Posted on 03/29/2009 6:33:46 AM PDT by kellynla
“Action is required, and Rush guides us in thought but gives the impression that something is being done, when very little is being done, compared to what Obama is doing. “
Excellent point!!
A great deal of the conservative media is more about building ratings by focusing upon the latest outrage from the left. Too much discussion on the flap of the day and fanning emotions rather than discussion of a moral and pragmatic philosophy of governance.
I hate opera and I hate political opera the most. It is disapative of energy that should be spent doing constructive things rather than be entertained.
That being said, Rush is about the best at discussing things that matter and Hannity is about the worst in pursuing emotional outrage for it’s entertainment value. Sean is as bad as Nancy Grace sometimes.
that a high school graduate can out think and out debate the Obamaloon....
Thinking is not a liberal trait, emotionalism is primary and that reduces the ability to cogitate effectively.
You’re welcome.
Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!" On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.
a sniper round to the heart at 2000 yards....
It certainly would destroy Rush if he took the reins of his audience, for our rapidly forming tyranny would not stand for it. And you're right, we are the ones who have to act. Uh, that was my point (I guess poorly made) that Rush is doing his job, he can do no more than what he is doing and should not be criticized for it. And we have to do ours.
Sheesh. Too many "ands;" I sound like Hannity
thanks, bfl
This was a considerate and careful editorial, and almost -— but not quite -— made me want to re-subscribe to the Times.
Yet when I read through the comments on the site, I am faced with the reality that WE ARE A COMPLETELY POLARIZED society. Liberals can read that essay and just call the writer names, and insist that they know Limbaugh better. They KNOW that he is a hater and a racist. They mock the writer and dismiss Limbaugh out of hand, and feel superior in doing so. I feel that our society, in catering constantly to liberals, has created millions of monsters. We have spoiled and pampered our liberals to the point where they cannot see truth, and are egotistic and needy like overgrown babies.
I have never been alone with Rush Limbaugh or spent time at his home in his private life. Yet after listening for about 16 years, I absolutely know he is not a racist, not just from his words, but from an accumulation of knowledge about his personal life gleaned from listening. He is not a hater; he is a lover: of his fellow man. He has put all that money liberals love to criticize him for where his mouth is not. He gives generously and I certainly have NOT heard all that from his mouth but from others who know him.
People actually do not want to listen to him because he weighs too much and has had a drug problem. Remember (because it’s difficult to) that these are the TOLERANT people. The open-minded liberals. They do not even NOTICE the hypocrisy of their words: they do not criticize Ted Kennedy for the same exact body shape and troubles.
What are we going to do? Half our country can’t shake their indoctrination and think for themselves. I was indoctrinated too, once. But at least I woke up and realized that the mass media was not really a deity speaking the complete truth. Many, many people are still under its spell. Jon Stewart’s mocking, which does not actually HURT you (like Jack Bauer could), is enough to keep them under.
Verrrry interesting. Never thought about that before. In other words, he is smart enough to keep his audience feeling slightly MORE intelligent?
Another thing he does which I think is wickedly funny is his double entendres. He knows that 80-somethings who would find anything risque upsetting are tuning in, so he gets some things in without saying them. It’s so much more funny than just SAYING the broad reference. It’s the old fashioned twinkle in the eye dirty joke. It’s bleeping funny.
Rabbi means teacher. The Jewish religion reveres true peace. This man is no rabbi.
He never does that. I wish Mark Levin didn't either. I don't find it amusing, and I always fear for Mark's heart by how personally he seems to take it.
What you said about libs is dead on. But how to counteract that? It’s circular and you cannot argue with it.
>>I absolutely know he is not a racist
A racist wouldn’t let a black man, Dr. Walter Williams, regularly substitute for him on his radio show.
You have to keep your comebacks to Leftists simple and impossible to refute.
Ping for later.
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.