By Rush's Ears....

I quit listening to Limbaugh years ago; shortly after his first book was released.

Anyway, this is not about “poking fun” at people. If it were, I’d be bitching about Al Franken’s old book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. This is about jubilantly wishing ill health, and even death, upon people you hate simply for their politics. I just explained that above. Again. This makes the third time. If you still don’t understand that, let me know and I’ll try to explain with one- and two-syllable words.

Did you actually fucking read anything I posted? Elvis, you may go join Philip in the “fuck you” queue.

I don’t know if I qualify as a “dittohead”, but I have made it clear early on in this thread (and repeatedly since then) that I would not revel in any illness Clinton had. We’ve already covered this, way back. Revelling in someone’s physical misfortune is not nice. Doesn’t matter how much of an ass you think they are. (I’ll make exceptions for people like Osama and Charles Manson - I figure once you start killing people, you lose the right to some of these niceties.)

If I ever lied, it does not necessarily mean that I had no responsibility to tell the truth. It means that I shirked that responsibility. (There are, of course, times when one ought to lie, to save lives. I doubt that Rush ever had that reason on his radio show.)

UncleBeer may blow me. Richard Motherfucking Nixon was perhaps the most criminal president we have ever had. The only thing terrible about his death is that it didn’t happen in prison.

Ummm…if I were talking to you directly, I would have used your screen name. And, you know, there are those who would put Rush right up there with Osama & Manson–convincing people that hatred is the right thing and to go out and do something about it.

Now that I think about it, that may not be a bad analogy. Neither of the people you mention have blood on their hands. Nor does Rush. But have they encouraged hatred and perhaps more? Yes, to all three.

Who’s the most obvious hate-monger here? :confused:

Hmmm…

What?!?! You telling me to “back off” again?!? :rolleyes:

Cites please? Please show me some substantive cites that prove that Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to plow planes into buildings, or to sneak into people’s houses in the middle of the night, and knife them to death. (And then smear blood on the walls.)

You’re stretching this one here - waaaay too far.

When people say that, it always reminds me of a Life in Hell cartoon that came out around Nixon’s death. Binky is watching the eulogy, and he’s ranting about how he can’t believe that people are saying such nice things about Nixon. Don’t they know he was a liar? A thief? Somebody who ran rough shod over the constitution?, etc., and he can’t stand that people aren’t mentioning it. His son just looks at him, and says, “At your funeral, I’m going to say you were cranky.”

I don’t understand why people are happy that Limbaugh has gone deaf. His deafness is probably going to make his life harder, but it won’t benefit you in any way, and it probably won’t make him less conservative. A deaf person can be as conservative as someone who can hear.

I don’t particularly like Rush Limbaugh, and I usually don’t agree with his opinions. That doesn’t mean I want to see him hurt.

Drop the bong. He may have been up until our rapist in chief 42nd President. And don’t dare deny it. There is more against WJC as there is against RMN.

The message here from our friends on the left. If you are a conservative then bad things should happen to you because you are evil. The left thinks that if you disagree with them on anything, it’s because you are morally bankrupt and uncaring.

No way-the most criminal president was one Ronald Reagan.

Supporting rapists and murderers and comparing them to our Founding Fathers was fucking odious. Doing it behind Congress’s back and illegally should have gotten the bastard impeached. If you think that Monica was worse than Iran Contra, you are sadly, sadly, DISGUSTINGLY deluded.

THAT SAID, I am NOT rejoicing over Reagan’s fate. Nor Limbaugh’s. Got that?

I do feel bad for their sufferings.

BUT, I’m not going to pretend that Reagan was a nice guy, or a good president. The record speaks for itself.

I’m not going to start saying nice things about Rush. No way. The man is a vile bigot and can kiss my ass. He’s a hypocrite too-making fun of people for their looks-hey Rush, are you going to win People’s Sexiest Man Alive? No, I doubt that. But it is his whole persona that I find uglier than his appearance.

It’s like what’s going on. I don’t like Bush, but I’m still going to support what he’s doing. It’s a way of not making things personal. It’s how I can feel sorry for the fact that Fred Phelps’s children were abused-but hate the ones who are still following in his footsteps.
I can feel sorry for someone, without liking that person.

A matter of degree, at best. And not that big a degree.

Explanation for the humor-impaired: Franken’s book is satire. It doesn’t aim at all the ethnic/sexual/etc. groups Limbaugh makes fun of for who they are, it is aimed at Limbaugh and his cohorts themselves. If you find it enraging, or hate-filled, to have the techniques that people you admire use turned on them instead, perhaps you ought to think about its propriety in the first place.

Was that intended to be an example of “compassionate” conservatism? Or to show that Rush is really a loving, caring humanitarian, just like all of his fans?

Grow up, and grow a heart. Someday you might want some sympathy yourself.

Rush Limbaugh is just one guy, after all, and a rich one at that, one who has become rich with a lucrative schtick. The people to worry about are his fans - those who have cheered him on as he has spread his brand of hatred. He may or may not be sincere, but they are. They are the ones that deserve the most pity.

