# why does rush limbaugh still have a job?



## jarrod (May 11, 2009)

i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.  

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.
> 
> jf



Because the public doesn't hold their heroes accountable for anything anymore?  Just a guess.


----------



## matt.m (May 11, 2009)

Funny thing,

His dad and brother etc. are hard core democrats.  Being from the Jackson/Cape Girardeau area it is amazing how ones family can think a guy is of "No account" and still make it so far.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 11, 2009)

He's still useful.


----------



## jarrod (May 11, 2009)

dude, i _just_ noticed your avatar.  that's awesome.  

jf


----------



## tellner (May 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.



People have a tendency to overlook faults in people they like. And someone who's making a lot of money and enjoying his life will take full advantage of the fact.

Limbaugh is a very popular figure with lots of influence among the people who own the media business and create the images. So much so that Clear Channel is giving him a *raise* worth tens of millions even while their company is sinking. He's got a large, loyal audience who enjoy his product and believe he can do no wrong. That much market power can buy you a lot of forgiveness. 

And before the usual suspects chime in with "What about fill in the blank" or "Clinton got a blowjob" or "But it wasn't an illegal drug" this isn't a Left or Right thing. It's a human tendency to judge the rich and powerful by a gentler standard than the little people. Limbaugh is incredibly rich and very, very powerful. So he gets a pass where a smaller fish would not.


----------



## crushing (May 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> He's still useful.


 
Good point. He is almost as useful to the people agree with him as he is to those that disagree with him.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 11, 2009)

Or how about Rush Limbaugh obviously has created a huge niche for himself much like Howard Stern, and people will follow him wherever he goes.. more then 20 million people a week, and some estimates at over 30 million... thats such a huge percentage of the american population its not even funny....for 1 person to have the attention of on a consistent basis... how many people does the president of the United States have on a consistent basis? 

The advertisement dollars he brings in is the lifeblood of clearchannel, they know if they lose him they are done. Period, the other hundreds, or thousands of layoffs and paycuts in their company is to non essential employees..The man is reaping his rewards for his abilities, foresight, and timing, I thought that was the American way? The man is not a politician, he does not run our government, he is not a public employee, and we have a man as president of the United States that freely admits to drug use in his past. We have a convicted felon preparing to leave prison and most likely return to play in the NFL for millions soon, who actually killed and tortured animals... We have Pro Athletes making millions who have abused steroids, gotten caught, had small slaps on the wrist and continue to get paid.. We have members of all levels of goverment who are continously getting caught with hands in the cookie jars who are allowed to continue on in their jobs of supposedly serving the American Public...
So how is surprising it in any way, that an entertainer, who had an abuse problem that the majority of people in the United States have no understanding of anyways, is still making money in private industry because he has a huge audience?

I find it much more surprising that American Public votes for some of the people that it does, given the facts about those people...
Hell... wasn't it Polanski who molested a Child, and still won an oscar, and has millions of people going to watch his movies, while he is living in France to avoid the lawful punishment for his horrendous crime?

I think we have alot of people who have their priorities out of wack... I mean obviously abusing oxycontin and injuring noone is much more dastardly then raping a 13 year old and winning the acadamy award while evading justice in another country....YA


----------



## jks9199 (May 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.
> 
> jf


Because people listen to him, meaning they listen to the advertisements and buy the products, leading to advertisers buying air time for lots of money...

I find Rush amusing, at times, and annoying at other times.  I don't always agree with him, and I think some of his interpretation of "conservatism" is kind of simplistic.  And he's definitely got enough ego for 8 or 9 of us...   What usually happens is I listen to him for a while, then he says something stupid or pisses me off, and I change to something else...

(I miss the satellite radio I had in my work car until recently... )


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 11, 2009)

I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, but I've heard reports about him. All I know about him is that he is highly conservative and his Michael J Fox comments were distasteful.

Oxycontin addiction is prevalent right now. People are prescribed it for pain and end up addicted. It's not unusual. Rush obviously has some use to Clearchannel and their advertisers, so I see nothing wrong with his ongoing presence and pay increase. I do see something wrng, however with Ted Kennedy leaving a young woman dead at the bottom of a river, after driving drunk and then not reporting it until he had sobered up. The guy remains a senator for thirty years. If Teddy can do this and remain an alcoholic, while being the darling of the left, I' m sure Rush can take Oxycontin and be the darling of the right.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while. how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin? i mean the stuff is essentially heroine. it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.
> 
> jf


 
Because conservatives know that people aren't perfect and that simply because one's behavior doesn't always line up with one's standards doesn't mean the person has no credibility? I mean, I know it seems like a concept that people of certain political persuasions are incapable of understanding, but it seems fairly easy to grasp to me. 

But hey, we get to see people dragged through the mud for moral failings every day on the news, our little homage to the Roman arena, I suppose. 

The real question is why are _any_ Air America stations still broadcasting? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2009)

Because people listen to his show....


----------



## seasoned (May 11, 2009)

Talent on loan from God may have something to do with it, if you are so inclined.


----------



## shesulsa (May 11, 2009)

When you read his first book, very near the front he makes PERFECTLY CLEAR that his program is for entertainment purposes.  Some people are entertained by his style, others are not.

There ya go.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 11, 2009)

Don't worry, once it's illegal to say inflammatory things he will be locked in a prison someplace.


----------



## tellner (May 11, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Don't worry, once it's illegal to say inflammatory things he will be locked in a prison someplace.



Don't go there, alright? We just retired a President and VP who said that failing to support them was treason and terrorism. Political opponents - not terrorists - were investigated, had the IRS sicced on them, got wiretapped, were denied the right to travel freely and a number of other things. So far the current Administration is moving more towards traditional American values. They may not be who you wanted in the White House. They have angered their supporters by not going far enough in reversing the excesses of their predecessors. But anyone with even the most tenuous connection to reality has to admit they are a departure from the totalitarian trajectory we had been subjected to.

Some were glad to see M&Ms (Muslims and Mexicans) detained without trial, kidnapped, disappeared, tortured and killed in custody and are now panicking at the thought that they might be subject to the same treatment. To those people I can only say "Suck it you sorry hypocritical bastards. You deserve whatever happens to you." It's not going to happen, no matter how much the Whining Wingnuts try to make you pee yourselves in fear. But it would serve you right if it did. A bully who loves to dish it out but cries like a baby when he has to take it is among the most contemptible things on Earth.


----------



## shesulsa (May 11, 2009)

For the record and to advocate for Da Debol ... Obama won't be repealing the Patriot act and intends to keep wire taps in place.

Just sayin'.


----------



## tellner (May 12, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> For the record and to advocate for Da Debol ... Obama won't be repealing the Patriot act and intends to keep wire taps in place.
> 
> Just sayin'.



And that is why I will support whoever runs against him in 2012. He was my third choice in the last election. Not a bad third choice but not up there with one and two.


----------



## Carol (May 12, 2009)

On the subject of Rush Limbaugh, he is predominantly on the AM band.

It is notoriously difficult to turn a profit on AM radio.   AM stations require a lot more real estate and a lot higher maintenance costs for lower audio quality and lower listenership.

The vast majority of AM stations downlink most/all of their content off satellite.  If a program director isn't happy with the way the content does in the market, s/he will switch to different content.  When I worked for one of Rush Limbaugh's affiliate stations in the 1990s, his ratings were very strong, yet management wasn't opposed to replacing him with a different show, if they thought another show would do better in the market.   

It all comes down to ad revenue.  The one that can bring in the most money is going to be the most desired.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 12, 2009)

tellner said:


> Don't go there, alright? We just retired a President and VP who said that failing to support them was treason and terrorism.


Show me where Bush or Cheney used the words treason about dissenters. If what you say is correct, all at MSNBC, CNN, Headline News and all at the network news outlets would have been persecuted along with the Hollywood elite. Last I saw, Sean Penn was still living the goodlife cohorting with America haters. It looks like he made it through the Bush years happily....Cheney is Darth Vader. Bush is Emperor Palpatine, yawn, yawn.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2009)

tellner said:


> Don't go there, alright? We just retired a President and VP who said that failing to support them was treason and terrorism. Political opponents - not terrorists - were investigated, had the IRS sicced on them, got wiretapped, were denied the right to travel freely and a number of other things.




I would love to see some actual evidence of any of that having happened


----------



## Twin Fist (May 12, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> For the record and to advocate for Da Debol ... Obama won't be repealing the Patriot act and intends to keep wire taps in place.
> 
> Just sayin'.




yes, uneducated idealism usually loses to educated reality. All i mean by that is he was free to say he would do whatever.....then after the election, when he got to see the ACTUAL security briefs, his common sense took over.

either that or the CIA showed him some film of the JFK shooting, from an angle never shown in public, and let him know to STFU and stay out of thier ballpark....


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> either that or the CIA showed him some film of the JFK shooting, from an angle never shown in public, and let him know to STFU and stay out of thier ballpark....


 
THose'd be the ones from the _George H.W. Bush Collection._ :lol:


----------



## rocksham (May 12, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.
> 
> jf



You got it all wrong, its the Dems doing it, what could serve their cause better. Between him and Cheney, the Dems have  it good.


----------



## jarrod (May 12, 2009)

guys, guys, guys...this is a guileless question.  we're all human, we all **** up.  getting hooked on hillbilly heroin seems like a bigger screw up than most, & i was just wondering how he maintained his fan base.  i'd ask the same if a controversial liberal got busted for embezzlement or something.  that's why this is in the locker room & not political debate.

jf


----------



## RRepster (May 12, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i've been curious about this for a while.  how did he maintain any sort of credibility with his fans after it became public that he was addicted to oxycontin?  i mean the stuff is essentially heroine.  it just seems inconsistent for a far-right, tough on crime, pro-drug war media figure to still be singing the same tune after that came out.
> 
> jf



Because it's very common to abuse oxycontin and get addicted to it which results in a far easier reason for people to forgive. AND he admitted the sin and cleaned up.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

matt.m said:


> Funny thing,
> 
> His dad and brother etc. are hard core democrats.  Being from the Jackson/Cape Girardeau area it is amazing how ones family can think a guy is of "No account" and still make it so far.


You are either ignorant, or a liar. He only has one brother, David, and he is far from being a hardcore democrat.*David Limbaugh* (born December 11, 1952) is an American political commentator and author.
Limbaugh was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He has a bachelor's degree in political science and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Missouri. He also served in the National Guard for six years. He is perhaps most notable for writing columns which are carried by Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily, and _The Washington Times_. 
  One of his uncles AND one of his cousins (to cover the etc in your post) were appointed to Federal Judgeships by republican presidents Reagan and Bush (43). That hardly makes them sound like hardcore democrats...


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

tellner said:


> Don't go there, alright? We just retired a President and VP who said that failing to support them was treason and terrorism.


Do you ever get tired of twisting the facts, and you know, making things up?
Kindly post a link to where either Bush or Cheney specifically said either of those things. You know what, you can't, because it didn't happen. Oh, by the way, "We just retired" is that like some kind of code for "After being elected to and serving two terms in office, being prohibited from serving a third by Constitutional amendment?" 





> Political opponents - not terrorists - were investigated, had the IRS sicced on them, got wiretapped, were denied the right to travel freely and a number of other things.


 Wow, sounds almost like Martin Luther King Jr during the Kennedy administration...
Or, gee, FILEGATE...


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

It is funny how you don't consider Clinton's signing of the Brady Bill as egregious a loss of liberties as wire tapping...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> It is funny how you don't consider Clinton's signing of the Brady Bill as egregious a loss of liberties as wire tapping...



Don, rather then pointing the finger out, why don't you tell us why you defend...

Ah screw it.

Aloha Braddah, Rush has a job because I listen to his stinking radio show.  LOL!


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

Last year's syndication deal will reportedly bring Limbaugh $400MILLION, if you don't think ClearChannel and all those client stations will take in many times that, you're crazy...


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 18, 2009)

Rush has a job because people listen to him, and advertisers buy time on his show. If he wasn't in demand, it would be different.  His family, and all the other stuff, is pointless clutter. Personally, I find him to be little more than an opinionated windbag with as much value as Stern or Powter.

Don, is it possible for you to debate without insults, baiting, and out right jerkness, or, should I expect you'll be taking a prolonged forced vacation in the near future?  Just wondering.


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

Rush has a radio show because he voices a much-stifled emotion for many of us - he gives hate a voice. 

We have to let this happen because we do not live in a police state - where we CAN speak against the president, where we CAN speak out against tyranny, against the use of torture by our executive branch, against political corruption.

Rush Limbaugh can have a radio show because gays can march in pride and Nazis in Skokie.

It is ... he is ... part of who we are.  Like it or not.


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Don, is it possible for you to debate without insults, baiting, and out right jerkness, or, should I expect you'll be taking a prolonged forced vacation in the near future?  Just wondering.



I would encourage anyone to use the RTM feature if you find a post violates the rules.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Don, is it possible for you to debate without insults, baiting, and out right jerkness, or, should I expect you'll be taking a prolonged forced vacation in the near future?  Just wondering.


Is it possible for some to debate without distortions and outright lies?
Is pointing out that Rush Limbaugh only has ONE brother who is a conservative writer insulting? Or was it pointing out that to claim that, one would *either *have to be ignorant of the facts *or *be lying about them?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 18, 2009)

Actually, I think they worked out something so the nazi's didn't march in Skokie....but the points still valid.  Also, yeah, report the posts.


*Standard stuff here:* Stick to the topic and don't be rude jerks when replying. Y'all know the drill.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Rush has a radio show because he voices a much-stifled emotion for many of us - he gives hate a voice.


 He does indeed! Hatred of IDEAS, not of people.Oh, that isn't what you meant, is it?


> We have to let this happen because we do not live in a police state - where we CAN speak against the president, where we CAN speak out against tyranny, against the use of torture by our executive branch, against political corruption.


 Yeah dissent sure was patriotic when Bush was in office, here and now in the Obama administration... not so much...


> Rush Limbaugh can have a radio show because gays can march in pride and Nazis in Skokie.
> 
> It is ... he is ... part of who we are.  Like it or not.


To require such fealty to power in the name of patriotism was once repugnant to the left. Now, with the right guy in charge, apparently it can once again be embraced. 
Change, indeed.


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> To require such fealty to power in the name of patriotism was once repugnant to the left. Now, with the right guy in charge, apparently it can once again be embraced.
> Change, indeed.



Filed under "Those are our planes now"


----------



## tellner (May 18, 2009)

Oh for crying out loud, Don. Your Decider, the Commander Guy, demanded that people hired for the Justice Department tell their interviewers why they were personaly loyal to George W. Bush. 

Typical Republican nonsense and their only trick - stir up mindless fear and then find something, anything no matter how remote that allows them to tar the Enemy (there is never normal opposition; it's always Good vs. Evil) with the brush that's blackened them. You guys really don't have anything else. It's hardly worth the poor dead electrons to keep spouting the same thing.

Shrub was AWOL and couldn't be bothered to finish the nice, cushy safe hitch in the TAG. So the Greedy Old Plutocrats come up with a packet of pure lies to besmirch the honors due to an actual war hero. 

Bush demanded personal loyalty oaths from new DoJ hires and signed loyalty statements from people who tried to attend his political rallies - G-d's own truth as I found out when I went to one. So you come up with some anonymous idiot who has an Obama fetish. 

Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Mukassey, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld et al. took a dump on the Constitution, declared it null and void in secret, wiped their butts on the Bill of Rights, tortured, kidnapped, murdered actual prisoners of war, probably murdered a couple hundred in secret prisons. But the only thing that's important is that Nancy Pelosi might, according to CIA types with a vested interest in the outcome, have known something about these disgusting war crimes. 

