rush limbaugh
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
is a cunt.
along with pat robertson. listen to some of this shit.
rush's shenanigans;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 021928.php
robertson's shenanigans;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 021916.php
this one has audio clips from limbaughs radio show.
http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/a ... 932657325/
and people still listen to this moron? even tolerate him? really makes me wonder some times...
along with pat robertson. listen to some of this shit.
rush's shenanigans;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 021928.php
robertson's shenanigans;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 021916.php
this one has audio clips from limbaughs radio show.
http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/a ... 932657325/
and people still listen to this moron? even tolerate him? really makes me wonder some times...
Re: rush limbaugh
Gaming:
Workstation:
Workstation:
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
i dont know who pat robertson is but rush's crisis comment was a quote from Obama's chief of staff, and the "light-skinned" part is mocking Harry Reid's (D senate majority leader) quote of Obama being "light-skinned" and not speaking the "negro dialect" or something (thus being electable if his eyes).
also, rush never said not to give money to haiti relief funds, just to be weary of many of them.
Rush's bit about Obama doing this for the black community was in response to the media comparing this natural disaster to Katrina, in which Bush was portrayed as incompetent and even racist for "delaying" aid. the media directly and repeatedly compared these disasters to show how obama wasnt wasting any time, when in fact all he did was make a speach faster than Bush did. aid for both katrina and haiti took approximately the same amount of time to arrive (NO was flooded and the levies had to be fixed to reach many areas while haiti's airport and main seaport were both destroyed - the 1st aid didnt arrive in haiti for almost 72 hours from ANY country or source). Rush's point was that there was no difference in the actual efforts by either President in responding to the disasters, only in how the media reported them. if you listened to the show and not short sound bytes, you'd understand everything. Rush purposely says stuff that can be taken out of context by those who set out to flame him. you have to listen to an entire show or weeks of the show to get full context on every sound clip since he brings up clips from hours, days, weeks, even years ago and it is assumed that the listener is familiar with those clips or references.
Rush calls some of these clips his "Media tweak of the day" since he knows, in context, he is 100% acurate, correct, or not offensive, but that the media and left-wing groups don't care and record every little clip he plays on its own merit. Us listeners laugh every time we hear (P)MSNBC, CNN (Clinton news network- before Obama destroyed the clinton political machine), the NY Times, and the State-Run Associated Press play or report clips of Rush and spend an entire column or TV segment discussing it when all you have to do is not be a fucking moron to understand it if you listen to the show.
i did not hear his clip about Fed income tax being relief for haiti.
FYI, please stop listening to MSNBC and reading media matters if you want rush limbaugh clips. listen to the show and judge for yourself. you may, surprisingly, even become more informed...the opposite of which the mainstream media depends on to have any kind of financial success and viewer-/readership
i dont know who pat robertson is but rush's crisis comment was a quote from Obama's chief of staff, and the "light-skinned" part is mocking Harry Reid's (D senate majority leader) quote of Obama being "light-skinned" and not speaking the "negro dialect" or something (thus being electable if his eyes).
also, rush never said not to give money to haiti relief funds, just to be weary of many of them.
Rush's bit about Obama doing this for the black community was in response to the media comparing this natural disaster to Katrina, in which Bush was portrayed as incompetent and even racist for "delaying" aid. the media directly and repeatedly compared these disasters to show how obama wasnt wasting any time, when in fact all he did was make a speach faster than Bush did. aid for both katrina and haiti took approximately the same amount of time to arrive (NO was flooded and the levies had to be fixed to reach many areas while haiti's airport and main seaport were both destroyed - the 1st aid didnt arrive in haiti for almost 72 hours from ANY country or source). Rush's point was that there was no difference in the actual efforts by either President in responding to the disasters, only in how the media reported them. if you listened to the show and not short sound bytes, you'd understand everything. Rush purposely says stuff that can be taken out of context by those who set out to flame him. you have to listen to an entire show or weeks of the show to get full context on every sound clip since he brings up clips from hours, days, weeks, even years ago and it is assumed that the listener is familiar with those clips or references.
Rush calls some of these clips his "Media tweak of the day" since he knows, in context, he is 100% acurate, correct, or not offensive, but that the media and left-wing groups don't care and record every little clip he plays on its own merit. Us listeners laugh every time we hear (P)MSNBC, CNN (Clinton news network- before Obama destroyed the clinton political machine), the NY Times, and the State-Run Associated Press play or report clips of Rush and spend an entire column or TV segment discussing it when all you have to do is not be a fucking moron to understand it if you listen to the show.
i did not hear his clip about Fed income tax being relief for haiti.
FYI, please stop listening to MSNBC and reading media matters if you want rush limbaugh clips. listen to the show and judge for yourself. you may, surprisingly, even become more informed...the opposite of which the mainstream media depends on to have any kind of financial success and viewer-/readership
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
i have listened to his show, quite a few times actually, including this episode that i referenced, and i stand by my word:
rush limbaugh is a fascist, a lowlife, an instigator of trouble when none is needed. i cant believe that the GOP even holds him in any regard as he makes even the most right wing conservatives look bad. i respect many peoples opinions, but anything that comes from that man will instantly be held in contempt in my mind. the fact that people respect him and his opinions blows my mind.
rush limbaugh is a fascist, a lowlife, an instigator of trouble when none is needed. i cant believe that the GOP even holds him in any regard as he makes even the most right wing conservatives look bad. i respect many peoples opinions, but anything that comes from that man will instantly be held in contempt in my mind. the fact that people respect him and his opinions blows my mind.
