I first became aware of Rush Limbaugh around 14 years ago. A friend at work said to me “you have to listen to this guy.” And I enjoyed him, although I didn’t always agree with him I considered him to be one of the best examples of someone exercising free speech.
I haven’t had time to go back and actually see if a record exists of his past radio shows so I could compare them to now, but now when I listen to him his arguments seem thin, he repeats himself, relies on unfounded accusations and just plain conjecture to make his arguments; and he makes me very mad because I’m afraid some people actually think he makes sense most of the time.
I now think of him as a has-been drug addict that is no more than a big wind bag, who has a radio contract that allows him to spread his venom and frankly very bad ideas all over the airwaves. I wish they would take him off the air because our country doen’t need any more of this negativity and distortion. I hope when his multi-million dollar contract runs out they drop him like a hot potato.
OH, and in case some poeple wonder why I don’t just turn him off? I live in northern Maine and WVOM in Bangor is the only non-music station available, and not even that a lot of the time; although I must admit, 5 minutes at a time is about all I can take and then I tune into the Canadian station.
I have never agreed with much of anything Rush Limbaugh had to say. But I regard his drug problem as his personal problem, nothing more. The messenger is not the msssage, even liars and hypocrites tell the truth occasionally, and when the pot calls the kettle black, the kettle is, after all, black. Rush’s message is just as true and just as false as it was before he got busted.
Do you sincerely think that he is the same person he was 14 years ago? I wonder if I’ve changed that much. I just remember really enjoying listening to him back then. Sadly, I don’t agree that you can ignore a drug problem if that person is in a position to have a public forum and influence so many people. It has occured to me that maybe his brain was affected by the overuse of Oxycondin but I just don’t know enough about the chemistry of it. He just seems to rant now rather than having something coherent to say. Maybe it’s me.
For someone like Rush Limbaugh the public’s impression is everything. My opinion is that he is a has-been. But that is only IMHO and obviously also suezeekay’s. Is that a trend, perhaps. [sup]Luckily I get more stations and don’t have to listen to him, but I used to.[/sup]
There are lots of poeple who deal with drug addiction. Rush just happens to be one of them. But in his defense I will say that the drugs that he got addidcted to were originally given to him by a doctor. This was not someone sitting on the couch wasting his life away smoking pot and watching “Blue’s Clues” for a living. He was fully functioning and working.
Maybe Rush has a little better understanding of what it means to be addicted. But that has no bearing on his economic policy or his views national defense.
Unless of course you just like to see others to fail.
I know many, many recovering addicts, as I am one. I admire many of them and listen to their opinions on a variety of subjects. Because, despite their addiction, they are very bright people.
Puh-leeze - be honest. You tell me you enjoyed him - and he was a great example of free speech, and now you want him taken off the air because of his venom? That “some people actually think he makes sense”… you mean really smart people, like yourself? Or could you be refering to everyone but yourself - you know, dumb people. They don’t need this, they’ll just get themselves in trouble, eh?
Seems like your attitude changed more towards free speech than Rush. Does that change in attitude towards the 1st amendment coincide a change in political philosophy?
I have to say that I agree with you to a degree, suezeekay. I used to listen to Rush before Bush 41 was elected. Back then he talked mostly about environmentalists wackos, hard loony feminists (not just feminazis) and other liberal activists. He did not get too involved in actual politics. I remember a very funny bit he used to do at the begining of his show with an impersonation (not him, someone on tape) of Mike Tyson.
Personally I stopped listening to him after the 92 elections (he spent the night at the whitehouse I think). He just began to seem more and more partisan. As you said, I also noticed his arguments getting more and more shallow. His show used to include more general liberal ox goring. Now it is simply political shilling. I suspect that this is simply a function of changing times. People are more tuned in to the intimate political details surrounding current policy debates. Before people were more interested in the broader IMHO issue of poking fun at political correctness. That’s still done, but it is more often linked to a particular party, candidate, or initiative.
Don’t let him get to you. Find some good music to listen to. Its better for your mind anyway.
Gosh, I really do miss those environmentalist wacko updates. The sound of those musical chain saws was hilarious.
Some people admire Rush Limbaugh even though he has been divorced and abused drugs. I have a bigger problem with people who deify pro athletes who are convicted of drug, alcohol, and violent crimes. I doubt very many people collect Limbaugh autographs or buy bobbleheads of him.
Actually I agree with about 75% of what he says even though I’m considered a liberal and a Democrat. Why? Because most of what he talks about is the extremes of liberalism - the stuff pervert talked about plus "PC Gone Wild"™. He is very good at making the fringe element sound like the typical Democrat.
His drug problem is relevant to me only to the extent that it should have exposed his hypocrisy to the ditto-heads but didn’t.
W. Bush is an alcohol addict, right? Don’t alcoholics consider themselves alcoholics there whole lives, whether or not they ever drink again? suezeekay, does this reduce your admiration for him (assuming you had any to begin with)?
Personally, I consider these personal problems, unless it demonstrates hypocracy.
Rush is an unsung genius. He is unmatched in the world of broadcasting today. I admire his work greatly. He’s very, very funny.
Some folks just take him seriously.
And if we attempted to make a list of the amazingly talented people who have fallen victim to addiction at some point we could go forever! Freud, Rousseau, Machiavelli… and I don’t even need to go into the arts…
And then there are the issues of what is a ‘real’ addiction. Caffeine, Tobacco, Alcohol, Sex, Marijuana, Gambling, Cocaine, Speed, Chocolate, Adrenalin? and there are people who will say some of them are and some of them aren’t addictions and they have a variety of effects on your psyche and trustworthiness.
I don’t see why being a drug addict, in and of itself, should make someone a lesser human being less worthy of being listened to. It’s not like Rush robbed old ladies in the park to get his fix, now did he?
You seem to be implying that people who “take him seriously” are mistaking his intent, which is purely comedic and satirical. If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t buy it. I think Rush wants his message to be taken seriously just as much as George Will or William Safire want to be taken seriously.
Some of it surely. But much of it is very tounge in cheek. Take the “I’m the only source of information you need” meme that liberals love to hate. This is entirely a joke. It is funny because liberals get so mad about it.
Dang, you guys are making me jones for some Limbaugh.
[sup]Luckily I get more stations and don’t have to listen to him, but I used to.[/sup]