*DAMN R6 Forum

...a dumbass

I flip onto his radio show while driving sometimes because it usually provides a good laugh.

Today he didn't fail me.  He apparently thinks that all the anti-war advocates are anti-semetic and doing it because they agree with the terrorists that want Israel not to exist.

Anyone else want to comment on the idiocy of the man?

I'll put it in clear terms.  I think he's almost as bad as Zaitsev.  

Ultra conservatives are just as bad and blind as ultra liberals.  They are just as guilty of ignoring the facts that don't support their positions and playing smoke and mirror games.

So, the only reason I say almost, he has a research staff that looks up the facts so he doesn't always get them so completely wrong.  But yes, Dumbass is a word for Rush.

P.S.  If I thought I could stomach it without vomitting all over my desk, I'd go read a few pages of his shit and quote him to prove he's a hypocrite as well (I don't like calling people that without proof).  So, if someone doubts that, I'll risk it, but otherwise, I'll keep my lunch in my tummy.

I was about to say I'm sure you like him no more than me Bucc, but Loth gave that speech about how that would not be logical to make that type of claim ;).  I figured you'd dislike the conservative crap as well.

I think the reason you may come off as disliking liberals more is because liberal philosophy tends to be more idealistic and theoretical.  You being a man of reality have issues with that type of thought.

Actually, since I'm slightly liberal, I'd say that the reason I probably come off as conservative is because this forum has more then it's share of people on the FAR LEFT.  While the majority of conservatives that post here are not so extreme.

And, the ones on the FAR right only pop up now and then.  And most of them don't argue after you tell them they are dumbasses, they shut up.

But, I can be both a realist and have ideals at the same time.  I just temper my ideals with what is possible and what is worse then beating my head against the wall.  You see, beating my head against the wall is my talking to Zaitsev.  He'll never get it.  But some others may read it and get it.  It could be worse.  I mean, I'm a big advocate for the ecology, but I'm not ecoterrorist.  I think that the people that spike trees, etc hurt the movement more then they help it.  Just like I think people that think we should drastically cut our defense, or become isolationalists again, in the name of furthering social services hurt it more then they help it.  Because they give way too much for the other side to object to.  It's always better to find the middle ground.  Find a way to fix social services and make them better, without also taking away defense.  etc.  

To steal an analogy from Zaitsev (but use it correctly), you people out there on the tips of the wings don't understand that if the balance goes too far one way or the other, the plane tips over, spins out of control, and crashes to earth.

That is why I don't like to fly ;)

One thing you can say about some unrealistic liberals (such as myself) is that at least their heart is in the right place even if their head isn't.  I cerainly don't advocate violence or even tolerate the violence by some extremist groups to get their message across.  Groups like PETA and Greenpeace (they are the ones who do things like burn the Vail lodge right?) does a great diservice to liberals.  They make all of us look like wackos.  I'm a vegitarian and don't think animals should be eaten, but I show it by being vegitarian and promoting what is good about being vegitarian and the harm caused by grazing of animals for meat (extreme plant, water, and energy use compared to farming per weight of food produced).

Then again conservatives have many wackos...abortion doctor killers and the militia sepreratists.

The reason I'm not a realist is I think about what should be not what can be.

i can't believe people rely on that man for their daily political news. there are countless books and other resources (such as the hilarious "Flush Rush" newsletter) that systematically point out all the assumptions, factual inaccuracies, and flat our lies that he spews each day on his ignorance hour. only his listeners ignore all that, because he tells them that its "the evil liberal media" and they are "confusing and distorting what he says to meet their own radical agendas". i don't even need to write any more about this blowhard, because i sincerely doubt that anyone here is stupid enough to argue FOR him.

.. not spelled "Limbagh"... it's actually Limbaugh

teehee

i just regard him as one of the silly political commentators, no worse than any ultra-liberal.

Well, you don't hear the spelling of a name so...

And there aren't really any major ultra-liberals on TV or radio talk shows if the conversation about it on O'Reilly was correct.

