An article in the Times should, in theory, be a factual reporting. An Op-Ed piece expresses the opinion of the writer. There’s a difference there, or at least there should be.
Oh, and I strongly dislike Limbaugh, not for his politics per se, but for the mean-spiritedness, rabble-rousing, and instances where he does play loose with the truth for his own ends. I also find him to be a hypocrite (such as wanting jail time for drug offenders, when he, himself, is a drug offender).
He is a tool, figuratively and literally, whose only purpose in life is to draw attention away from what the Republican party did to screw America, and somehow try to pin it on President Obama.
The sad fact is some Americans agree with him, which shows how stupid many of us are.
Check the facts people,*** before ***you follow a demagogue.
One positive thing I can say about the guy is that he has (or had) one of the best Bill Clinton impersonations I’ve ever heard. He didn’t get the voice perfect, but the personality of his impression was dead-on accurate.
To me, what drove me away from Limbaugh wasn’t my changing views (politically or of him), but something completely insignificant: He kept commenting negatively on movies he hadn’t seen. When he complained that Independence Day features scenes of Jeff Goldblum befriending a random homeless person who he played chess with one day, well, I just rolled my eyes, figuring he missed something (like Goldblum calling the homeless man* by the name “Dad”). However, when he called Forrest Gump a “liberal fantasy”, I never took anything he said seriously again.
I stopped listening during the 2000 election fracas, just couldn’t stand it any more. Since then, I’ve listened to maybe one hour in toto.
*Yes, I know he wasn’t actually homeless. I just didn’t want two sets of quotation marks next to each other so I decided to type in this long explanation.
For the record this is exactly why I strongly dislike Michael Moore, even though we (apparently) agree on many issues. He goes for the cheap shots even when he doesn’t need to.
I hold some conservative views and some liberal views. I do not belong to any political party. And I think Rush is a total ass. I’ve held that opinion since I first heard his blathering 20-some years ago.
This is a typical example of the effect Rush has on liberals; no surprise that I only had to go to post #3 to find it. They become totally irrational and unable to think logically. Three sentences and three ridiculous examples of hyperbole.
Rush speaks for about 11 hours per week. That’s 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, minus time for commercials and news. Try it sometime, you’ll see how easy it is. And fascists like George Soros hire people to transcribe every word he says. Of course you can cherry pick and find some minor errors from time to time. Or you can take things out of context. Even Rush claims only about 99.6 % accuracy.
I’d guess that 99 % of his critics have never listened to more than a sound bite chosen by their leaders.
And LB, how about some cites for those three statements about how the majority of what he says is wrong?
We can debate “the majority,” but here’s a page from over 15 years ago that seems to feel that Rush has been been guilty of just a wee bit more than “minor errors.”
The thing is, liberals don’t just “disagree” with Rush, they know he’s full of crap because he’s talking about them. People know whether or not they’re involved in a vast evil conspiracy.
But like an earlier poster said–and as I’ve said many times–he’s telling liberals what they think.
Rush Limbaugh is a big windbag. He pretends to side with the poor and disenfranchised to get them on his side while all the while taking his orders from the politicians. He won’t even discuss the oil spill, nope because it’s too politically incorrect.
He gets paid to say what his bosses want him to say. If I hear his voice I change the channel. He is about division of people and pitting one party against another. It solves nothing and is negative energy I can live without.
Is he still sober? He used to be a drug addict and most of his broadcasts made before rehab he was stoned off his gourd?
He’s an entertainer who reaches out to a certain group I’m not a part of and quite often a target of. I don’t care for him so I rarely listen to him now. Years ago I was a fan, but around the time he introduced the “feminazi” crap I lost interest.
That was some of his best stuff though! Back in the early 90’s some of the feminists organizations were particularly shrill, especially NOW. That speech from one of the NOW representatives that he recorded and lampooned was hilarious.
" We’re fierce, we’re feminists, and we’re in your face!"
Most Liberals ignore Rush. That is why the Dopers have to tell us about him. Or we get blips on TV and the net when he says something really, really stupid. Unfortunately that happens way too often.
You righties would be amazed to find we don’t discuss Rush at all. He only speaks to his dittoheads.
You know, I actually caught some of that Rush show. This was during the Clinton era, and Rush had urgently wanted to know from his listeners if some theater crowds had erupted in cheers when the White House was blown up by the aliens, which was some rumor he was chasing. Disgusting.
And yet somehow a Rush thread shows up in the pit about once a month started by a liberal and guaranteed to go on for about 5 pages with responses like: Right on! Yeah! He’s an asshole! Rush is a fat! He’s a blow hard!
Rush Limbaugh is a racist, sexist, far right wing conservative extremist hypocrite, as a simple search on the internet will show. I tried listening to him a while back, but had to stop. Being told I hate America, want our enemies to take over, want to see our soldiers killed, I’m a traitor to the country, etc simply because I disagree with him politically is not my idea of entertainment.
It’s quite interesting how almost all those defending Rush use the same variation of ‘liberals think he’s wrong cuz he’s right and they don’t wanna admit’ argument. An obviously fallacious argument straight out of Rush’s playbook.
