Limbaugh says "government union" leaders "essentially are communists"
March 04, 2010 4:01 pm ET
From the March 4 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
You funny. I have only ever heard such remarks from people pretending they don't consider others inferior.
Really?? Wow. I was raised libertarian, but that strikes me as a freedom gone too far. I'm thinking the dog might mind, seahawks. Is this where your screen name comes from?
It is a choice, yes, a choice for men and woman to have unrestricted sex vs. making responsible decisions and protecting and unborn children.
Its a choice to give some immediate benefit up for the life of another.
What a wonderful place America would be if the unions had only been stopped much sooner.
I'm tired of living the legacy of unions. I want longer work days, less pay, no vacations, and no weekends off. All this time with my family is really getting to me, I'd rather spend it making other peoples' dreams come true.
By that, I mean they were necessary in times past to rectify so many wrongs that were indeed occuring. At this point in time, though, Labor protections, as you listed above (and there are more) are codified in US and state law.
Are they as useful as they once were?
I think they do have a place as things do change and some manipulation exists. However, we do not live in company made towns anymore where the corpoation can dictate everything about a persons life, and because the legislation, we never will.
I only assert that they are not as useful as they were. There is a difference.
The best people to address your question would be current union members. I think a good place to start would be union members who work for successful and profitable companies like UPS, GE and Union Pacific.
It is really common sense business. You can afford to let a few workers walk away that can get fair treatment somewhere else. You cannot afford to let them all walk and start over. So, it is easier to pay a fair wage and give your labor a fair deal in order to keep the wheels turning. Without collective bargaining, each employee is on their own and has no power at all. That's just the way business works.
Non-union Wal-Mart.
Also, you should remember that the world is not a movie. Not even The Godfather trilogy.
I understand that he is over the top and certainly no friend to left leaning politics, but why do people allow themselves to get so heated over him?
From my vantage point, it is almost an obsession.
Now, to be fair, there are those conservatives who approach this level of disdain for certain liberal spokesmen, and I do not get that either. But Rush is in an entirely different league when it comes to vitriol against, at least from what I can tell.
So, if someone chooses to respond in a rational and reasonable manner, I'd love to hear why that is. If you can't resist going off on a tangent or lobbing insults, do not respond. That's what I am trying to get past.
Next question.
Fox/hate talk radio do a disservice to our COUNTRY.
To demonstrate the complication, I now live in Wyoming, and moved from Washington, DC (Fairfax, VA, more specifically). Its culture shock to come out here. My wife was flabbergasted that some people make their living going from ranch to ranch working as ranch hands, or cowboys. Not just the weather or isolation is different, but the expectations of the people. Laramie and New York could not coexist alone because the issues are so different. When 550k people live in an entire state (and a big one geographically) people just have different lives than they do when millions are squeezed into a 10 mile radius as they are in DC. Bringing these people together to find mutually acceptable standards of living is not straight forward.
Why do I share this? Because it is so easy to look at our own situation and what is happening to us and forget that other people have different realities and assumptions. Going over the top to attack or to respond does little to bring people together. When you stop and look at what people are really saying or where they come from changes how you react.
Rush does little to better anyone's position, however understanding who he is and what he is doing, and why, will provide a better way to address the effects of what he does. Replying with the same hatred, I admit, I don't get because I don't think it helps any more than the vitriol he spits out.
That is why I asked the question above, just to get a feel for why it is people react the way they do.
From what it seems, people react not so much because they simply don't like his policies, though that is certainly there. They react because he makes them angry with "his lies" and rhetoric.
I could be wrong, and if someone can convincingly (ie rationally and sufficiently, and with a cool head) demonstrate that I am wrong, I will listen.
You observation seems to be that Limbaugh often brings out the worst in us. That's true. We're offended by the daily displays of his sexism, his racism, his elitism, and the long, long list of the people, organizations, and causes he tells his listeners to fear and demands that they hate. We've watched Limbaugh go from being a brash loudmouth who mocks those he does not agree with to a megalomaniac that seeks to destroy any who deviates from his narrow path.
Limbaugh's gimmick reminds me a bit of Harold Hill from The Music Man--only in a much, much darker way. He warns of a pool hall that will not just corrupt the youth, but set the world aflame. Those who do not buy his instruments and join his marching band are to be viewed not just with suspicion, but with hatred.
So, we do a little push back here. When a man who did not graduate from college calls a NASA scientist an insane lunatic, we take issue. When a man selling a lavish penthouse apartment featuring a glowing portrait of himself calls the President a narcissistic, we take issue. When a man wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for the medical treatment he received slams those seeking reasonable health care insurance for those less fortunate, we take issue.
Yes, we'll spew a bit from time to time, making jokes and trading Limbaugh centered insults. And we'll do so without apology to our good buddy Rush.
You cannot debate "in a rational and reasonable manner" with a closed mind. Limbaugh is not speaking reason, he is speaking mindless hate. There is no reasoning with him, nor his supporters, who come from the same place.
If you find that folk here are "going off on a tangent or lobbing insults" then i suspect you are not finding the posts interesting or amusing. For the most part, i do. And i certainly do not presume to tell folk when to respond or not, as you have.
How is arguing for some civilized and rational conversation a fake?
I am not defending him, even if it may seem that way. But emotions come across in different ways, even without having to use a specific term.
"why the hatred towards this man.
What "man"? All I see is Rush Limbaugh."
Believe it or not, I do NOT listen to the man and take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Since you understand offensiveness so well, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples like the few below, all over this site, to which offended commenters--like me--respond to:
Limbaugh: "Shut the hell up and stop lecturing us about our lives"
Limbaugh on Obama: "We got a ... 45-year-old kid directing the country"
Limbaugh calls Obama "Dumbo,"
Limbaugh calls Obama's comments on the stimulus "the big lie"
Limbaugh: "the whole Obama administration is a giant dupe"
Limbaugh: The "crap and tax bill" is "a scam being run by Obama
Limbaugh says Obama has an "arrogance and a superiority complex like I have never seen"
Limbaugh: "People are going hungry and are out of work because of Obama's socialism"
Limbaugh: Obama is "a spoiled brat
I do not defend what Rush says. Each of those is something he should not have said.
Now, having said that, is it necessary for me to find quotes of say, Keith Olbermann?
"...presumably President Palin, because if you need a friendly face of fascism..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34981476/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/page/2/
"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/09/10/quote-of-the-week-keith-olbermann-saysfox-news-is-worse-than-al-qaeda/
"With sociopaths like Neil Boortz here it is often amazing to me that anybody wants to come to this country legally or otherwise."
http://thinkersandjokers.com/thinker.php?id=2670
Here is a few, and there is more. Also notice I gave a lot more of the quote and the source.
Calling Fox News worse than the KKK, Palin is a Nazi, Boortz a sociopath.... Yeah, he's any different.
Nor are his comparisons mere insults; he has chosen "nazi" for Palin because of a nazi tendency she has embodied. It is not the same thing at all.
And you are still a fake.
It is easy for you to say that he has substantiated his comparisons when I give more context. Look at what you post. For example: "We got a ... 45-year-old kid directing the country" Notice the ... and the lack of a source to read the rest of the context.
I still think he's harmful (Rush), but I think the tactic you have employed is why you do not see the problem. You have isolated a short blurb without anything to back it up to suggest Rush is a problem while looking to the context of Keith's.
Further, step back and consider to whom Keith addresses his outburts-- its not you! Its not offensive if he's not calling you out.
And I have called out Rush, Coulter, and others on those same sites.
Honestly, you get the Wingnut Post of the Day Award for that one.
Frankly, that would be obvious to almost any intelligent person.
He is divisive, but so what? Let his over the top rhetoric expose him for what he is. If there is evidence on a certain issue he speaks of, present it and let rational people see for themselves.