Your Beloved Party has turned into a One-Note Johnny. And it can't even hit that note.


----------



## jarrod (May 18, 2009)

hm...guys?  oxy?  limbaugh?  fanbase?  

topic?

jf


----------



## Jade Tigress (May 18, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.


Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
*


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Is it possible for some to debate without distortions and outright lies?
> Is pointing out that Rush Limbaugh only has ONE brother who is a conservative writer insulting? Or was it pointing out that to claim that, one would *either *have to be ignorant of the facts *or *be lying about them?



Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.

Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.

Thanks.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

tellner said:


> Oh for crying out loud, Don. Your Decider, the Commander Guy, demanded that people hired for the Justice Department tell their interviewers why they were personaly loyal to George W. Bush.


 You have proof, or is that just another unfounded accusation? Oh, look who I'm asking...





> Shrub was AWOL and couldn't be bothered to finish the nice, cushy safe hitch in the TAG.


 Just because CBS airs false allegations doesn't make them any less false...





> So the Greedy Old Plutocrats come up with a packet of pure lies to besmirch the honors due to an actual war hero.


 Who?





> Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Mukassey, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld et al. took a dump on the Constitution, declared it null and void in secret, wiped their butts on the Bill of Rights, tortured, kidnapped, murdered actual prisoners of war, probably murdered a couple hundred in secret prisons. But the only thing that's important is that Nancy Pelosi might, according to CIA types with a vested interest in the outcome, have known something about these disgusting war crimes.
> 
> Your Beloved Party has turned into a One-Note Johnny. And it can't even hit that note.


It would be nice if you had any actual facts, and not just the same old baseless crap you spout all the time.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.
> 
> Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.
> 
> Thanks.


It isn't a question of style, but, rather of honesty, something that ought to be valued over nicety.


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> It isn't a question of style, but, rather of honesty, something that ought to be valued over nicety.



Then I would ask that you provide birth certificate proof that clearly must be available to you to prove who is and isn't in this man's family.  Given that honesty and integrity are more important than manners. 

If that's not available to you, then you are subject to the same CLASS OF SOURCE as matt.m is ... what you are told by people who claim to know the truth ... so, in a sense, YOU could be "lying" too.  Or would that be not lying, but instead be "not legitimately informed?"

My opinion is it would be the latter ... and certainly carry no more weight than Matt's which would either make both of you liars or ... both of you subject to the same class of source which would make both of you informed to the same degree ... by your reasoning, "ignorant" I suppose.


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

And, btw, I'm not sure you really answered the question. You return what used to be considered a personal attack rather than an attack on source or data when you agreed to NOT do EXACTLY that. What about the honesty and integrity of agreement? of conditions? :idunno: 

Still trying to get it here. Thanks.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.
> 
> Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.
> 
> Thanks.


 
If a person has their facts wrong, there are two reasons for it... they are a liar, or they are ignorant of the facts..... if people look up the word ignorant in the dictionary they will discover the true meaning of the word... and while nobody wants to be ignorant, ignorance is not a slanderous term, or a derogatory term, its simply a thing that someone is or isn't. If the persons so called facts are incorrect and they are indeed not ignorant of the truth, then they are a liar. I do not understand why someone thinks that is so inflammatory as opposed to someone purposefully spreading wrong information. People just do not understand the english language and want to put whatever foul intent on words they deem appropriate. I consider it much more disgusting, and inflammatory when someone tries to prove a point, or make a point with incorrect information, regardless if it is innocent due to ignorance, or devious due to a lie.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

jarrod said:


> guys, guys, guys...this is a guileless question. we're all human, we all **** up. getting hooked on hillbilly heroin seems like a bigger screw up than most, & i was just wondering how he maintained his fan base. i'd ask the same if a controversial liberal got busted for embezzlement or something. that's why this is in the locker room & not political debate.
> 
> jf


 
Here is a question for you that is based on yours..
How does more then 60,000,000 Americans forgive Obamas Drug Use and make him president?
Limbaughs listener base by the most optimistic guesstimates is much less then 40,000,000. So shouldn't the question be why do Americans in general forgive drug use in high profile celebrities and politicians?

If you really wanted it to be a non political debate then you would have worded it similar to that. By bringing a polarizing political figure that you do not like into the conversations it seems pretty obvious to me you were looking for a certain direction here.


----------



## Steve (May 18, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Because conservatives know that people aren't perfect and that simply because one's behavior doesn't always line up with one's standards doesn't mean the person has no credibility? I mean, I know it seems like a concept that people of certain political persuasions are incapable of understanding, but it seems fairly easy to grasp to me.
> 
> But hey, we get to see people dragged through the mud for moral failings every day on the news, our little homage to the Roman arena, I suppose.
> 
> ...


Haha.  This is tongue in cheek.  Right?


----------



## Steve (May 18, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Here is a question for you that is based on yours..
> How does more then 60,000,000 Americans forgive Obamas Drug Use and make him president?
> Limbaughs listener base by the most optimistic guesstimates is much less then 40,000,000. So shouldn't the question be why do Americans in general forgive drug use in high profile celebrities and politicians?
> 
> If you really wanted it to be a non political debate then you would have worded it similar to that. By bringing a polarizing political figure that you do not like into the conversations it seems pretty obvious to me you were looking for a certain direction here.


There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin.  And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others.  It's SOP for zealots like that.  It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls.  And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.  

for me, the actions are just a small part of it.  It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin. And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others. It's SOP for zealots like that. It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls. And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.
> 
> for me, the actions are just a small part of it. It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.


 
Umm you realize Obama admitted to using Cocaine right....and more... and not just a single occasion....
and I see your political intent revealed itself...
And of course a radio show entertainment host is much more important then the president of the United States..
I also find it interesting how you left off some important factors.. such as Limbaugh had suffered severe back pain for years and became addicted to the prescription painkillers that way...then was investigated to holy hell, had his rights violated in a way that any citizen of the United States would go crazy about, then had the charges dropped after agreeing to pay the cost of the investigation, go to treatment and submit to ongoing drug tests...BTW what is your evidence to support your comment of a Massive Addiction to Oxycontin?
Obama just wanted to have a good time.
So one got hooked from using for medical reasons, the other chose to use a drug recreationally, instead of making the right choice.... but hey.. hes all about Change right?


----------



## Steve (May 18, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Umm you realize Obama admitted to using Cocaine right....and more... and not just a single occasion....
> and I see your political intent revealed itself...
> And of course a radio show entertainment host is much more important then the president of the United States..


LOL... let me assure you that I have no "political intent."  I am in no way interested in changing anyone's opinion.  

Now, getting past that, was it cocaine?  If so, that's a different thing, particularly if he snorted cocaine more than once.  I thought he smoked some weed... which is, in my opinion, no big deal, even if he smoked many bowls.  I think that Bush's well documented alcohol and drug problems were wrong and very damaging to his credibility.  I would feel the same for Obama.

But saying Rush is a simple "radio show entertainment host" is disengenous.  Rush has carved out a relatively significant cult of personality that, based upon their actions, congressional republicans dismiss at their political peril.


----------



## Steve (May 18, 2009)

Lucky, you edited your post after I posted my response.  Suffice to say that one of us did expose some "political intent" but I don't think it was me.   It's all good, though.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> LOL... let me assure you that I have no "political intent." I am in no way interested in changing anyone's opinion.
> 
> Now, getting past that, was it cocaine? If so, that's a different thing, particularly if he snorted cocaine more than once. I thought he smoked some weed... which is, in my opinion, no big deal, even if he smoked many bowls. I think that Bush's well documented alcohol and drug problems were wrong and very damaging to his credibility. I would feel the same for Obama.
> 
> But saying Rush is a simple "radio show entertainment host" is disengenous. Rush has carved out a relatively significant cult of personality that, based upon their actions, congressional republicans dismiss at their political peril.