I would've guessed ?Limbaugh? if I'd heard it...

Anyway, why are animal-rights activists, tree-huggers and shit like that counted as liberals? I'm a ?liberal? but I don't have any such sympathies at all.

Btw, I have no idea who that prick is, he sounds bad though.

Then you are liberal in some of your ideals and not in others Kami.  Which makes you pretty normal.

Being considered liberal on my ecology points of view, and conservative on my gun control point of view (which is actually liberal in thought, but not when you are attaching it to a poliitical label).  It doesn't have to make sense, it's politics.

But no matter what you are called, or even consider yourself, unless you are an extremest, you usually have views on both sides.

I've seen extreme liberals in the media, but they don't last long around here usually.  Probably because it's boring listening to a stoned out of his mind long haired tree hugging hippie freak  :o  

Ok, actually, I think the hard part would be finding an ultra liberal that was really an ultra liberal on every issue. Some liberal views actually conflict with each other.  While the ultra right can fall back on status quo.

I couldnt believe on election night that NBC brought him in to represent the Republicans and some phony ass retired guy for the liberals. Bucc I am not as liberal as Rush is conservative. Infact there are some tip-of-the-wing liberals I cant stand. Though I would be a liberal by all accounts Im not as extreme as you would like to think.

Could have fooled anyone here with your posts.


First, prove it.  

Second, I still say you don't think any better then he does, you can't support your arguments with logic any better, and that even though he is a huge dumbass, at least he gets most of his facts right, even if he can't actually connect them correctly.  I mean, I don't think the man could find his ass with both hands and a map, as big as it is.  But I don't think any better of you either Zaitsev.  You argue just like him.  You just ignore any facts that oppose you.  

You are the liberal Rush.  Rush Zaitzev.

I would in no way deny being way liberal...although I don't think it would be possible to be as liberal as Rush is conservative because like you stated Bucc, being liberal isn't as clear cut in agenda.

I do have a few issues where I cycle around to a more concervative viewpoint...for example, I think the states and not the federal goverment should be handling most of the money.  The federal goverment only really needs money for defense and other foreign affair matters.  I think the local goverments should handle all the money dealing with domestic/social programs.  It should be the federal goverment's job to set regulations on how the states have their domestic systems organized so as not to create disparities that would for example make the homeless population shift to the state offering the best welfare.  This view of having state power is conservative...although I mix it by having "big" state goverments which is more liberal.

Another point where I'm conservative is death penalty...I see little reason in theory not to have it...although since it isn't finacially efficient in practice I don't support it.  I'm much more in favor of providing a means for the inmates to commit suicide humanely and letting them choose if they want to die or not.  Cuts through the legal red tape of the death penalty.

So while I most certainly call myself a liberal, I'm not in complete disagreement with consevative ideology.

hooray for my disorganized post!

I'm libertarian. I believe the government should fuck off when it comes to some things, and I also believe they have no right to tax some things and spent it on the stuff they do.

and now, a short list of people I hate:
Buchanan, Mondale, Daschle, Lott, Mrs. Clinton, Helms, and Thurmond.

and my final point:
the only candidate that can save the democratic party in 2004 is senator kerry.  the democrats are so alienated from eachother they don't even know what democrats are anymore.

I'm taking this a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist. I see Howard Dean as the savior of the Democratic party for 2004. He is the only candidate that can win mass appeal while bringing back the traditional liberal base that defected to the Green Party (which is only 4%, but we are the most politically active 4% you're gonna find). If a pro-war democrat gets nominated I can tell you right now that the party is going to lose even more votes than they already have.

Or, it would mean stealing votes from the more liberal Republicans.  

Honestly though, I could care if either one of the major parties fell.  It would cause a vacume (and probably a scarry 4 years), but vacumes want to be filled.  It may be what is needed to get past our two party system.