As a check on that statement, how about comparing examples? I would suggest that “irrational hatred of Bill Clinton” (and thanks for stating that) isn’t an “exception”, but represents the recent mainstream of conservative thought as most widely and popularly expressed and discussed in this country. He was the President of the USA for 8 years, and the very focus of the Democratic agenda and everything it stood for. He was virtually all the right-wing commentariat talked about, and is still perhaps their most popular subject. But for the most part, was the debate about policy disagreements or differing views of the role of government in society? Or was the right’s main subject of discussion simply about blowjobs? With a side order how he was “finally being gotten for something”? I think we all know.

Sorry, the claim that he, and “liberals”, were vilified for the last 8 years because of their ideas does not square with the facts.

Now, the other side of the statement: What are the most prominent examples you can think of in recent years where conservatives (however you want to define the term) have been subject to campaigns of personal destruction by “the left”, not condemned for their views or statements or actions instead?

If you come up with a totality of examples that can even be measured on the same scale of hatred vs. thought, I’ll be very much surprised.

Right on this very thread are several examples personal attacks on RL. E.g., he has been likened to mass murderers and some posters have reveled in his deafness. OTOH, Elvis has provided no examples at all of similar personal attacks on BC. (I’m not including remarks about “blow jobs” as personal attacks, because it’s merely descriptive.)

Elvis, you need to provide specific quotes and cites if you want to prove your point.

I don’t smoke. Period.

Whom did Bill Clinton rape? I want names and I want dates. I want to know when he was convicted and where he served time and for how long. Accusations are NOT evidence of wrongdoing. Put up or shut the fuck up.

Richard Nixon was never convicted of anything and he never served time. Unlike Bill Clinton, Nixon was never impeached. They both gave up their law licenses.

Yet you wrote, “Richard Motherfucking Nixon was perhaps the most criminal president we have ever had. The only thing terrible about his death is that it didn’t happen in prison.”

Looks like jab1 has different standards of culpability for Republicans than for Democrats.

The ONLY reason Nixon was not convicted was because he made a deal with Ford that if he resigned, Ford had to pardon him.

That was the ONLY reason-he most certainly WOULD have been convicted.

Guin, your opinion seems reasonable to me, but a mere opinion cannot satisfy jab1’s stringent requirements for a conviction and time served. As jab1 wrote, “Accusations are NOT evidence of wrongdoing. Put up or shut the fuck up.”

Why bother? Since I’m a conservative, and should I happen to fall ill, you’ll be wishing me death or saying I deserved it anyway. You apparently have no sympathy, or compassion, to give.

How thick are you, man? Fourth time. This thread is not and never was, about simply “poking fun” at someone. This thread is and always has been a celebration of someone’s ill health and a wish that it would get worse.

No offense, but you’re making my point for me.

And you explain your hatred, how?

There was no deal. There. Was. No. Deal.

Yes, Nixon would have been convicted. And yes, Ford came in for no end of criticism for his pardon (I disagree with it, but I can see what he was talking about when he said it was time to move on, even if his idea of “moving on” was those stupid “Whip Inflation Now” buttons). But there was no deal.

Elvis: Just consider the left’s opinion of most conservatives. Listen to how they talk about Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Bush, etc. Now compare that to how conservatives talk about people like Tom Dashiell or Bob Kerrey or Al Gore. Let’s leave Clinton out of this, because he’s an aberration, and because people’s hatred of him have nothing to do with his politics - they hate him because of his perceived personal flaws. In the same vein, I’d leave Nixon out of the equation.

When a conservative disagrees with Al Gore, they’ll almost certainly say that his ideas are naive, or that he doesn’t have all the facts.

When Liberals disagreed with Newt Gingrich, they portrayed him as a heartless bastard who wanted to help his corporate ‘buddies’ at the expense of the poor.

Or think about how the issues are framed:

If a Liberal says that the minimum wage should be raised, how do conservatives argue with him? They’ll argue the merits of the issue. That higher minimum wages will cause unemployment, slow growth, etc.

But when a conservative says that minimum wages should be lowered or abolished, the argument often goes ad-hominem. He’s heartless, cruel, doesn’t care about people, etc. As a libertarian, I can vouch for that. I’ve had to learn not to talk about such things at work-related parties and such, because it gets personal immediately.

Liberals never seem to want to believe that a conservative can be just as caring and charitable as they are, and just disagrees with them on how the world can be made better. They see caring compassion as being THEIR turf, with the conservatives being the heartless bastards who don’t care about anyone but other rich people.

But hey, this is an undefinable argument, and you can dig up anecdotes to prove either side all day. All I ask is that you consider what I’m saying with an open mind.

And if that’s not enough, just read anything Stoidela posts. She has raised personal hatred of conservatives to a new level.

Conservatives hate liberals because liberals want to do too much for people.

Liberals hate conservatives because conservatives want to do too little for people.