 
I suggest you read Obamas book, he freely admits it in the book.
there are a few differences between Bushes allegations and Obamas Usage though... in regards to the cocaine, Bush has never acknowledged using, and there is no actual proof that he did. Obama freely admits it.
Also if you believe the people who say Bush did Cocaine, then you have to pay some credence to the same type of people who have stated Obama sold drugs during that same time period he was using. Is it true? Who knows, there will be some people who believe each side no matter what, and others who don't care. The facts are that Obama freely admits to breaking the law, using illegal drugs for his own desires, and putting his own desires above that of everyone else... 

Now as far as Rush goes, I have to put him on one side of a coin, and Howard Stern on the other side of the coin... Two entertainers with monster sized audiences, and seem to have audiences that are predominately left or right. Can they influence people? Sure, can they organize people if they choose to? Yes and in great numbers. But the fact remains neither of these men have any power to make laws, enforce laws, or change the way our country is run. I will state that Rush is predominately about politics, while Stern is about all things Hedonistic in nature, and that tends to go political only when politics get in the way of his desires.... of course this is my impression from listening to them on a very irregular basis, others might be different. Which leads to another question.... How in the hell does someone as obscene as Howard Stern get so many people to love him? Hell he even glorifies the use of drugs, and he seems to have an audience as big or possibly bigger then Rush doesn't he?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Lucky, you edited your post after I posted my response. Suffice to say that one of us did expose some "political intent" but I don't think it was me. It's all good, though.


 
LOL The question you asked intrigues me as well.... I really am curious why American is so easy to forgive drug use in its celebrities and politicians, yet refuses to legalize drugs or any kind, and given the massive budget problems refuses to release non violent drug offenders from prison to massively reduce the cost they are placing on the rest of us.....it just seems really ummm hypocritical to me. Oh ya sorry and yes I try to take a swipe at Obama every chance I get, he pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes, and is in the middle of the worst destruction to our country and our childrens future ever seen on this planet.


----------



## crushing (May 18, 2009)

Did Limbaugh start with a legitimate prescription for Oxycontin then become addicted?  I've heard of other people, particularly athletes, that have become addicted in this manner.  That would seem quite different than searching out and partaking of an illegal drug to use like marijuanna or cocaine for recreation.

Some people close to me have overcome additions to various substances.  One just celebrated 18 years of sobriety.  I don't think less of them, in fact, I am grateful for the positive influences they have made in my life.


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2009)

crushing said:


> Did Limbaugh start with a legitimate prescription for Oxycontin then become addicted?  I've heard of other people, particularly athletes, that have become addicted in this manner.  That would seem quite different than searching out and partaking of an illegal drug to use like marijuanna or cocaine for recreation.
> 
> Some people close to me have overcome additions to various substances.  One just celebrated 18 years of sobriety.  I don't think less of them, in fact, I am grateful for the positive influences they have made in my life.



From what I understand, yes.  I think one of the aspects to the investigation was how he was "doctor shopping" for pain meds.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

As to finding out whether or not his brother and father are "hard core democrats" a 10 sec google search (I type slow) would have shown that assertion to be patently false.
Limbaugh's addiction is different from other celebs in that, he OWNED up to it, didn't blame it on anyone or anything, did not EVER speak or write about how much fun getting high was, unlike President Obama, then he got clean and moved on. The ACLU, who normally aren't fans of Limbaugh's took up his case when vindictive prosecutors were trying to get him for "Dr Shopping". By the way, if your doctor wasn't giving you the help/answers/treatment that you felt needed, wouldn't you go to another? I would and I have, and in all likelihood, I will again...


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> If a person has their facts wrong, there are two reasons for it... they are a liar, or they are ignorant of the facts..... if people look up the word ignorant in the dictionary they will discover the true meaning of the word... and while nobody wants to be ignorant, ignorance is not a slanderous term, or a derogatory term, its simply a thing that someone is or isn't. If the persons so called facts are incorrect and they are indeed not ignorant of the truth, then they are a liar. I do not understand why someone thinks that is so inflammatory as opposed to someone purposefully spreading wrong information. People just do not understand the english language and want to put whatever foul intent on words they deem appropriate. I consider it much more disgusting, and inflammatory when someone tries to prove a point, or make a point with incorrect information, regardless if it is innocent due to ignorance, or devious due to a lie.


Quoted for honesty and reading comprehension.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin.


 Yes, and there are more than one, but, the big one is ONE IS LEGAL AND ONE IS NOT.





> And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others.  It's SOP for zealots like that.  It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls.  And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.


Care to cite any sources for that?





> for me, the actions are just a small part of it.  It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.


Yeah, doing illegal drugs for fun is less wrong than getting hooked on a prescribed pain killer because, you're in pain...


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2009)

*Admin Note*

***Attention ALL Users***

2nd warning.  Stop with the personal shots, snipes and rude posts.  Use the ignore feature and return to the topic at hand.  

Mike Slosek
MT Asst Admin


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin. And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others. It's SOP for zealots like that. It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls. And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.
> 
> for me, the actions are just a small part of it. It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.


Oxycontin abuse is usually the result of prescribed medication for pain that simply gets out of control. Smoking marijuana as a youth is usually a choice for recreational enjoyment. I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or Air America so I couldn't care less what they do or say. It doesn't effect me in the slightest. 

I am effected by Barack Obama's decision making however, so I think he should be held to a higher standard than a radio personality.

When you say that "most homophobic right wingers are the one's caught in bathroom stalls" I can only think of one politician  off hand. It seems to be the exception rather than the rule. This statement obviously shows your bias. 

I want to make it clear that I really don't care about marijuana use, as long as I don't breathe in the second hand smoke. I also don't care whose caught in a bathroom stall. The only thing I care about is that the families of these people have to suffer because of betrayal. In that respect, my heart goes out to Elizabeth Edwards and her family.

You Steve seem to think that hypocrisy is a realm for conservatives only. Let me remind you that Democratic politicians have been playing the "I'm on the side of the poor" card for centuries. All while living large off the backs of tax payers. Both parties have their hypocrits as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Steve (May 18, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> When you say that "most homophobic right wingers are the one's caught in bathroom stalls" I can only think of one politician off hand. It seems to be the exception rather than the rule. This statement obviously shows your bias.


You guys are so full of it sometimes. Okay. Just so everyone is clear. I tend to be a little right when it comes to fiscal topics and distinctly left when it comes to social topics. I reserve the right to waffle and to be mistaken because I work full time and have kids, and my job isn't related to politics. I presume most of you are in the same boat (although some know way more than I do).

I have a bias. I make NO attempt to hide it, nor do I apologize for it. I am not interested in tricking anyone or catching anyone or playing stupid rhetorical games with anyone. Seriously. So, please, please stop telling me I'm revealing my bias, or that I'm showing my true colors.   It is insulting to us both and implies that I was trying to hide it in the first place.  I'm not.

Now: 


> Oxycontin abuse is usually the result of prescribed medication for pain that simply gets out of control. Smoking marijuana as a youth is usually a choice for recreational enjoyment. I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or Air America so I couldn't care less what they do or say. It doesn't effect me in the slightest.
> 
> I am effected by Barack Obama's decision making however, so I think he should be held to a higher standard than a radio personality.


Marijuana is a recreational drug that I believe should be legalized, and has been made illegal for political reasons. It's safer, based upon what I know about it, than either cigarettes OR alcohol. So, pretty much the only thing I don't like about it is that it's illegal, and that's the only reason I don't enjoy it now. 

In my opinion, abusing a strong narcotic like Oxycontin is much worse, but understandable considering Limbaugh's circumstances. What really bugs me about Rush isn't the addiction. It's the hypocrisy. The point I was making about the homophobic right wing politicians (or how about "sanctity of marriage" guys who have been divorced multiple times and/or cheated on their spouses) is that it's the ones who bark the loudest who are often hiding their own shame. Limbaugh said some pretty vile things about drug addicts while he himself was hiding an addiction to a controlled substance. 


