Posted on 11/06/2009 6:06:35 PM PST by sushiman
James David Manning, PhD is disappointed with Rush Limbaugh . Rush never heard of Philip Berg or Larry Sinclair ??????
Check out other new videos while visiting the Atlah site .
You certainly have a moral obligation to kill him.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who’s having the temper tantrum? **You** are here talking about a “moral obligation” to kill Rush? It is **you** who is behaving like the two year old.
I am merely stating a **calm** fact. RUSH LIED!
It is a **calm** fact that it is RUDE to lie to a caller and to 20 million listeners. Rush was rude.
Listen, Skippy, I really have no control over whether Rush prospers, but I think it's kind of delusional to say that a guy who earns hundreds of millions of dollars hasn't prospered.
I will say it again. Of course Rush knows about Berg and Sinclair.
He lied about it, and everybody but a few dysfunctional people know he lied about it.
It’s called irony.
I was listening when that caller called. He lied to Snerdly to get on the air. Rush’s response was very disappointing. He never heard of Larry Sinclair? All you could do was groan. The first thing that came to mind was Charlie Gibson never having heard about the ACORN scandal.
It’s understandable if Rush just wanted to steer clear of the subject, but a trained broadcast professional like Rush needed to ad lib a more tactful way to dismiss the caller than to claim he never heard of Larry Sinclair. I call BS on that.
Yep, I know that Rush has a lot. You're trying to use that statistic to make the point that he can lamely lie his way out of this situation, claim ignorance as a way of dismissing the caller, and he must still be doing everything right because he still has a massive audience.
I would use that same statistic to say that if you have that massive of an audience, one of you primary obligations to them would be to be honest to them, and not try to weakly weasel your way out of something you obviously do know about by falsely claiming that you don't.
First of all, I have been defending Rush, so I have no idea why you directed this to me rather than the people to whom it would actually apply.
Second of all, if an idiotic thread on a webpage frightens you, you need professional help and possibly some prescription pharmaceuticals.
It’s called irony.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It’s called LYING! Rush lied.
Don’t be a dipdoodle. Send that to O’Reilly.
Don’t be a dipdoodle. Send that to O’Reilly.
Listen, Skippy, I really have no control over whether Rush prospers, but I think it's kind of delusional to say that a guy who earns hundreds of millions of dollars hasn't prospered.
Thanks for proving my point, even unintentionally.
No, I'm trying to make the point that Rush knows a lot more about running a successful radio show than you do, yet you think you should be able to dictate what he talks about.
That's pretty arrogant, close to the same kind of arrogance that comes so naturally to Barack Obama.
And what point would that be, Skippy?
Whether Rush knows how to run a successful radio show is completely irrelevant. Regardless of how popular he is, my one small comment here was that I thought that Rush used a pretty lame way of dismissing the conversation. That's all. If he actually did know about Berg and Sinclair, as we both assume, then claiming ignorance about them is not only dishonest but a pretty weak cop-out. The net effect is further exacerbated by Rush's pompous way of declaring it, as if no one else should know who these people are either. I like Rush for the most part, but that was fairly annoying.
Pretty pointless to be debating someone who not only can't follow the logic, but feels the need to immediately descend into ad hominem attacks by calling me "Skippy."
For your answer, please refer back to post 60.
Sorry Rush didn’t meet your expectations.
Caller lied. Maybe he thought he wouldn’t have gotten on if he’d told the truth.
So, that makes it okay to lie? Not in my book.
These two sources are fringe and iffy. I would not get into either one of them if I were Rush. We have real, very real issues with Obama.
Pass?
Your arrogance and sense of self-importance for no apparent reason is stunning.
Rush is running a business. You're running your mouth.
Nobody gives a shizzle what you have to say, Skippy.
That's the bottom line. That's why nobody cares about Larry Sinbad.
My “arrogance and self-importance”? WTF are you talking about??
All I said — and it was a very small point — was that I felt that Rush could have handled this better by simply replying with something along the lines such that he is aware of these two people, he doesn’t feel they are worth commenting on at this point (or something along those lines), and then scold the caller for lying to the screener and go on to the next caller. Honest and more effective way of handling it, in my opinion, rather than (even ironically) claiming ignorance.
Now, given that I like Rush but am only faulting him on this one relatively small point — Is all of the vitriol and hatred that I am getting from you really necessary? Seriously, take a chill pill; when it comes down to it we’re both essentially on the same side.
Where’s that picture of “let (someone) alone”.
Somebody has to know the pic.
I really don't see how Rush is above any sort of small criticism whatsoever. I also don't see how making what was essentially a very small criticism of Rush would automatically brand me as someone "who thinks he's so important that he's telling Rush Limbaugh what to say on his show." That is one heck of an illogical conclusion to jump to, I'd say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.