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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
nevermind

two lines

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Cool Hand Luke]




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
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.


I agree with you here.
I am in favor of the ideals you mention and consider myself fairly conservative in many areas, but Rush Limbaugh is the antithesis of true conservative. This is why I think people are so confused in the Republican party. They've got Rush, Palin and Jindal on one side and their chairman, Steele (and a few other progressive Republicans in Congress) who has said that he's pro-choice and that homosexuality is NOT a choice, both of which he immediately recanted after receiving a beltway whipping. These are two of the Republican party's "side issues" that they always fall back on in times of crisis and now they're split. It's interesting to watch.

Good post.



Originally posted by jfj123
I do find his simple minded fecal diatribe amusing, it is also a little un-nerving because there are enough people out there that believe he should have a podium to speak from.


While I totally agree with you on the simple-minded point, I just wanted to make a comment about this. It doesn't matter how many people believe he should have a podium to speak from or how ridiculous his spewings are. He has the Constitutionally-protected RIGHT to say what he does. If NO ONE believed he should have a podium, he'd still have the RIGHT, if not the following.


reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 


Excellent post! Bottom of previous page. Very well said!


[edit on 15-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Limbaugh provides an "alternative" view point.

That is, if you think that the time honored tradition of "Courtesan to Royalty" is anything alternative or new.

A good place for Blue Collar workers to pine for the plight of the wealthy and powerful, and boo and hiss at the $1.25 that someone on Welfare "got away with."

Rush, Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage (Wiener), Bill O'Reilly, Jim Cramer (to just name the latest status quo apologist in the news) they all make tons of money. The add revenues can't give Hannity and Rush over $100 Million a year, plus endorsements. So, they are selling something much more important. They give everyone someone to blame, and provide the circus to distract them from FOLLOWING THE MONEY.

Wall Street went from 6% of the Economy to 40%. Their net gain, is at the cost of a net trade deficit -- we borrow more money than Wall Street creates. In that time, we outsourced jobs and that was good for profits. The average American has lost buying power every year except a few points during the 90's, since Reagan was in office.

Some people may be shocked and surprised by the economic down turn. But it reminds me of the curious stupidity that led the Bush administration to merely padlock all the weapons depots that Saddam left behind, rather than removing them or just blowing them up. Then they divided the fledgling government on sectarian lines and took sides. Since then, we started fighting the people who used to be our allies, and paying off the people that weren't. So, you are smart enough to line your pockets and contractors, get in power, but you aren't smart enough to know that leaving things bombed and weapons available isn't a great way to start a civil war.

Before this crash, Negroponte used Homeland Security provisions to allow Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs and 3 other financial banks to leverage their investments 40 to 1 -- bypassing SEC rules. Can anyone EVER think that this is a good idea? You only need a hiccup of a downturn, and banks that over leveraged have to sell the store to keep up -- they are prime targets of market manipulators. Especially, when the SEC turns a blind eye to billions in Naked Short-selling that crushed Bear Sterns and allowed them to be gobbled up for pennies on the dollar.

But the worse problem is the Derivatives market. Over a Quadrillion in unresolved money, based upon the credibility of companies that have raised their pirate flags. The people in the know, worry about this greatly. It was the bets placed on mortgages that was the problem -- not really the mortgages themselves.

Into this gap of knowledge, launches people like Rush Limbaugh. Quickly stepping in to blame poor people forcing banks to loan them NINJA loans (the fair housing laws force banks to loan to people of the same credit rating regardless of ethnicity -- NOT to give loans to credit risks, by the way). Gone from the discussion, was why the Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) didn't cover 100% of the losses. If people have interest only loans, or NINJA loans, or have no equity -- they have PMI. Well, AIG set up a division in England to get around US regulations, and they gambled trillions of PMI insurance money on high risk investments. Eventually, the gambling didn't pay off.

But, there are a lot of voices, not following the money, and blaming people with little power or wealth.

That's why Rush makes over $100 Million a year. Because it is chump change and gets the rabble fighting amongst itself, while they get their pockets picked. One day it's "oh no, the Illegal Mexicans" the next day "Oh no, it's the Islamo-Facists." Really, it's always been the same kiss up and kick down apologists since the Egyptians built the Pyramids. They used to be called Courtesans in the Middle Ages. Or Chicken-Eating-Preachers during Slavery. Many names, many theories, -- but always the same function. Distract the people and make them accept the power structure.

And that's the thing, you are either teaching folks that they will get to heaven by piling huge rocks on top of huge rocks, so that they are too busy to challenge the power structure, or you are a "Radical Liberal" a heathen, an atheist. We see the Pharaohs religion as a silly myth today. Well, everyone used to understand that wages created demand until the late 1970's. So, apparently, history proves that ENOUGH people will believe any stupid idea, if enough well dressed people repeat the lie.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It appears to me, from reading all the posts in this thread, that liberal hate is alive and well. Followed by liberal fear.

I personally don't like Limbaugh...but...calling him an a**hole for his beliefs? And all the other hateful comments? You call him a hate-monger for his right to free speech...for speaking his views. Then some of you return fire by hating him for the rights he has in this country.

Typical liberal actions..."hate is bad" if it isn't what WE believe. "Free speech is great" unless WE disagree. All crap if you ask me.

Limbaugh happens to have a huge audience BECAUSE of your misguided view that only your answers, only your "God" (or lack thereof), only your President and only your morals (or lack thereof) are right.

I happen to be one Independent that is more sick of this kind of crap than the crap Limbaugh spews.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

]Originally posted by jfj123
I do find his simple minded fecal diatribe amusing, it is also a little un-nerving because there are enough people out there that believe he should have a podium to speak from.



While I totally agree with you on the simple-minded point, I just wanted to make a comment about this. It doesn't matter how many people believe he should have a podium to speak from or how ridiculous his spewings are. He has the Constitutionally-protected RIGHT to say what he does. If NO ONE believed he should have a podium, he'd still have the RIGHT, if not the following.


Maybe I should clarify my position.
Although I do completely agree he has the CONSTIITUTIONAL right to say what he does, he doesn't have the right to say it on the radio. He was given that privilege by the radio stations which did so because they can sell advertising because of him. So the only reason he is spewing crap on the radio is because there are enough people who will listen to him thus making the radio stations profitable. What a shame. Sometimes people don't deserve their podium.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So the only reason he is spewing crap on the radio is because there are enough people who will listen to him thus making the radio stations profitable. What a shame. Sometimes people don't deserve their podium.


Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Yeah, if he deserves a radio show, then it makes NO SENSE that people like Imus were taken off the air. Some of what Rush has said is far more offensive than Imus's musings, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Steele would have had much more credibility if he had not apologized for saying what he said. He had a real chance of being a reasonable new voice of the republican party. He should not back down from his positions and should explain to those in the party that despise his views why he supports those particular positions. But instead he apologizes for everything he says and does it for absolutely no reason. In my opinion, if he would stand by his positions and stand on his principles, the republican party could very well be a solid contender in future elections. I think alot of the economic conservative democrats would vote for a person who doesn't use a bible as an argument. Not to mention, there are many republicans that believe there still is a seperation of church and state clause in the Constitution would stop being marginalized by those who seem to skip over that part of the constitution.

I have no problem with people who disagree with abortion, gay marriage and so forth. I have a problem with those who want to use government to force everyone else to disagree with those issues. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you don't approve of homosexuality, don't be a homosexual. It really is as simple as that.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Well, my first hand experience with Limbaugh dates back 20 years, so may be somewhat out of date.

At the time, I had a 90 minute commute in SoCal, and I found this talk show - "The Rush Limbaugh Show" on the radio. I'd never heard of this guy before, and he seemed mildly interesting at first glance, so I spent some months listening to him during the drive.

At the time, his big schtick was that he was the guy any father could and would be comfortable leaving his 13 year old daughter in a hotel room with Rush... He repeated this line fairly frequently.

After a while, I got truly bored with him. I agreed with some of his positions, but all he ever did was whine about stuff... I never not one time heard him offer up any solutions, or ideas for improvement. It was just a never ending stream of whine. Bored now.

So I turned him off, and have never seen any reason to go back.

As far as why people listen to him, I reckon it is the old "it takes all kinds" point. There are people who dearly love guts and gore, chop 'em up slasher movies, while others like movies about Tango lessons and cooking with chocolate. There are people who like to listen to Limbaugh, and others who listen to Rachel Maddow.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
People listen to Limbaugh because he can be their alter-ego. He says things that people think but don't say out of fear of reprisal, inadequate rhetorical skills, or no one to listen. On national radio, their hero says what they would say. The true believers call in and say "ditto" and receive the approval of the king. He speaks for them, they get to be heard and his approval means that they have been heard on national radio. Dissenters are permitted to speak but only if their arguments are weak. They are then flayed. Dissenters with strong arguments are dismissed and can't be heard. The king will not be outwitted when he controls the mute button.
This is the dream of the true believers who may not otherwise have much attention paid to their views. I talk, you listen. Dissenters are banished from my world.
It would be interesting to see the demographics of Rush's listeners with respect to age, gender, social status, education, income, and location. I suspect that some interesting patterns woud emerge.
Rush, of course, is all about ratings and his rants haven't changed much. He plays his audience well because he understands his audience, which is the mark of a good entertainer.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jfj123
So the only reason he is spewing crap on the radio is because there are enough people who will listen to him thus making the radio stations profitable. What a shame. Sometimes people don't deserve their podium.


Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Yeah, if he deserves a radio show, then it makes NO SENSE that people like Imus were taken off the air. Some of what Rush has said is far more offensive than Imus's musings, in my opinion.


Yep.
A great example is r.l.'s "Barack the Magic Negro" song. A parody of "Puff the magic dragon".
Racist much rush?????

Another great one was when he was on the air, accusing the democrats of slowing down his broadcasts so it sounded like he was drunk or high
There's some irony for you


[edit on 15-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Why Do People Listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Because they can.

Until the government steps in and silences him, which means your favorite web site or new station may be next,

You know the ole, " they came after me, they will come after you, tra la tra la."

If you want your rights upheld, you better fight for every-ones rights to be upheld.

Whether you like what they have to say or not,

The way I look at it, people who want to silence someone have an ulterior motive, perhaps the message they want to silence doesn't fit their agenda or troubles their conscious.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I read lots of opinion in this post but no quotes or fact! Yes - I understand why the left hates him - he makes them look like fools on a continual basis.

Of course if you don't agree with the left your full of "ignorance" and "hatred".

Personally I don't listen to him BUT millions do. The man has built an empire on his intellect and personality. The entire leftist movement couldn't keep a radio station going (AirAmerica) but they are quick to point fingers at Rush Limbaugh.

Love him or hate - the guy is good - and thats why the left hates him so much and the right clings to him.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by FredT
 


Do not forget, Obama smoked crack and pot of his own free will. Heh its one thing getting addicted to pain medication after major surgery, its another thing when you start to smoke crack and pot for "fun".


BUT, was Obama ever addicted???
We're in the 21st century here, do you realize how many people have smoked pot in this country?
I can't believe i'm defending Obama, I don't even like the guy lol. Let's be fair here though, Limbaugh was an ADDICT. Prescription drugs are as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than most narcotics.


Even if someone were to construe Rush Limbaugh's comments about wanting President Barack Obama to fail as something more about the person than the policies, at least Limbaugh never allowed his disagreement with a president to justify the loss of American lives.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this distraction surrounding Rush Limbaugh--and, yes, it is entirely meant to distract from the failures of this administration and Congress--is the holier-than-thou attitude by those on the left, as though they were always respectful to former President George W. Bush. Recently, liberal Democrats have been decrying Limbaugh's statements -- how quickly they forget the statements on liberal Web blogs like The Daily Kos which expressed dismay that former Vice President Dick Cheney was unhurt when a suicide bombing killed 20 while he was making an unannounced visit at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. And wasn't it James Carville that said he wanted Bush to fail just minutes before the attack on 9/11.....



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

ok you blindsided dimwits with the mental capacity of an ageing stoat, for the past millions of threads you have debated lush rimbaughs drug addiction(whilst putting the odd comment in now and again)
chopra put it beautifully when he mentioned when limbaugh is angry which is all the time then bieng angry makes him right! or think he`s right which most of his audience does due to his anger level. he talks down to his audience and makes them sound stupid and he doesnt accept any opinion from his listeners apart from" im right and your opinions dont matter because my opinion is yours"
infact you could change his name to hannity or o`rielly and it would mean the same thing.
and yes they all sound like rotwielers on the tv and radio and they are..atleast the left doesnt shout like the right does..they just shout shout shout..
and it gets on my nerves



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Wasn't half as bad as what they did to Palin.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by jfj123
 



Wasn't half as bad as what they did to Palin.


What did rush do to palin?

Just
Curious.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Rush is a clever propagandist, and a great many people are fed up with the anti-white racism and anti-male sexism constantly coming from the left. I can't stand Rush, but I don't like what I hear from the left either.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Yep.
A great example is r.l.'s "Barack the Magic Negro" song. A parody of "Puff the magic dragon".
Racist much rush?????



This is a great example of ignorance displayed by Rush haters.

The liberal LA Times pinned Obama with "The Magic Negro" tag. Paul Shanklin, a parodist much like Weird Al Yankovich, made a song about it, then it ended up of Rush's show.

How in the blue heck can someone point out racism, then get pegged as a racist for doing it?

Here is the start of the Magic Negro, by the liberal LA Times.

www.latimes.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by slicobacon
 


You are wrong on several if not all counts... he only makes the left look foolish if you don't reason out his arguments but once you do you realize he is the only one who ends up looking like a fool because of his sloppy logic and his running fast and furious with his facts.

As for us on the left hating those who like him... I couldn't care one way or the other... its not worth the effort hating either those who listen to him or rush himself so don't paint all of us with a broad sweeping brush... besides it is rush and the hard right who have done their best to smear the left as hating America and all of that tripe.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join