I have spent time at conservative sites and see similar vitriol to left leaning figures, and vigourous support for Rush. I find it annoying there, too.
But here's my thought, and take it or leave it, but political discourse over such "problematic" figures only becomes a "We are right and you are wrong" sort of thing. The substance of the arguments gets lost in between, and everyone loses. I have said these things in conservative sites, most notably Townhall.com.
So, I guess, in the end that is my point that we are all better served to avoid the insults and the sincerely try to keep our better heads.
I saw that definition, and maybe it applies, maybe it doesn't. I am also not sure it is a fair representatin anywhere, because it is almost as if it seems to exclude those who have legitimate concerns and questions. Worse it seems to say only those who will fight up front without any sort of basis for fighting are welcome, or that only those who agree can post.
If asking an honest question about why people do not like him fits in that definition, though, then so be it.
I don't see how I am bringing up any issues that are unreasonable, though, which is a big part of being a troll. I am not starting any sort of fight just to start a fight, nor am I completely off topic.
I do happen to be a conservative and am questioning the vehemence towards Rush. But I have stated why I question the vehemence.
Actually, if you read a post below stating my opinion on why I dislike the rhetoric from any side, you'll understand that I am indeed not here simply to argue. I will defend my position and my questions, but I do not want arguments for arguments sake. If it becomes that, and it is going in that direction, I will bring it back and/or not participate.
I'll end this post with this comment: you do not have to agree with what I say, but I do ask that you consider what it is I have said. I sincerely try to do the same with all who post to me.
I am not attacking you, except to this limited area. I don't know any of you nor your policies to say more. I do hope you see my point, but evidently you don't. You are now bashing me. Why? Explain to me what it is that I am saying that is terribly wrong? Seriously. Step back and consider what it is I am saying. Here, I'll give you a quick outline:
1) Rush is indeed a jerk and is harmful to political discourse, and arguably the nation.
2) He is who he is though, and disagreement with what he says is one thing; but obsessively responding in kind perpetuates his voice.
3) There are liberals who are as offensive as he is, and to not see it is short sighted.
4) There are indeed conservatives who do the exact same thing and it disturbs me just as much.
5) I believe the better way to have any sort of meaningful political or even social discourse is to get rid of the bias and try to see who is speaking something and why.
6) Anything that is so full of insults is a failure, including Rush's program.
7) Bottom line: its about avoiding such pervasive anger.
As to the vehement question, that was in the context of your accusation against me being against you. I admitted that was a part of my intent. I do want to know why it is you hate him so, just as much as I want to show that I don't think hating (anyone) like that is problematic.
I really do not see why this message is a problem, except maybe how it is against what you believe (since you do feel so strongly against Rush).
Maybe I am obtuse, but I really do not get the virtiol, even from conservatives.
Now, let me give my opinion of Rush: he is an arrogant and over the top man who seems to revel in the controversy he creates. He knows how to push buttons, and does so pretty well.
However, I think beneath the rhetoric (which is unnecessary) he has some solid opinions. But because the rhetoric is over the top, that message is lost and it becomes meaningless and he becomes a problem for conservatism.
I do not listen to him, but I do not object to him, either.
However, even with these responses that have been provided, I wonder why people take him seriously? He's more of an entertainer than a figure to be taken seriously. I wonder if people ignore him he'll fall off into the obscure and become a has-been.
It may be responded that many conservatives do listen and do take him seriously so he is still relevent. Yes, but that is only perpetuated, in my mind, when people on the other side continue to get so upset by him.
Look on the home page here-- how much is there about Rush? It really seems that the purpose of this site is to attack Rush, and Hannity, Beck and Fox News are there as well, but Rush seems to be the number one target.
He is a divisive figure, and I think he even does a disservice to politics in general. But I still do not understand the what seems like an obsession.
Feel free to tee off, not that you need my permission to do so, but remember I am simply giving my honest, and hopefully fair, impressions.
