone.

I am in favor of capitalism, property rights, limited government (limited to protecting my rights, not violating them), pursuit of happiness, individualism. People call me a conservative for wanting those things but I prefer not to be labeled in the same party where men like Rush Limbaugh are considered heros.

REPLY: so..... you're against someone who has the same beliefs in self and country? Why?

reply to post by Fremd


Fremd says: "......... But we, as intelligent, free thinking individuals, have a right to call him out on his utter stupidity."

REPLY: So, you're automatically putting yourself in the "other 50%" category, as you quoted from Carlin? (“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider than that!”) Some here could honestly say that that is a biased opinion.

REPLY: Where's the figure to back that up? I'd say that the number of votes Hitlary got would verify the operation was a great success.

REPLY: There is no "right" to an abortion (infanticide). And, what a woman does with her body is one thing, but abortion isn't at all about "her" body, but that of the child.



[edit on 25-3-2009 by zappafan1]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Benevolent Heretic said: "...... They've got Rush, Palin and Jindal on one side and their chairman, Steele (and a few other progressive Republicans)......"

REPLY: One can be a "progressive" Rebublican, but NOT a progressive Conservative. A progressive today means the same thing as it did in the 50's and 60's..... Communist/Socialist/Marxist.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


VitriolAndAngst says: "....... Never waste a good disaster is his motto."

REPLY: I believe that it was Hitlarry, and now Rahm Emmanuel, who said it and are using the idea to it's fullest.

".......The clean-up was a complete failure, and they even imported expensive illegal workers to do jobs that could have gone to locals -- just to make sure that some poor folk didn't get any opportunities out of the disaster....."


REPLY: Those "poor folk" had all the opportunities in the world BEFORE the disaster, but the only thing most took was government handouts, which is why they were poor to begin with. Also, don't forget it was the local and state governments that made the situation much worse than it should have been.


".......It probably cracks him and Rove up all the time how gullible people are, and how he can push their buttons."

REPLY: Like BHO, Biden, Reid and Pelosi aren't laughing for exactly the same reasons?

"........ Ayn Rand and the rest of the NeoCon movement......"

REPLY: I'd urge everyone to read Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged", as it details exactly what we are going through now, and the result of rampant Liberalism/Socialism/Marxism.

By the way; Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Today: neoconservatism

A centrist/right wing political movement that opposes liberalism in political, economic and social fields.

reply to post by zappafan1


There used to be moderate, liberal and conservative Republicans just as there still are moderate, liberal and conservative Democrats... but the hard right takeover of the GOP forced most of them to either leave or keep a low profile...

... Nixon would be too liberal to the gang that controls the GOP now.

Rush quotes 3/25...Reasons why we listen

"It was always going to be the case that you were never going to get a tax cut, but now it's official."

"What the hell is 'sacrifice' when Americans' earned income is being eaten away by taxes? The American people are more than sacrificing! The American people are being made to sacrifice for this man's presidency!"

"Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge? I want to hear from somebody who's seen it!"

"As I've always said, you'll never find a book in the library called, 'Great Moderates in American History,' and one of the reasons is because moderates are not passionate. The most passionate they get is when attacking traditional conservatives

reply to post by RRconservative

It was always going to be the case that you were never going to get a tax cut, but now it's official.

Nonsense... nothing is official until the budget is passed and signed.

Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge? I want to hear from somebody who's seen it!

He obviously hasn't paid any attention to all the tent cities going up on the outskirts of the major cities... not full of bums and winos... but homeless families.

As I've always said, you'll never find a book in the library called, 'Great Moderates in American History,' and one of the reasons is because moderates are not passionate.

The greatest progress has been when people put differences aside and worked together...

The most passionate they get is when attacking traditional conservatives

... OH those poor maligned and abused conservatives. sniff sniff

[edit on 25-3-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover

just because you disagree with her doesn't make her ignorant.

WOW!!!!!

Talk about needing to take your own advice!!!!!!



I think I am going to use this in my signature if I could just get the whole topic in!!!

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


That wasn't advice that was a statement... and go ahead and quote one instance in this thread where I said something ignornat that could not be substanciated.... besides my spelling first thing in the morning.

reply to post by grover

just because you disagree with her doesn't make her ignorant

Questions:

1. You really think this is an ignorant statement? (I think it may be the best statement you have made in this thread)

2. You "REALLY" can't see the hypocrisy in the relationship between this statement and the entire thread?

3. PLEASE tell me you can!!!

If something as obvious as this is not apparent to someone, there is a REAL problem and it is not Rush

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

This thread is about why people listen to or can't stand Limbaugh... if you don't understand that I am entitled to my opinion either way about him then I can't help you... as for that statement... you take it out of context... I was replying to RR conservative calling Olympia Snowe as ignorant... and since she used to be a neighbor of mine and I knew her... and know her to be a thoughtful and intelligent person, I took exception to it... and guess what? She's a Republican and I like and speak well of her... Imagine that.

You like Limbaugh... I do not... personal taste not hypocricy.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by grover]