> I am effected by Barack Obama's decision making however, so I think he should be held to a higher standard than a radio personality.


And this is by your standard? Who gets to set the standard? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your high standard looks different than mine.


> You Steve seem to think that hypocrisy is a realm for conservatives only.


You can believe that if you want to. I'll only point out that there is a different between conservative and republican, just as there is a difference between liberal and democrat.


----------



## Archangel M (May 18, 2009)

IMO Oxy abuse is as much about Doctors getting people hooked on it then cutting the prescriptions as it is about "junkies".

I once locked up a guy for wrecking his car while on strong..illegally purchased...muscle relaxants. He had more stuffed in his sock, from a recent illegal purchase. Turns out the guy was a "clean", "average joe" till a pack of shingles slid off a roof and hit him on the head breaking his neck. The docs gave him a bunch of pain meds and his job gave him a hefty settlement. Unfortunately most of that money went into buying more illegal pain meds after the docs cut him off.

BTW: My case never went to trial because he OD'd a few weeks later.

I dont know if its totally fair comparing people like that with recreational drug users...Ill lock either of em up just the same, but I see them as different.

I've heard numerous stories similar to THIS over the years.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

Steve, I too believe that marijuana should be legalized. Not just medical marijuana but recreational marijuana as a whole. So we agree there. I don't really care about Rush Limbaugh pre se. What I do care about is the hypocrisy of the left when dealing with this issue. Barack Obama should be held to a higher standard because (to some extent) he can set policy and affect our lives. Rush Limbaugh cannot. Marijuana is (on the whole) illegal for recreational use right now. Barack Obama shows poor judgement to have been involved in cocaine and marijuana use. That's my point.

When it comes to being "full of it", you too have the same tendancy,considering your "right wing homophobic..." remarks. Talking about multiple marriages, affairs, and other dastardly affairs, go talk to the Kennedy's. As I said befor, wasn't it Teddy that left a young woman dead at the bottom of the river, then went home to sober up before he called it in, just to save himself from prosecution. Yet he has been a senator for other thirty years. John Edwards has a mistress and tells her to wait until his wife DIES before they make their relationship public. Some believe he has a child with her. There are just as many creeps on the left than there are on the right. Then we have Sibilius, former governor who protected Dr Tiller "the baby killer" who provided late term abortions to anyone for any reason as long as they had $5k to give him. She is now Health secretary if I remember right. Just think about that for a moment.

Rush Limbaugh is still in business because people listen to him. Period.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> IMO Oxy abuse is as much about Doctors getting people hooked on it then cutting the prescriptions as it is about "junkies".
> 
> I once locked up a guy for wrecking his car while on strong..illegally purchased...muscle relaxants. He had more stuffed in his sock, from a recent illegal purchase. Turns out the guy was a "clean", "average joe" till a pack of shingles slid off a roof and hit him on the head breaking his neck. The docs gave him a bunch of pain meds and his job gave him a hefty settlement. Unfortunately most of that money went into buying more illegal pain meds after the docs cut him off.
> 
> ...


Kudo to you mate. You have a tough job. It must be heartwrenching to have to bust a decent guy with record, and then hear that he's killed himself. I couldn't do the job, but I'm glad there are people out there that take on the responsibility.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

I've listened to Limbaugh off and on. By chance, I did happen to be listening the day after his $400MILLION deal with Clear Channel was announced, IIRC, he explained the large number, but, BTW, neither confirmed nor denied the amount, as what Clear Channel is more than happy to pay him so they can charge, and this is a direct quote: "





> Confiscatory fees for advertising.


" i.e., fees so high, if it were on a highway, it'd be highway robbery. They pay him that much, because they make MORE than that selling the advertising.


----------



## jarrod (May 19, 2009)

Big Don said:


> It isn't a question of style, but, rather of honesty, something that ought to be valued over nicety.



honesty & nicety aren't mutually exclusive.  for example, you can say "i think you're misinformed" rather than "you're ignorant".  i'll admit that out of my 1700 or so posts on here, i have not cross-referenced & fact checked every statement, & i suspect no one else here has either.  but i do welcome new information, it's just hard to digest it when it's served up with a pile of attitude on the side.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Here is a question for you that is based on yours..
> How does more then 60,000,000 Americans forgive Obamas Drug Use and make him president?
> Limbaughs listener base by the most optimistic guesstimates is much less then 40,000,000. So shouldn't the question be why do Americans in general forgive drug use in high profile celebrities and politicians?
> 
> If you really wanted it to be a non political debate then you would have worded it similar to that. By bringing a polarizing political figure that you do not like into the conversations it seems pretty obvious to me you were looking for a certain direction here.



well, obama is the 3rd consecutive president known to have used drugs in the past, so there is a precedent established for presidential drug use being of fairly small concern.  also, unlike rush, obama isn't known to be a vocal supporter of the war on drugs.  my concern isn't with drug use in & of itself but with hypocricy.  it really doesn't matter to me that rush is still on the air, i was just wondering how his fans reconciled his positions with his actual life.  i suppose if other high profile celebrities busted for drug use were also drug war supporters, i could have worded the question as you suggest, but your rewording doesn't really address what i was curious about.  

also luckyboxer, if you care to cruise around the forum you'll find that i'm critical of obama on several issues, mostly regarding the economic bailout & concerns about gun laws.  just because someone dislikes a far right conservative doesn't make him a far left liberal.  i just don't like *******s.  i don't care what party they're with.

jf


----------



## Steve (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Steve, I too believe that marijuana should be legalized. Not just medical marijuana but recreational marijuana as a whole. So we agree there.


Awesome!





> I don't really care about Rush Limbaugh pre se. What I do care about is the hypocrisy of the left when dealing with this issue. Barack Obama should be held to a higher standard because (to some extent) he can set policy and affect our lives. Rush Limbaugh cannot. Marijuana is (on the whole) illegal for recreational use right now. Barack Obama shows poor judgement to have been involved in cocaine and marijuana use. That's my point.


I think this is interesting and I see your point.  I don't see how it helps us answer the question, "Why does Rush still have a job?"  Or, why does he continue to have credibility?


> When it comes to being "full of it", you too have the same tendancy,considering your "right wing homophobic..." remarks.


Come on now.  It's a valid example, becuase it's the right wing politicians who tend to take the hard stance against gay rights or gay marriage.  There was a guy in Spokane here in Washington who resigned in shame after being a staunchly anti-gay politician.  Then... what's his name in the airport stall.  There have been others, as well.  





> Talking about multiple marriages, affairs, and other dastardly affairs, go talk to the Kennedy's. As I said befor, wasn't it Teddy that left a young woman dead at the bottom of the river, then went home to sober up before he called it in, just to save himself from prosecution. Yet he has been a senator for other thirty years. John Edwards has a mistress and tells her to wait until his wife DIES before they make their relationship public. Some believe he has a child with her. There are just as many creeps on the left than there are on the right. Then we have Sibilius, former governor who protected Dr Tiller "the baby killer" who provided late term abortions to anyone for any reason as long as they had $5k to give him. She is now Health secretary if I remember right. Just think about that for a moment.


I didn't mean to imply this was just right wing politicians.  When I said, "sanctity of marriage guys" I was talking about all of them.   Infidelity is bipartisan.  So is hypocrisy.  Once again, I think it's a mistake to use democrat and liberal synonymously, just as it's a mistake to so use the terms conservative and republican.  

Regarding Obama, I think it is a pretty clear statement about how the GOP is viewed by the voting public.  They, as you said, forgave him for admitting to drug use before electing a republican to the oval office for a 3rd consecutive term.  There's a message there that's pretty honest.  As a political group, the GOP needs to fall back and rediscover their conservative ideals.  As a group, they're leaderless and directionless.  Until they can communicate to the public that they are other than what the public has seen over the last 12 years, they are in trouble.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

this has been PROVEN false more times than i can count. if someone has to post LIES to make a point, they dont have one.



tellner said:


> Shrub was AWOL and couldn't be bothered to finish the nice, cushy safe hitch in the TAG. .