I still see a lot of Rush articles, though. And a lot of folks on Fox News.
These are my my honest impressions.
And your honest and fair impressions are fair to bring. As long as they are truly fair. I don't have much patience for purely emotive responses.
I await your list, with justifications. You are trying to ride the false equivalency horse.
This tells me that there are people who want to force their hand into the market, as much as to get their opinions heard. However, there is little market for their product, which is telling.
Rush may be offensive, but people either like what he is saying or find him entertaining. Of course, they are all idiots, but they do listen to him, even if he is a jerk.
Actually, I think if the Rush haters would realize he is who he is and not get so upset, they'd find him less influenctial.
Franken just in it for the money? - get out of town! Explain about Air America; i don't know where you're coming from.
Rush is not merely "entertaining". Folk who listen to him believe him, and buy into his irrational hate. He does not offer reason. He does not invite conversation. He is either completely irrational, or totally cynical. I credit his intelligence enough to assume the latter.
I'll offer this, though, as a final thought to consider on the merits of the immediate discussion of Air America et al.:
Perhaps you read about what I think about perspective, which is essentially what I am arguing, in a word. Perspective in that it matters what side one is arguing from and to be able to see that when arguing.
As a conservative, I see that Air America was an attempt to dictate what people hear and to get in on the action. It had hoped to get a share of the market, and it was led in large part by Franken.
Maher, again, as a conservative, is a problem in the context here because his opinions are often offensive and harsh. I do grant that he is usually more reasonable than many, but he's not innocent.
Feel free to have a different point of view, but understand mine.
Which of his opinions are solid? I'd really like to know, because everything I hear this man utter is sexist, racist, hate-filled, and/or a lie.
Someone get me a Kleenex.
He tries to play both sides of the spectrum... political leader and entertainer which is wrong... you can't do both.
He resonates the "I've got mine, the rest of you can screw yourself" mentality that is the worst of this nation, but as times get hard it's difficult to rise above it.
Above all, Rush is just disgusting. His speech is tainted with homophobic and misogynistic overtones that just shows what a terrible person he is. I wouldn't care, but he has thousands of followers who blindly believe what he says and he unfortunately does shape the conversation in this country.
What was Al Franken? Or Bill Maher?
As far as I know, Bill Maher isn't asked to speak as keynote speaker before any Democratic meeting.
There's a difference in being invited to an event as an entertainer as compared to the keynote speaker.
Yes, the hard right gives him a voice, in large part because many think he speaks the truth and because he is entertaining for them to listen to, just like Franken or others might be to the left.
Do you deny that he is a big name?
Stop using a false equivalence to take the focus off of Rush.
But it is not false equivalence. I see it as about calling out the inflamotory rhetoric for popular spokesmen. Yes, Rush is far more popular (at least listened to) than they ever were, and he is thus a bigger target. But the principle should be the same.
Yet it is not. The comments of these men and others like them go unchecked or unchallenged. Maybe for good reason since few pay attention.
I have never once defended Rush here.
Maybe you did not read my comments re perspective, but so far as I can tell, the disdain on Rush and the lack of disdain against the likes of KO is due to perspective. In other words, because you agre with KO you are not as quick to see the problems in his statements.
Conservatives have the same problem when they defend Rush.
Frankly, the left in its portrayal of the right is just as bad. These two men just happen to have an audience. I don't think they should, but they do.
If its for being nasty, then it is selective sensitivity. If its for being conservative, that's another thing entirely.
As I have said over and over, just as Olbermann is annoying to me, so is Rush. I do not think such rhetoric does an ounce of good in the long run, and divides us all further.
"Bi-partisanship" and "cooperation" is something we hear a lot about but the harsh ideolgoues on either side simply divide us all more. This is true on the right, and on the left. Its no longer a discussion, but a fight simply to be the side that wins.
Now, I understand how people do internalize their beliefs and thus take these things seriously, but really, at what cost are we going to actually start cooperating and listening?