Maybe, it would just suck for a while but really be a good thing overall.

cook,
    What's wrong with my buddy Mondale? I agree with you about the current situation with the democrats, they are disorganized and leaderless. Who is this kerry guy? I've heard his name but that's about it.

bucc,
    yeah, this two party system has got to go.

go [insert 3rd party name here] party in 2004!

I don't really like the party system at all, but since I can't think of a better system to replace it with I'll just have to put up with it a while longer.

since cookie made that little thing about politicos she hates i decided i'd do the same cuz it looked fun:

only i'll say dislike because i dont want to hate anyone

Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Cal Thomas, Harry Browne (sorry cookie  :D), Joe Lieberman, Bill O Reilly, Bill Clinton, Winona LaDuke, Molly Ivins, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Dubya, Leonard Peikoff, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, Christie Todd Whitman, Orrin Hatch, Phyllis Schafly, and last but not least Steve King (?berconservative rookie congressman from iowa).

You know, I am rather surprised that after your multiple schpiels on Ashcroft and why you dislike him that he is not on your list.

As another note, many that you listed aren't politicians.

Sorry for the double post, but...

As for the two party system, I agree that it has to go. The Founding Forefathers designed Congress to represent several different opinions and to form coalitions to gain majority power on the issues. If the plan had gone off like it was intended, we would have multiple different parties representing multiple different people (an example is that some of you jackasses wouldn't keep confusing me with the ultra-rightist Republicans, even though I consider myself a moderate...there would be a party that for the most part, represented my general views.)

Here in Sweden we don't call tree-huggers and animal rights activists liberals, we call them environmentalists. Just for the record, the environmentalists cooperate with the commies and the socialists here. I'm considered to be pretty right-wing, being a liberal.

Liberals are left wing here, Conservatives are right wing.  And, in general, environmental issues are considered liberal issues (even if we believe in conservation).  The titles have about as little to do with the actual stance as Republican and Democrat do.  It's not like the Democrats want to change the government into a real democracy instead of a republic (which is a represented democracy).

The only way to beat GWB is on an anti-war pro-economy ticket. The fear of war will most likely bring more liberals to the polls in 2004 and the promise of a better economy for ALL (not like Bush's plan) will bring in some fence sitters. I am not as Liberal as Rush is conservative because I admit the Democratic party has huge flaw. If all left wing parties could agree we'd be much stronger but the Rupublicans have a unified political stance of that french word which I cant spell lazaffaire(sp?) and Democrats dont. They didnt capitalize on the fialing economy in the past election and now thier paying for it.

     I've often wondered, as I idly mused over the prospect of going into politics, how the U.S. voters would respond to a presidential candidate who did his level best to tell the truth and to think his positions through. I envision a candidate behind the podium, taking questions from reporters; a question is asked that he hasn't given much thought to, and he nods to an aide who notes the question down verbatim. The next day, the candidate's website has a considered response to that question. A web forum where the candidate posts? A publicly-available e-mail address? Running on a platform of truth and reason, in an effort to make aspects of the country (economy, welfare, etc.) better in a measurable way.

     My cynicism says that it would be very unpopular and unsuccessful, but I like to think that the people would respond to that sort of an effort on the part of a politician.

If I agreed with the guy I'd probably vote for him, but I don't think the majority of voters would. They're too used to not thinking.

Although Minnesota's last governor (Jesse "the bastard" Ventura) tried something similar. Claimed to be a man of the people. Claimed that he would really listen to the people. Claimed that he would really help out college students if he got elected. So, of course, all the idealistic college students voted him into office and he turned out to be a real creep. He started screwing over the college students only a year into his 4 year term. Real mafia style, thanks Jesse! :-[

Actually Loth, except for the obvious mud slinging by opponants saying he has to go look up what lie to tell, or that he's a puppet that can't think for himself (none of which would be valid in your example, but I'd bet some asshole would still say it), I think it would be very popular.

I do see a fatal flaw though.

When you talk about public forums, etc, there would be no way for him to keep up and still do his job.  Finding that balance is tricky (and the reason that congressmen have such big staffs, even if that's not what they use them for).  