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

BZZZZZZt

wrong answer

Bush admitted to having an alcohol problem in the past. he never admitted anything to do with drugs, nor was it ever proven

not ONE person has ever come forward to say they did drugs with him, sold him drugs, or anything else.

that was nothing but a liberal smear campaign.

'repeate it often enough, people will believe it"

right out of Alinsky's rules for radicals



stevebjj said:


> I think that Bush's well documented alcohol and drug problems were wrong and very damaging to his credibility.  I would feel the same for Obama.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

that said, it was getting too hot in here.

have a beer!


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Regarding Obama, I think it is a pretty clear statement about how the GOP is viewed by the voting public. They, as you said, forgave him for admitting to drug use before electing a republican to the oval office for a 3rd consecutive term. There's a message there that's pretty honest. As a political group, the GOP needs to fall back and rediscover their conservative ideals. As a group, they're leaderless and directionless. Until they can communicate to the public that they are other than what the public has seen over the last 12 years, they are in trouble.


 
I agree with this post 100% Steve. I consider myself a conservative as a whole, but at the moment I am definately NOT a republican. I find it amusing that Michael Steele is now head of the GOP. It's almost as if they got around a table and said, " Barack is black, so we need a black leader", ridiculous.

I happen to agree also with gay marriage. The thing that bothers me is that the left are vicious in the way they attack anyone who disagrees with them. Look at the Miss California debarcle, everyone and their mother slammed her and where were the so called women's rights groups when all this is going on. It's funny how Obama doesn't agree with gay marriage either, but he gets a pass.

As I said before, Rush Limbaugh has a job, because people listen to him and advertisers buy time from Clearchannel. It's that simple. If Air America could have got people to listen on mass, and get companies to buy advertising time, they too would still be able to spout their hate. They couldn't, so they collapsed.


----------



## Steve (May 20, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I agree with this post 100% Steve. I consider myself a conservative as a whole, but at the moment I am definately NOT a republican. I find it amusing that Michael Steele is now head of the GOP. It's almost as if they got around a table and said, " Barack is black, so we need a black leader", ridiculous.


Exactly, and often (usually) true of the democrats and liberals, as well.  Take the current situation with Nancy Pelosi.  The republican machine is trying to make it sound like liberals are interested in protecting her.  Personally, if she was involved, she should be a part of the investigation.  Some Democrats... specifically some Democratic politicians... are interested in protecting her, but only the ones who believe that this torture issue is a political one and not a legal or ethical one.





> I happen to agree also with gay marriage. The thing that bothers me is that the left are vicious in the way they attack anyone who disagrees with them. Look at the Miss California debarcle, everyone and their mother slammed her and where were the so called women's rights groups when all this is going on. It's funny how Obama doesn't agree with gay marriage either, but he gets a pass.


It's this way with any issue like this.  Gay marriage is vicious on either side, as is abortion.  Everyone believes very strongly that they are Right (with a capital R).  





> As I said before, Rush Limbaugh has a job, because people listen to him and advertisers buy time from Clearchannel. It's that simple. If Air America could have got people to listen on mass, and get companies to buy advertising time, they too would still be able to spout their hate. They couldn't, so they collapsed.


Isn't Air America still on the air?  There was never an "Air America" affiliate in Seattle, but many of their shows are syndicated on the local progressive station.  I flip between this station and the two conservative ones (although I can't take very much Hannity or OReilly).  Tom Hartman, Ron Reagan, Stephanie Miller and all of those guys are still on the air.  I don't know if they're Air America or not, but they're definitely liberal and I presume they have a listening audience.  

Twinfist, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not going to get too worked up about any of this.


----------



## rocksham (May 20, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I agree with this post 100% Steve. I consider myself a conservative as a whole, but at the moment I am definately NOT a republican. I find it amusing that Michael Steele is now head of the GOP. It's almost as if they got around a table and said, " Barack is black, so we need a black leader", ridiculous.
> 
> I happen to agree also with gay marriage. The thing that bothers me is that the left are vicious in the way they attack anyone who disagrees with them. Look at the Miss California debarcle, everyone and their mother slammed her and where were the so called women's rights groups when all this is going on. It's funny how Obama doesn't agree with gay marriage either, but he gets a pass.
> 
> As I said before, Rush Limbaugh has a job, because people listen to him and advertisers buy time from Clearchannel. It's that simple. If Air America could have got people to listen on mass, and get companies to buy advertising time, they too would still be able to spout their hate. They couldn't, so they collapsed.



clear channel keeps him because he gets ratings, infamy is as good as fame for the purpose. It doesnt lessen his ginormous hypocricy though.


----------



## rocksham (May 20, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Exactly, and often (usually) true of the democrats and liberals, as well.  Take the current situation with Nancy Pelosi.  The republican machine is trying to make it sound like liberals are interested in protecting her.  Personally, if she was involved, she should be a part of the investigation.  Some Democrats... specifically some Democratic politicians... are interested in protecting her, but only the ones who believe that this torture issue is a political one and not a legal or ethical one.It's this way with any issue like this.  Gay marriage is vicious on either side, as is abortion.  Everyone believes very strongly that they are Right (with a capital R).  Isn't Air America still on the air?  There was never an "Air America" affiliate in Seattle, but many of their shows are syndicated on the local progressive station.  I flip between this station and the two conservative ones (although I can't take very much Hannity or OReilly).  Tom Hartman, Ron Reagan, Stephanie Miller and all of those guys are still on the air.  I don't know if they're Air America or not, but they're definitely liberal and I presume they have a listening audience.
> 
> Twinfist, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not going to get too worked up about any of this.



the attacks on Pelosi are a joke, because what the Republican party has become is a joke. Rove: joke, Cheney: bad joke, Gingrich: old and tired joke. They attack because they have no answers, and the CIA under Cheney's watch was likely guilty.


----------



## Steve (May 20, 2009)

rocksham said:


> the attacks on Pelosi are a joke, because what the Republican party has become is a joke. Rove: joke, Cheney: bad joke, Gingrich: old and tired joke. They attack because they have no answers, and the CIA under Cheney's watch was likely guilty.


I don't disagree.  The point I was driving at is that the attacks are politically motivated, not morally or legally motivated.  The people making such a big deal about Pelosi are doing so to confuse the issue.  While this has worked very well in the past, it's a real mistake right now, IMO, and will backfire and make the GOP look even worse.

Getting a little more back to the topic of the thread, that Limbaugh is a widely recognized, informal leader in the Republican party speaks volumes for the state of conservatism and the GOP right now.


----------



## rocksham (May 20, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I don't disagree.  The point I was driving at is that the attacks are politically motivated, not morally or legally motivated.  The people making such a big deal about Pelosi are doing so to confuse the issue.  While this has worked very well in the past, it's a real mistake right now, IMO, and will backfire and make the GOP look even worse.
> 
> Getting a little more back to the topic of the thread, that Limbaugh is a widely recognized, informal leader in the Republican party speaks volumes for the state of conservatism and the GOP right now.




we definately don't disagree the Republican loss has led to their party being led by their lunatic fringe and they do look bad, and they will do anything to divert that fact. Good luck with that....

How about another "alternative" budget with no numbers, that'll fix everything.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

you two can pat each other on the back and talk about how the GOP is dead all you want, your entire party is doing the same thing.

it doesnt make it true. In fact, it reminds me of the ugly chick telling herself how hawt she is, over and over

pathetic, really.

The pelosi matter is, as usual for democrats, blatant hypocracy. She KNEW about waterboarding, she LIED about knowing, and has gotten busted for it.

Pelosi: this is a war crime
CIA: you didnt say so in 2003
Pelosi: i didnt know
CIA: yeah you did, here is the the list of people at the briefing, isnt that your name?
Pelosi; but, but but but but....

PATHETIC

The GOP got lazy, and became too much like democrats, they spent like democrats, and the people got tired of it.

The Obamasiah lied his *** off and ran as a MODERATE, which he isnt, but the lefty sheep ate it up, and the stupid, weak lame and lazy voted for him. And even then it was close, the vote only went for obama by like 3%.

what did they get?

Obamas spending makes Bush look like a miser

Obama is keeping every single Bush anti-terror measure, after campaigning about how bad they were

Obama is staying in Iraq and Afgansitan after promising to get out.

Obama campaigned on how he was going to bring CHANGE

yeah, for the first time, the government is BUYING provate businesses. it's illegal, but it sure is CHANGE.

All of that and more is why Limbaugh still has a job.


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Obamas spending makes Bush look like a miser
> 
> Obama is keeping every single Bush anti-terror measure, after campaigning about how bad they were
> 
> ...


 
Largely agree with much you posted here, but I'm not so sure that govenment ownership of business is illegal, or that what's happening currently is without precedent.

_Amtrak_, for example, is owned by the government-it is, in fact, the _National Railroad Passenger Corporation ,_ *doing business as*_ Amtrak._ The Tenessee Valley Authority is also a wholly government owned business, and then there are the various financial sector GSEs (government sponsored enterprises), such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The first GSE was the Farm Credit System, founded by Congress in 1916.


----------



## jarrod (May 21, 2009)

you & i don't agree often TF, but you pretty much nailed every problem i have with obama as well.  

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

know something funny?

I never listened to Rush before the this last election. 

Now? he spends as much time bitching about the republicans, and how they screwed it up by being too much like dems as he does bitching about the obamasiah

and he is right both ways


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

Elder, it is illegal for him to go around the bankruptcy court, offer the creditors .29 cents on the dollar and take over a company.


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder, it is illegal for him to go around the bankruptcy court, offer the creditors .29 cents on the dollar and take over a company.


 

Which part? It wouldn't be illegal in the case of say, FIAT's takeover of Chrysler-deals like that are cut in mergers and accquisitions all the time. If it's not illegal for a private corporation or private person to do so-and it's *not-*how is it illegal for the government? if the creditors took .29 on the dollar, it was because they feared getting _less -as in, maybe, *nothing-*_in bankruptcy.

I mean, it stinks, for sure-but it's not illegal.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

those deals are done through legal negotiation.

not through brute force governmental tactics.

I dont know the details, but i heard something about it, lemme see if i can find it.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2009)

I have to say that I'm not sure what the American government is up to is illegal. 

It has been in progress for quite some time and there has been a degree of orchestration of events behind the scenes to make it more probable but that is just the political manipulation to which the Western nations have prostrated themselves now. It's possibly immoral but it's not, economically, illegal.

Democracy is a front for the Big Money Men. It's as simple as that. Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican ... not a ha-poth of tar between them in reality.

Look at the garbage floating to the surface of the media in Britain right now. Have politicians suddenly become heinous and self-serving overnight? Of course not. They have ever been that way.

It is just that now is the time that the aforementioned Big Money wants Labour out of the way for a bit in Britiain whilst they get on with fanning the flames of totalitarian, intolerant, fascism. In the States, they want you a little more Socialist and at the same time a little more divided against yourselves - so you get the Rep-Dem Shuffle, an oratory President with black skin (to upset the racists) and just a frisson of Rationalist vs Fundamentalist Christian to keep you off-balance.

There's not a lot we can do about it, other than not play the game and keep our eyes open for the routes that don't end up with us on the wrong end of Big Brothers microscope.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 21, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> It is just that now is the time that the aforementioned Big Money wants Labour out of the way for a bit in Britiain whilst they get on with fanning the flames of totalitarian, intolerant, fascism. In the States, they want you a little more Socialist and at the same time a little more divided against yourselves - so you get the Rep-Dem Shuffle, an oratory President with black skin (to upset the racists) and just a frisson of Rationalist vs Fundamentalist Christian to keep you off-balance.
> .


 It depends which side of the fence you're on, when you determine which side is fascist. Looks like the Brown administration want total control over business and of course there's the freedom of speech issuue in Britain. Brown should maybe grow a beard and start smoking cuban cigars, you don't get anymore totalitarian this his crowd.

When it comes to the Republicans, the trouble is not that they are too conservative. The trouble is that they're not conservative enough. John McCain cannot be described as a conservative. he has spent more time in Ted Kennedy's back pocket than a hip flask, and that's saying something. 

When the repubs get back to their conservative roots, they'll get their base back, period.


----------



## tellner (May 21, 2009)

Twinnie, a few months ago you were the loudest voice in the chorus shrieking  that whatever the President does is legal. Were you hysterical with panic then? Or do you only smile when a White hand holds the whip?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2009)

I think you missed the thrust of my point, *YL*. 

Oh ... and there was freedom of speech in England for over-educated peasants like me? I must've missed that. We have a tradition of riot and strike - is that it :lol:?

Mind you, to call myself a 'peasant' is to overstate the matter. I made it all the way from a Manual Working Class semi-skilled labour background to an Intellectual Working Class Skilled Labour present. All it took was more letters after my name than are in it . If I ever inherit my earldom things will change ... (in common with many old English families I have 'noble' lineage - only a couple of hundred people with more direct claim in front of me ).


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

please post a link to me saying that about taking over private businesses.

go ahead and TRY

and it might very well be legal to do it, legalities are always open to interpretation. 

but it is damned sure a BAD thing to be doing. 

BTW- you can accuse me of racism all you want, no one takes you seriously anyway. And you can do it with safety, since you are on the other side of the country. But we both know you wouldnt say that to a person's face would you?

RIGHT out of Alinky's "rules for radicals" 

the tactic of ridicule




tellner said:


> Twinnie, a few months ago you were the loudest voice in the chorus shrieking  that whatever the President does is legal. Were you hysterical with panic then? Or do you only smile when a White hand holds the whip?


----------



## Big Don (May 21, 2009)

How is Amtrack's profitability?


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2009)

Big Don said:


> How is Amtrack's profitability?


 
Hardly an indication of its _legality_, which was the issue under discussion, Don.  

In fact, it's more of a reflection of the public's ambivalence towards rail travel in this country.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

i dont get that either. Rail travel is fun, and relaxing


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 21, 2009)

*Note*:

Gents, I highly recommend all those getting worked up and sharpening their keys, take a few minutes to pause, catch their breath and relax a bit before continuing to post...

The heat notices are backing up and I'd personally rather finish watching Scooby Doo than spending my night discussing who's getting LARTed.

K?  Thanks.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

scooby doo?

velma is HAWT


----------



## jarrod (May 21, 2009)

it's not one of the episodes with scrappy in it, is it?  otherwise i think MT drama would be much less annoying.

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 21, 2009)

Naw, Scooby Doo and the Samurai Sword.  See, it i somewhat martial arts related, lol!
Then, it's on to Futurama.


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you two can pat each other on the back and talk about how the GOP is dead all you want, your entire party is doing the same thing.
> 
> it doesnt make it true. In fact, it reminds me of the ugly chick telling herself how hawt she is, over and over
> 
> pathetic, really.


Hey, relax, Twin Fist.  Calling me a pathetic, ugly chick is uncalled for (although I will grant you that I would make a very ugly woman).  





> The pelosi matter is, as usual for democrats, blatant hypocracy. She KNEW about waterboarding, she LIED about knowing, and has gotten busted for it.


The point, if you cared to actually read it, is that she should absolutely be investigated (and held accountable if it's found that she's done something wrong). The only people saying otherwise are people who are politically motivated.





> The GOP got lazy, and became too much like democrats, they spent like democrats, and the people got tired of it.


If by lazy you mean corrupt and incompetent, I'm with you.  The Democrats are often both of those, too. 

And then the rest was you trying to change the subject...


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> those deals are done through legal negotiation.
> 
> not through brute force governmental tactics.
> 
> I dont know the details, but i heard something about it, lemme see if i can find it.


