It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Do People Listen to Rush Limbaugh?

page: 27
8
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Rush never had a problem with Palin. I guess it is because she is an actual conservative....unlike McCain.




I'm just gonna take a wild guess here. The reason why Rush doesn't like McCain is probably because McCain is a veteran that is against torture. But Palin is a civilian that is not against torture.


People are so 'funny' sometimes.




posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Rush's beef with McCain had to do with immigration, restriction of free speech, global warming, and McCain's insistance on being a useful idiot to the Democrats.

Never have I heard Rush degrade McCain's military service or his misinformed stance on enhanced interrogations.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Rush's beef with McCain had to do with immigration, restriction of free speech, global warming, and McCain's insistance on being a useful idiot to the Democrats.

Never have I heard Rush degrade McCain's military service or his misinformed stance on enhanced interrogations.


I see, but on the other hand, in his defense McCain could just say, he's reaching across the aisle for the sake of the country. Whether he's selling out or not, it's open for debate.

My problem with Rush is, it's simply.. I don't believe him. To me he's actually a shallow character pretending to be a true conservative.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


RR, do you mean because she is a religious nut-job? Is THAT why R.L. went light on her??

Why do People Listen to Limbaugh??

Perhaps because he is on AM Radio. (One of about 400 other Right-Wingnut Radio programs in the USA....)

AM Radio operates on frequensies that are longer than FM....thus, they can propogate farther, without restriction by 'line-of'sight' considerations.

ESPECIALLY at night....AM can 'bounce' off of the Ionosphere....and carry many miles...if there's enough wattage from the transmitter, even half-way around the World.

FM Radio ends at the upper limit of just under 108.00 MHz. Above that, from 108.05 to 117.95 is delegated to Aviation navigation frequencies.

Above 118.00 we get into Aviation Communication frequencies....up to 137.975----THIS is why there is a limitation called 'line-of-sight' for airplanes....both for Navigation and Communication....a typical cruise altitude of, say, 39,000 feet results in about 210 NM line-of-sight.

Back to FM radio....transmitting antennae tend to be built on high ground, when possible, to provide best coverage.

WHY do people listen to Rush Limbaugh??? Because he is on AM Radio!!!!

AND, he is Affiliated and spread, like a virus....because he is just one opinion, but as a 'mouthpiece' is of great use to the republicans, since for the most part he has shown his lack of morals when it comes to making money......



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why are people that are religious nut jobs? You criticize Palin and her religious affiliations, but do you remember what church Mr. Obama attended for 20 years?

What is the deal with AM? I listen to Rush on FM. I have traveled a bit here and there across the states, and really have never had a problem finding Rush on FM.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


If Rush is on FM, then it is because, as I've said, he is "affiliated"....part of why he commands such obscene contracts.

AND, as to Palin....and Obama....two widely different animals.

Palin belongs to a 'church' that speaks in tongues, and handles snakes.

Obama...well, maybe I am not the one to talk about this, because, frankly, I am disgusted that he went to the 'church' he did....BUT, it WAS a 'christian' church, am I correct?

How many 'faithful' went to the Rev Haggard's 'sermons'....only to, years later, learn the truth?

I would say that the 'church' that was presided over by Rev Wright may not have displayed his true feelings....at least, not until the unravellings became public.

Religious dogmatism, and 'fire-and-brimstone' BS will out, eventually.

Truly, although this is decades later, YOUR 'argument' is very similar to the 'arguments' that swirled about during the JFK campaign....he being the first 'Catholic' to ever win the nomination for President.....



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Why do people listen to Rush Limbaugh? Probably because they have the right to do so. I'm no Limbaugh fanboy, but keeping an open mind includes gathering information from both sides, no matter how extreme.

[edit on 4/25/2009 by prototism]



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


You have no idea what I was talking about do you?

Your statement that all liberals think that government call solve all of our problems is a gross generalization and while it may be true of some liberals it is not true of all of them.

As for conservatives by getting government out of our way as a spur to innovation you mean things like debt swaps and the like?

The lack regulation oversight got us into this mess by allowing greed to run wild.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you realize that the reason mush loosebowels is on so many stations is because he gives his show away?

He makes his money off of advertisers.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 




Originally posted by grover
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you realize that the reason mush loosebowels is on so many stations is because he gives his show away?

He makes his money off of advertisers.


And if he were not so successful selling that advertising, he would be off the air. What point are you trying to make?

Do you realize that every commercial media makes their money from advertisers? And merchants advertise where they get the best return for their advertising dollar?

You have just acknowledged that RL is successful because he is so effective.

Libs can't give away their airtime!

To weedwhacker:

Your argument that RL is successful because of the characteristics of AM radio are silly and have been debunked and disproven before.

Back to grover:


Your statement that all liberals think that government call solve all of our problems is a gross generalization and while it may be true of some liberals it is not true of all of them.


But that's what you think, isn't it grover? That gov't is the answer to all our problems?

To Jazzyguy:



My problem with Rush is, it's simply.. I don't believe him. To me he's actually a shallow character pretending to be a true conservative.


What about RL makes him not a true conservative?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


RL just doesn't seem to me like the type of person who has discipline at all. Since true conservative should has discipline (plenty of it), I think he is bogus.

[edit on Sat, 25 Apr 09 by Jazzyguy]



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Yes but you see its a win win situation... since he gives away his shows the smaller stations don't have to fork over the subscription fees which can be steep which also gives him a wider range than he would have if the stations had to pay for it, as such its easier for him to get advertisers.