I think if someone could pull it off, it would be great, and well accepted.  I just don't see how they could pull it off successfully.  The more people they have to answer to, the more time they'd spend answering.  But, when could they actually do the rest of their job?  Figure that out and you get my vote.

     Well, if you're talking about a Congressman or Senator, then their job, technically speaking, is being the people's mouthpiece. They are supposed to stand for the opinions of some thousands of people. In that case, listening closely to the people would be an asset, not simply detracting from their job. If you're talking about a President, then the intense schedule of listening to the people would be most important during the campaign, so that people could get to know the individual and see his positions for themselves. After he was elected (assuming he was) then his job is to do what he said that he would. Which, running on a truth-and-reason platform, would be comparatively easy, since you wouldn't have made the outlandish promises that most candidates do.

Nay, he can bring in the liberal base while winning republican votes. so nyah :)
omg. need i even answer this? he's an old, antiquated, backwards man. he's exactly the type of person the democratic party doesn't need right now.

now back to tastys post
3 good reasons why Kerry is what will save the democrats:
1)he has served in the war and is thus more appealing to the republican party
2)he can bring in the base in that he isn't ultra liberal and can make comprimises while sticking by traditional democratic issues
3)he has TONS of foreign policy experience.

At the risk of sounding like bondo and bucc, you didn't answer my question. You just called him names without providing any evidence, not even hearsay or conjecture as to why he's bad.

Shame, cookie, shame. And you call yourself a debater...(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_lol.gif)

Actually, I'd say Cookie sounded like Bondo and you sounded like me Alaric.

Cookie did expand on her opinion, just without any meat as to why she thinks that way.  Cookie gave you three more words on it  ;D.  Just no examples on how he shows it.  Very Bondo like.  No offense meant Cookie.

Loth,

The only problem with spending all that time responding to the people, if you are talking the federal level, is they are supposed to be experts, not just mouthpieces.  It's the one logical argument on why we still have a republic (well, the only one I've heard).  They are supposed to spend the time we can't, learning all sides of all the issues, not just the ones I care about.  They are also supposed to take part one those peskey little hearings or oversights or blah blah zzzzz.  

Seriously, when congress was in secession, I wouldn't expect them to have as much time (they should be in their seat listening to each other, not having me looking at all those empty seats on CSPAN) to communicate or interact.  But when it's not in, I would think they could.  

A quick update.

As some of you should know, I hate uninformed opinions.  I hate when people don't know what they are talking about, but talk anyway.

In that spirit, I decided that I hadn't heard Rush in a long time, and while I didn't think he had changed at all, it wasn't right for me to spout off without checking.  So, on the way back from a meeting a little bit ago, I decided to tune it (I haven't eaten yet, so I figured it was safe).

Well, I have to say it feels good to be a moderate.

While most of the liberals here have been arguing against war, and that we should pull back, wind down, etc, our buddy Rush was spouting off that we have to attack, no matter what Iraq does.  That we can't back down now that we have prepared, it would send the wrong message.  What would Saddam think he could get away with if we don't show him!

He went on, about how France is pushing dates to make us find a diplomatic solution (as if a diplomatic solution is the worst thing in the world).  

Without giving a transcript, let me just say, he, is a war monger.  He wants the war, for some valid and many not so valid reasons.  He also gave one reason that struck me funny.  That the political climate in America may not let him attack this fall if we were to wait that long, so we should attack now.  That reminded me of some of the liberal arguments, just taken from the other side.

Now, some of the liberals may say that sounds like my postion.  Well, let me contrast it for you.  I don't want war if it can be avoided, but not avoided at all costs.  I think that our stance (words and actions) is called for, and accomplishing the desired goal so far (if things keep moving in the right direction).  I think that the UN needs to give a solid deadline to Iraq, and it must be enforced, with war if necessary.  

Most of the (vocal) liberals here started with no cause, burden of proof, murdering of innocents, and peace at any price arguments.  Some have come around a bit.  Some haven't.

But peace at any price is just as much folly as war at all costs.  At least in my opinion.

Sometimes it feels all warm and good to be a moderate.

One thing I don't like is how conservatives have a tendancy to write off the massive disapproval for war in Europe as anti-American.  They should consider that Europe has just as much risk of terrorist attacks (they are constantly foiling plots such as the Rison gas thing in both Paris and London).  There are threats to the populations of the countries protesting the war, they just don't react the same way as we are.  To write off the pretty much worldwide anti-war feeling by the public and the partial anti-war feeling of national leaders as merely being peace at any price or anti-american is to not understand.  That is why I advocate great caution in going to war.

I've never been closed to the idea of war...I just think there are more peaceful solutions to attempt.  Bucc, you've said you agreed about sending peacekeepers in (with the threat of war if they aren't accepted).  With the way Iraq has started cooperating the past month or two and with talk of Saddam potentially going into exile, I really think now more than ever Bush needs to take a step back and realize that more time needs to be given to peace.

Maybe those american flags with the swastica painted on them have something to do with it.  Or maybe those over-generalized statements about Americans being war-mongering, fat, fast food eating, godless, yadda yadda yadda.

Some of us moderates even, chose not to ignore the fact that many of the europeans protesting lump all us Americans into one big bucket.  That goes back to my sarcasim about would it be right for Americans to charactorize all German/Austrians as goose stepping nazi's a while back.  

I find it more insulting, and funny, because these are the people telling me they are more enlightened then Americans.  If they (the protesters I'm speaking of) were so enlightened, they wouldn't stereotype us like that.


Here's what I disagree with.  Since we aren't at war.  Not going to war isn't stepping back.  It's just not stepping forward.  And I don't think the time has come to step back yet.  I think that the pressure being applied is working, and until these changes happen (not just speculation) I don't think the pressure should be removed.  Pressure is working.  I say let it continue to do it's work.  (Sending in Peacekeepers would be adding more pressure).

You can say what you want about Rush's arguments on any particular day, but the same sad facts remain. He is a racist, a misogynist, and an unabashed classist. I read the FAIR book pointing out the inaccuracies in the "facts" he reports and was apalled. And to be fair, I have also read Rush's response (he responded to each individual argument trying to defend his intentions). And his responses were bullshit, they hardly even addressed what FAIR said and many boiled down to irrelevant attacks on liberals and a liberal press.

the good folks at Take Back the Media! (http://www.takebackthemedia.com/) have gone to the trouble to organize a boycott against companies that sponsor his show. If you don't like Rush, go there and help them out in the boycott.

Tasty, at first glance, I'm not liking TBTM.

Thanks for the link.  But I just read the O'Reilly talkback article and they are spinning things as much as they accuse others of.

It's not that I don't like half of what they are saying so far.  I don't like how they are saying it.  Stooping down to his level.  The only thing I really disagreed with was this:

O'Reilly on silencing Rush: "Isn't trying  to silence Rush Limbaugh un-American in itself? Doesn't he have the right to say what he wants to say?"

TBTM Response: Of course Rush has the right to say what he wants to say. But does he have the right to say what the Boston Globe calls "Political Pornography" on government subsidized airwaves that belong to the American people?

Why, yes.  Yes he does.  Just as much as anyone else.  Nobody forces anyone to listen, and I'm all for boycotting as they do.  But they imply without saying that it would be right to get him off the air.  I think that's so very wrong.  When you hide the assholes, they only grow stronger.  Shit and mold grow in the damp and dark.  Keep them out there in the light, so we can make fun of them.

Will some people agree.  Sure.  But some agree with Randi Rhodes (same name but not spelling of one of the key makers of the A-Bomb, how can we forget her).  She shouldn't be taken off the air either.  Just like any neo-nazi that can afford it, or find backing, shouldn't have his show yanked either.  Anyone that thinks otherwise has to burn his ACLU membership card right now.