From what I understand, it's the hedge funds that are causing all of the problems.  Greedy people working only marginally within the law artificially manipulating the market.  But I'd welcome more educated information.  It is, frankly, a little above my head.


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i dont get that either. Rail travel is fun, and relaxing


 


I agree, but there it is. Amtrak ridership was up 6.3% last year though, and Amtrak could be profitable, if not for Congressional interference.

Hey, blame it on Eisenhower-he's the one who gave us our great Interstate highway system.....:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

no no steve, it was just a metaphore. you aint ugly, or fat. Not really  what i would call "hot" per se, but what the hell, you do BJJ and I know what THAT means.......



stevebjj said:


> Hey, relax, Twin Fist.  Calling me a pathetic, ugly chick is uncalled for (although I will grant you that I would make a very ugly woman).


----------



## jarrod (May 21, 2009)

what, that he's undefeated against tkd practicioners?

:roflmao:

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2009)

oh you went THERE.....


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 21, 2009)

tellner said:


> Twinnie, a few months ago you were the loudest voice in the chorus shrieking that whatever the President does is legal. Were you hysterical with panic then? Or do you only smile when a White hand holds the whip?


What a despicable comment! Why was a racial component brought into this thread?


----------



## jarrod (May 22, 2009)

all in good fun, TF, all in good fun.

jf


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I dont know the details, but i heard something about it, lemme see if i can find it.


 
*We're  still waiting....*  :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> From what I understand, it's the hedge funds that are causing all of the problems.  Greedy people working only marginally within the law artificially manipulating the market.  But I'd welcome more educated information.  It is, frankly, a little above my head.



There are a ton of threads in the study where the problem is dealt with in detail, so here's a brief summary.

Greedy, power mad, people who control both parties removed regulations and manipulated the financial system so that they could earn interest and control every dollar created.  People like these people removed banking regulations that allowed fortunes to be made by sheer hocus pocus.  This was accomplished through a financial instrument called a derivative, which is a highly leveraged bet for or against something that could happen in the future.  These derivatives were used as assets by major banks and the banks lent money against these assets at insane rates of up to 35 dollars for every dollar they had on the books.  This was only possible because the same people (same people above too) who control bond/debt rating system also controled the banks and mutual funds.  When the derivatives backed by mortgages went bad, the small amount of assets that the banks actually had to lend against dissappeared.  Thus the banks where insolvent and could no longer lend and no new money could enter the economy.  The economy cannot function without new money because old money is destroyed when debt is payed off.  Stocks dropped like a rock, people lost a **** load of money, more derivatives went bad, eventually mutual funds, other retirement accounts, and insurance pools were decimated.  A total of 60 trillion dollars "disappears" from the world economy.  The hocus pocus paper was sold to banks, mutual funds, retirement accounts by people who run both parties, rated the bond/debt, and ran said banks and funds.  In the end, all of this amounts to a fancy form of theft.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2009)

I dont live on your schedule

just saying

and I dont have a ton of time right now, so lets say I cant find it, or it turns out to be bogus.

if it is legal to totally bipass the bankruptcy court, it is certainly a bad idea.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 22, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think you missed the thrust of my point, *YL*.
> 
> Oh ... and there was freedom of speech in England for over-educated peasants like me? I must've missed that. We have a tradition of riot and strike - is that it :lol:?


 
The freedom of speech issue I'm talking about refers people like Robert Kilroy-Silk. I believe that either you or Tez sent me a link about him. He is a bit nutty and angry, but the CPS were going to prosecute him for comments he made regarding arabs. I admit that they dropped the charges, but it is a bit scary to think that you can be charged for speaking your mind in good old Blighty. 

Then there are things like draconian taxes, including a crippling inheritance tax designed to gradually, over generations redistribute family wealth to any cause the government sees fit.

I just believe that fascism goes both ways. At least Mussolini got the trains to run on time. I've had some shocking experiences on British rail.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2009)

*YL*, I believe that we may use a different 'dictionary' when it comes to politics and the terminology of the systems of governance. 

Academically, having studied politics and international relations in times gone by, it bugs me when things are 'wrongly labelled', so I have to bite my tongue sometimes when "Facism" and/or "Communism" and/or "Democracy" etc are used as 'shortcuts' to demonise or support a point of view. Mussolini was indeed a decided flavour of fascist; we have yet to have such a government here and hopefully, with the help of the Crown and the Lords, we never shall.

But thems' the breaks on the wonderful Interwebs.

As to Kilroy, well, if you break laws regarding inspiring racial hatred, whilst appearing on the BBC, then it's not a surprise that there was some discourse about legal charges. He's doing alright for himself in the European trough now, so I wouldn't worry too much about his welfare.

Freedom of speech comes with a high degree of responsibility and in any nation is likely to be curtailed to a greater or lesser extent depending on who you are and what position you hold. In Britain, it's always been a lot more restricted than many believe - but as I said, we have a noble tradition of riot and strike to draw on when our 'betters' scorn us too mightily .


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 23, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> *YL*, I believe that we may use a different 'dictionary' when it comes to politics and the terminology of the systems of governance.
> .


 
Sukerkin,

I am just a humble peasant. I know you have aristocratic stock and are a scholar of the highest caliber, so maybe this lowly peasant shouldn't be, in any way debating you. 

That being said, you yourself use the words Fascist and Totalitarian freely, when you know the people who you refer to or "Big Money" are no such thing. Using your argument, these people are also stopped by the House of Lords from creating such a system.

Let's take a look at Brown. His hero's are Marx and Lenin, on an  autocrat (as Brown yearns to be). As you know fascists have autocratic leanings. 

Fascists lean towards social and economic suppression. If that is the case, we can see the draconian taxes (including inheritance tax) that Brown is trying to use to "level the playing ground". Then with the suppression of the right to free speech, social regimentation is quite apparent.

He even put a stop to a general election, knowing quite well that if it had happened, he would have been kicked to the curb. This is a method of suppressing opposition, another fascist tendancy. Need I say more.

First you say that you have freedom of speech. Then you say it's ok for Kilroy to be punished for inflamatory rhetoric, which one is it....Oh I know, it's ok to say anything you want as long as it fits your particular model.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 30, 2009)

literary genius of the last legionaire aside, what exactly is suposed to be so bad about what Don said?  It certainly wasn't nearly as insulting as, or blatantly false like what telner had said about the previous presidential administration.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 30, 2009)

rocksham said:


> the attacks on Pelosi are a joke, because what the Republican party has become is a joke. Rove: joke, Cheney: bad joke, Gingrich: old and tired joke. They attack because they have no answers, and the CIA under Cheney's watch was likely guilty.


 


It sure is a good thing we're all using facts now instead of personal attacks.

Please note the heavily laden sarcasm


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 30, 2009)

tellner said:


> Twinnie, a few months ago you were the loudest voice in the chorus shrieking that whatever the President does is legal. Were you hysterical with panic then? Or do you only smile when a White hand holds the whip?


 

Wow, if you were twinfist, somebody would probably think that was a racist post and a personal attack.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> Wow, if you were twinfist, somebody would probably think that was a racist post and a personal attack.



You might want to take note that the last post on this thread was months and months ago and any such issues have likely been officially settled.  No need to stir up old stuff - but if you have more information to contribute to the thread, by all means please do.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

I know it's an old thread, but unfortunately, this is still just as much an issue today.  Blame it on the fact that I'm stuck at home with the swine flu, and probably more than a little irritable.  At my taekwondo school, I find myself having to bite my tongue often when I hear ignorant and/or deliberately false statements like those.  I guess reading them here last night was a little too much.  Sorry if I offended you.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2009)

No, you didn't offend me, just saying, it's kinda old to be digging up without some kind of current event update, know what I mean?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 31, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> No, you didn't offend me, just saying, it's kinda old to be digging up without some kind of current event update, know what I mean?


Halloween? Necromancy? Only reason for resurrection I could come up with.


----------

