Rush Limbaugh is...

[The Ghost of Bondo]

...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?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.  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.

[tasty]

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.

[cookie]

.. 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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

.. 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.

[kami]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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    

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.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Im not as extreme as you would like to think.

Could have fooled anyone here with your posts.

Bucc I am not as liberal as Rush is conservative.

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[cookie]

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.

[tasty]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[alaric]

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.

[tasty]

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  ), 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).

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.)