It has nothing to do with how good a seller of advertising he is... with this template he could spend his whole time cutting armpit farts and still come out ahead.

And no Josbecky I do not thing that the government is the answer to all of our problems... in fact i am in favor of a smaller more efficient government... the big difference between me and conservatives/Republicans is that I believe that government's focus should be defense... the environment... social concerns and corporate regulation... in other words taking care of the public weal as opposed to taking care of the rich and already enfranchised like the current batch of Repubicians want.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by grover]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 



Liberals believe that government can solve all of man's problems and conservatives want government out of their lives so we can solve our own problems (and be innovative). We do not stagnate and die with less government in our lives, we thrive and prosper because government is by nature wasteful and inefficient as Barack, Pelosi and Reid are demonstrating.


The only difference between conservative spending and liberal spending is conservatives spend on war and foreign business

liberals spend on Americans and local business
'
Yes, this is a generalization...but this 'in a nutshell'

No one single conservative minded person was yiping when we were spending a trillion dollars on another country

But now their yipping when we do the same for ourselves.

It's called hypocrisy. You are allowing others to formulate your opinion for you.

You're either against government spending in all its forms

or you're with government spending in all its forms.

Government money is all green, it doesn't matter if it's conservative or liberal

when you allow the party line to split your personal reality from reason, you have officially been assimilated into the moronic masses.

If that is where you are most comfortable...then by all means, listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he's great.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   


As for conservatives by getting government out of our way as a spur to innovation you mean things like debt swaps and the like?
reply to post by grover
 


I'm glad you mentioned debt swaps as if they were a "conservative" idea. Barney Frank was literally in bed with Freddie Mac and Chris Dodd with AIG. Plenty of reason to believe the credit default swaps were cooked up by "well meaning", government loving, put the poor people into housing, Democrats!

And BTW, you haven't answered Isobecky's question.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch



As for conservatives by getting government out of our way as a spur to innovation you mean things like debt swaps and the like?
reply to post by grover
 


I'm glad you mentioned debt swaps as if they were a "conservative" idea. Barney Frank was literally in bed with Freddie Mac and Chris Dodd with AIG. Plenty of reason to believe the credit default swaps were cooked up by "well meaning", government loving, put the poor people into housing, Democrats!

And BTW, you haven't answered Isobecky's question.


You really don't know what your're talking about do you?

First I did answer Josbecky's question... go back and reread what I wrote.

Second... credit default swaps had absolutely nothing to do with getting poor people in housing...

As a matter of fact it was legislation by Phil Gramm (R) in 1999 that made them legal again after almost a century and their purpose was nothing more than another way for wall street to make money... it had nothing to do with the poor... it was an insurance policy for investments... any investment not just bundled mortages.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 


I totally agree. I've said for years they are all tax and spend. it's just a matter of who they tax and what they spend it on.
You fleshed that out rather well.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   


Second... credit default swaps had absolutely nothing to do with getting poor people in housing...
reply to post by grover
 


Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Bank Merger bill) under Clinton had some strong Clinton required (for passage) measures strengthening CRA requirements for "getting poor people into mortgages". It was that bill and Clinton's requirements re CRA that opened the gates so to speak to get those loans rolling and going into Freddie and Fannie and then over to AIG. Barney and Obama had more to do with Freddie and Dodds more to do with AIG than any of the republicans did so I say (along with many others who have actually looked into the nitty gritty of this whole fiasco) that the banking failure can more properly be blamed on the Democrats.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


And what does any of that have to do with credit default swaps?

Nothing.

Oh and god forbid we should help the poor... only the rich are deserving.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Why we listen....Rush quotes 4/27/09

"Government interference, influence and ownership in the private sector is a killer virus. Obama is bad for business and poison to prosperity."

"This swine flu, folks... Let me tell you something: It's nothing to worry about. I'm not going to worry about this outbreak until Fox News puts Geraldo Rivera on 24 hours a day to cover it. Well, Geraldo Rivera is the grim reaper."

"I love this prompter, because every now and then this prompter just shows Obama who the boss is."

"Okay, so David Brooks and Charlie Rose think that we've got a very competent manager here in Barack Obama, and a brilliant president. All right, how many tax cheats are in his cabinet? Last time I counted, it was five."



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Well, your hero Barack did say that "that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis".

But your other hero, Clinton said in defense of his GLB" "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

Clinton did a lot of engineering in GLB and was quite defensive of it.

Was GLB the impetus for the credit default swaps? A definate maybe IMHO.

I think it was more like this. CRA and the repeated strengthening of CRA bank requirements by liberal legislators had the obvious effect of bringing about a huge inventory of low quality mortgage paper. Fannie and Freddie were encouraged to pick these up and market them however they could. Fannie, Freddie and AIG created the credit default swaps that somehow worked, institutions worldwide bought them. That opened up the door for the creation of more low quality mortgages which of course the private banks competed with themselves to do with great success. CRA 1979 Carter was what started it all.

Was it a good idea to try to put low income people that didn't otherwise qualify into housing? The liberals that created CRA thought so. Do you think government will repeat the mistake?




Oh and god forbid we should help the poor... only the rich are deserving


I think we hurt them more than helped the poor with the CRA "engineering" or as Grover would say "innovation"!


[edit on 27/4/09 by plumranch]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join