BTW, Rush hired an independent fact-checking company years ago to review every single thing he says on air. they monitor minute of every show. his long-standing accuracy for facts is 99.0%, and his risen from 98.7% when i 1st started listening to him a few years ago.
also, if all these "clips" from the past 15 years were true in the way the media portrays them, including the D McNabb clips, he probably would have been censored by the FCC long ago (one of the worst US departments in existence)
also, if all these "clips" from the past 15 years were true in the way the media portrays them, including the D McNabb clips, he probably would have been censored by the FCC long ago (one of the worst US departments in existence)
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
lol Rush a fascist?? do u even know what that means? fascism is a form of Statism, totalitarian government. it is closely related to socialism and communism, which resembles the left-wing ideologues in the Democratic party more than anything else in America.
the left-wing media completely distorted the word to manifest something to call conservatives.
there isnt just political left and right. that's not really accurate. on a political map, left and right are liberalism and conservatism, but there is also an up and down- statism/totalitarianism and libertarianism respectively. obama would be in the top left. bush would be in the top right (tho not nearly as "high" as obama). Hillary clinton is also in the top left, as was Stalin, Mousilini, and Hitler.
Hitler, the pinnacle of Fascist, believed in eugenics and a master race; ideas he actually stole from early 20th century American progressives (who are now called Liberals, and a term Hillary Clinton refers to be called). the Progressives believed in using DNA splicing and other genetic manipulation to create "perfect" human beings. Hitler directly attributed his Master Race plan to these American Progressives, and then took it a step further with genocide. Examples of progressive Presidents are Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, and Hoover. Wilson, who was one of the 1st of the progressive era in the presidency, wrote a book about progressivism, which included state-run industry, and Hitler RAVED about the book, later claiming it was a major influence in shaping his views. so what's the difference between progressives from that era and modern liberals? modern liberals do not believe in eugenics (at least not openly) and generally believe in a much slower transition from small central government and Federalism to a Statist nation with much less power given to individual states. Progressives generally went for fast changes of policy while liberals plan programs over decades to have the same impact.
FYI, Rush would be very low and to the right, which is the complete opposite of the "great" 20th century dictators. by definition anyone who does not believe in big centralized government can not be fascist because that's what fascism is.
Conservatism professes small central government (down) and strong individualism (right). Somewhere in the mix lies capitalism, which is both strong individualism and small central government. Many people labeled george bush a conservative. in some regards he was, but in many others he was a statist.
Liberals believe in large central government (up) and more importance on society as a whole than the individual (left).
Eugenics, master race, social securty and all "welfare" programs in general are all left policies, and when implemented by the central government become upper-left policies in line with socialism, fascism, communism, and any other -ism you can think of besides capitalism.
the left-wing media completely distorted the word to manifest something to call conservatives.
there isnt just political left and right. that's not really accurate. on a political map, left and right are liberalism and conservatism, but there is also an up and down- statism/totalitarianism and libertarianism respectively. obama would be in the top left. bush would be in the top right (tho not nearly as "high" as obama). Hillary clinton is also in the top left, as was Stalin, Mousilini, and Hitler.
Hitler, the pinnacle of Fascist, believed in eugenics and a master race; ideas he actually stole from early 20th century American progressives (who are now called Liberals, and a term Hillary Clinton refers to be called). the Progressives believed in using DNA splicing and other genetic manipulation to create "perfect" human beings. Hitler directly attributed his Master Race plan to these American Progressives, and then took it a step further with genocide. Examples of progressive Presidents are Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Truman, and Hoover. Wilson, who was one of the 1st of the progressive era in the presidency, wrote a book about progressivism, which included state-run industry, and Hitler RAVED about the book, later claiming it was a major influence in shaping his views. so what's the difference between progressives from that era and modern liberals? modern liberals do not believe in eugenics (at least not openly) and generally believe in a much slower transition from small central government and Federalism to a Statist nation with much less power given to individual states. Progressives generally went for fast changes of policy while liberals plan programs over decades to have the same impact.
FYI, Rush would be very low and to the right, which is the complete opposite of the "great" 20th century dictators. by definition anyone who does not believe in big centralized government can not be fascist because that's what fascism is.
Conservatism professes small central government (down) and strong individualism (right). Somewhere in the mix lies capitalism, which is both strong individualism and small central government. Many people labeled george bush a conservative. in some regards he was, but in many others he was a statist.
Liberals believe in large central government (up) and more importance on society as a whole than the individual (left).
Eugenics, master race, social securty and all "welfare" programs in general are all left policies, and when implemented by the central government become upper-left policies in line with socialism, fascism, communism, and any other -ism you can think of besides capitalism.
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
- dun dun dun... chips
- Papes
- Posts:3287
- Joined:Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location:WOOOOOO
- Contact:
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests