Limbaugh: The living definition of bloviate

What is "duh", Alex?

/I'll take the penis thing for $400

The people who should watch this never will.

What's with the 80s throwback musician and the ventriloquist dummy?

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: The people who should watch this never will.

Naw, these people in question will look at it and believe it to be whatever they want it to be. It's always whatever makes them both look the best.

He was probably on drugs when he said that.

He's a famous scam artist.

And the people who need to watch this will make excuses for him and claim that its not true.

I haven't watched it yet, but does he talk about his male prostitutes, too?

I'll never listen to his show but this sounds like the formula for any decent talk show that I've heard of to be honest. I heard nothing in this interview that would make a listener think they were being tricked into listening...other than someone telling them prior that they should listen to Rush cause he is awesome.

Oh...and where's the Chris Crocker (That his/her name?) 'shop with the "Leave Rush alone!"?

what he says is used on talk radio all the time, sports, politics, whatever.

and the peoples whose emotions are being manipulated are on the left as well as the right. The people who hate a particular radio personality tend to listen longer than those who don't.

/also he's a douchebag.

That's entertainment!! Cha cha cha!

Well duh,

This is just the formula for any radio show. Whether you like Rush or not (and I don't) all he's explaining is a basic truth. You can't argue with it. Good shows do it. Bad shows soon are off the air or relegated to the wee hours of the morning.

Even if you do music radio (which I do), you just make the call compelling...even if it lasts only 15-30 seconds.

Rush Limbaugh is to social discourse what Rowdy Roddy Piper was to professional wrestling.

He exists to be hated.

He was, is, and will always be a pale imitation of his predecessor, Morton Downey, Jr. (YouTube, new window, bonus: RON PAUL)

If you agree 100% of the time with anyone, you have a problem.

Some things coming out of Rush's mouth may make sense, some do not.

Same with all the mouth pieces.

Of coulter, savage, limbaugh, hannity, and reilly - my official judgement is that the first three are intentional parodies - either for profit or on the side of rationality by helping reveal the absurdity of their listener base. (some research on savage brings up an extensive education in Anthropology - not exactly the forte of a lifelong conservative)

The last two I think actually believe their own bullshiat. Reilly especially convinced me of his sincerity with his temper tantrum.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: The people who should watch this never will.

Oh I'm sure they will. Then they'll find some way to rationalise it. And blame Clinton. Somehow.

What they will never be able to admit or accept or process is that a fat loudmouth has manipulated them for years for his own gain, and doesn't actually give a crap about their 'values' or anything that any of us believe in, or the welfare of the country or the world or anyone but himself. The Canadians were right over ten years ago, when they said that Limbaugh is the P.T. Barnum of AM radio. The man's a genius.

What's sad is that the evidence has been there all along. When you see how he keeps shifting his focus and thesis to position himself wherever the highest controversy is, you should already be wondering if he stands for anything but controversy itself. And his famously inconsistent grasp of verifiable facts should point to a priority on debate, not truth, and constant battle, not resolution.

There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make. Limbaugh is not one of them. He's a parasite on the American media, the public, and most of all, on the very people he claims he stands up for. Conservatives should lynch him.

That conservatives continue to follow and trumpet him is as much an indictment of their collective common sense and awareness of reality as it is of any conservative ideas.

...still, you don't spew this drivel for 20+ years and not believe at least some of it. Otherwise, it would drive you crazy.

Oh, wait...

Rush admitting the truth in a rational tone and manner. If he broke down politics like he broke down how he turns listeners into "Marks" similar to pro-werstling, he might have a show worth listening to. I wonder if he still feels that way or if he now nelieves his own hype?

I'm no fan of slant or spin, but to be fair this is pretty much what most successful mass media personalities do.

Most.

mediaho: bonus: RON PAUL

"Why don't [the government] put you on a diet? You're a little overweight."

Awesome.

/fatsos be warned, Ron Paul will go there

Some people really do want to buy the snake oil.

mediaho: He was, is, and will always be a pale imitation of his predecessor, Morton Downey, Jr. (YouTube, new window, bonus: RON PAUL)

CHAOS and MAYHEM!!

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: That conservatives continue to follow and trumpet him is as much an indictment of their collective common sense and awareness of reality as it is of any conservative ideas.

As a Farker once said, the true heroes of the right are their propagandists.

/Anyone else notice that Limbaugh spent so much time talking about himself that neither of the other guys got to say a word?

//That guy on the right was REALLY quiet.

He is an entertainer first.

Must be working for him too as he is very close to if not already a billionaire.


/why fark up a good thing?

jwood: Of coulter, savage, limbaugh, hannity, and reilly - my official judgement is that the first three are intentional parodies - either for profit or on the side of rationality by helping reveal the absurdity of their listener base. (some research on savage brings up an extensive education in Anthropology - not exactly the forte of a lifelong conservative)

The last two I think actually believe their own bullshiat. Reilly especially convinced me of his sincerity with his temper tantrum.

O'Reilly definitely believes his own BS and I believe Hannity USED to. After a very short while, he realized just how gullible his core audience was and since then, has kept throwing everything out there that he can. Having Rush on his show last week proved that to me.

I don't know about Coulter, though. I think I'd rather not admit that someone was that blind, stupid, and closed-minded. That maybe she found a nice, comfortable niche for herself as the only female loudmouth in a typically boys-only club. But time and time again, her antics on & off-camera keep telling me that she's bought into her own press and actually believes the idiocy she's spewing. I now lump her in with Randi Rhodes, another one I simply can't stand.

IlGreven: ...still, you don't spew this drivel for 20+ years and not believe at least some of it. Otherwise, it would drive you crazy.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, it could drive one to turn to drugs.

roadkillontheweb: Some people really do want to buy the snake oil.

It'll cure what ails ye!

Gonna be a rough weekend at Boys Town Port-Au-Prince once Rush finds out this video made it out.

Rush Limbaugh is right.He's an entertainer and will say anything to maintain an audience

Same for Olbermann and everyone else

The thing that's scary about Limbaugh isn't Limbaugh himself. It's the callers

Wow, that's a real gem right there.

I can show it to my dad (an avid Rush listener), but I'm pretty sure he'll interpret Rush as talking about "all the rest of them", not himself.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

jwood: Of coulter, savage, limbaugh, hannity, and reilly - my official judgement is that the first three are intentional parodies - either for profit or on the side of rationality by helping reveal the absurdity of their listener base. (some research on savage brings up an extensive education in Anthropology - not exactly the forte of a lifelong conservative)

The last two I think actually believe their own bullshiat. Reilly especially convinced me of his sincerity with his temper tantrum.

That's the thing I don't get, yeah. Why do serious conservatives let these assclowns represent them to the general public? It makes them look bad and stupid. Buckley and a few others have spoken up about it, but then those same more respectable people go and pen something for the Mooney-owned Washington Times, which then makes them look just as stupid and bad. Why don't respectable conservative commentators fight for the dignity of their ideology? Or are the truly respectable ones being repressed so that we never get to see them?

I'm sure I'm left of centre, but I'm interested in serious conservative commentary. I want to hear it. But everywhere I turn, it's one psycho or moron or clown after another. I've tried them all, and find myself supremely disappointed, over and over.

Limbaugh's been an obvious showman from the start, even admitting it, which is worth something, I suppose. Hannity doesn't seem to have an original idea of his own, just repeats the worst talking points of the neocon propaganda machine, and in an especially disingenuous way that incredibly makes it worth even less. I found Savage almost unbearably ugly and spiteful in his approach, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt for his ideas. After all, they guy has a PhD, he can't be all spit and bile, can he? Well, apparently he can. It's not the first time I've seen a lettered academic twist facts to suit their agenda, but it's among the more disappointing examples. I do think O'Reilly is sincere, but I also think he's got nothing new to bring, other than what seems an imminent heart attack. And his lousy grasp of facts is legend. So again, not worth the time or effort.

I'm not suggesting that there are no fakers or idiots or nutbags on the left. Quite the opposite. What I am suggesting is that among all the screaming jerks on radio and TV, there are very few who are worth anyone's time, and if you listen to these people, you get what you deserve. Unfortunately, a lot of these listeners vote. Which is bad news for everyone.

jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

Michael Medved. I don't agree with him at all, but I can at least respect that fact that he respects his audience enough to treat them like they have a modicum of brains. He will also listen to any point you make, and discuss it, rather than shout at your about why you're wrong.

jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

Mark Levine!

*snort*

DMCA takedown expected in 3...2...1...

jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

This is probably the reason why liberal talk radio lags so far behind conservative talk radio.

If you listen to someone, say, like Ron Reagan or the old Al Franken show, you can see that these talkers are, for the most part, trying to deal with the issues in a rational, logical way.
Sure, they have their biases, and sure, they sometimes leap beyond what the facts at hand may dictate. But fundamentally they are trying to work with the issues as they exist, and deal with them in a rational way.

The right wing talkers go right for the emotional Wharrgarbl. And what Rush is saying here is that it is the latter that sells.

jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

Well, there's Chris Buckley and Andrew Sullivan but in all fairness to your point, they have been thrown to the lions (somewhat ironically) by the new Dominionist conservative movement that's taking over the GOP.

I can't think of anyone who broadcasts on radio or TV, though. But there are some honest conservatives in print at least.

jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

All right, I admit I have no names to offer. But I believe they exist. I'd say that probably anyone who's been published in the likes of National Review but not in the likes of Washington Times is more likely to be serious, sincere, and respectable.

I do like P.J. O'Rourke.

PizzaJedi81: Michael Medved. I don't agree with him at all, but I can at least respect that fact that he respects his audience enough to treat them like they have a modicum of brains. He will also listen to any point you make, and discuss it, rather than shout at your about why you're wrong.

Yes, this is all true. But I find Michael Medved to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

make me some tea: Wow, that's a real gem right there.

I can show it to my dad (an avid Rush listener), but I'm pretty sure he'll interpret Rush as talking about "all the rest of them", not himself.

I was considering showing this to my dad, but I think what he will hear is that because Rush is an expert and so confident in what he's saying, he's manipulating the emotions of the left by getting them angry.

jwood: Of coulter, savage, limbaugh, hannity, and reilly - my official judgement is that the first three are intentional parodies - either for profit or on the side of rationality by helping reveal the absurdity of their listener base. (some research on savage brings up an extensive education in Anthropology - not exactly the forte of a lifelong conservative)

The last two I think actually believe their own bullshiat. Reilly especially convinced me of his sincerity with his temper tantrum.

Oh, Coulter absolutely believes her own bullshiat.

Skleenar: PizzaJedi81: Michael Medved. I don't agree with him at all, but I can at least respect that fact that he respects his audience enough to treat them like they have a modicum of brains. He will also listen to any point you make, and discuss it, rather than shout at your about why you're wrong.

Yes, this is all true. But I find Michael Medved to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

In what way?

Oh, and thanks, Kumana Wanalaia. Just what I was looking for. :-)

Spanky_McFarksalot: what he says is used on talk radio all the time, sports, politics, whatever.

and the peoples whose emotions are being manipulated are on the left as well as the right. The people who hate a particular radio personality tend to listen longer than those who don't.

Not always the case:




I've said it before:

Rush is the perfect example of the painfully high price we have to pay for freedom of speech.

It's still worth it, though.

I don't get why people even listen to talk radio, on either side of the political spectrum. If I'm going to listen to someone talk they either need to be:

A. funny
B. informative

Rush is neither, as are almost all of the talk radio clowns. Listen to music.

PizzaJedi81: In what way?

Mostly it is that he sets up strawmen, and quite often, when debating a listener, he sidetracks the discussion onto a side-point where he senses an opportunity to make the listener look uninformed and then makes that the point of his argument--regardless of what the issue was originally.

He is clever, intelligent, polite, and skilled at what he does. It just happens to be that he isn't as interested in the issues as in being 'right'.

PizzaJedi81: jules_siegel: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There are legitimate, sincere conservative commentators out there, who have valid and verifiable points to make.

Such as?

Michael Medved. I don't agree with him at all, but I can at least respect that fact that he respects his audience enough to treat them like they have a modicum of brains. He will also listen to any point you make, and discuss it, rather than shout at your about why you're wrong.

I just went and looked at his website, and a few things pop out:

No real writing on his website. I understand that he's a radio guy, but if you can't put your thoughts in writing -- or can't be bothered -- then what are you bringing, really?

His reliance on references to God is a little tiring and disingenuous. We're heard this one before. Where are the ideas?

He seems to dismiss well-known points about darker elements of our past. Genocide of Native Americans really happened, we know that it did. Slavery of Africans was real, we know that. American imperialism is a real and verifiable part of our history, too. It's disingenuous of the left to apply those facts out of context and say it makes us evil and horrible and irredeemable, but it's just as disingenuous to dismiss it as 'lies'. How are we supposed to take him seriously after he makes those claims?

Stars, flags, etc. Who was it who said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels? When people wrap themselves with the flag, I usually assume they're trying to cover something -- or nothing.