About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh On Government Intervention: "Joseph Stalin Thought He Saved The U.S.S.R. Too"

January 19, 2012 4:30 pm ET

From the January 19 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.

EMBED

Previously:

Limbaugh explaining his Nazi reference: "Socialism is socialism," "Hitler, Lenin, Stalin were all men of the left"

Limbaugh: "So the people imprisoned by Stalin who cried when he died are the same kind of people we're dealing here with Obama"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by neon desert (January 19, 2012 4:36 pm ET)
      22  
      Joseph Goebbels thought he spoke to improve the country, too.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Invent a Scandal (January 19, 2012 4:38 pm ET)
      13 1
      Good one el Fathead. Go take your pills.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Spooky Dooooooooood (January 19, 2012 4:41 pm ET)
      18 1
      Glenn Beck predicted the Caliphate would be running the postal service by now. I hear a lot of crazy talk on the radio these days.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carnholio (January 19, 2012 5:39 pm ET)
        7  
        Clear Channel...broadcasting's version of Nurse Ratched's Disturbed ward.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Liberal in the South (January 19, 2012 4:42 pm ET)
      22 1
      I try to listen to these clips, but my speakers must be messed up, all I hear are fart noises :)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by montanabuddha (January 19, 2012 4:57 pm ET)
        13 1
        6:15 too long to listen to the whole thing.
        This guy must be on drugs or something
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (January 19, 2012 6:16 pm ET)
          7  

          Alas, I never listen to limbaugh clips because most are lengthy and all feature his unbearable voice and style.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by peace2u (January 19, 2012 5:38 pm ET)
        5 1
        I could even smell it...gee i hate technology sometimes...:-(
        Report Abuse
      • Author by xlrrp173 (January 19, 2012 6:53 pm ET)
        5  
        I try to listen to these clips, but my speakers must be messed up, all I hear are fart noises :


        ROFLMFAO. Hope I typed that correctly, tears in my eyes.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (January 19, 2012 4:44 pm ET)
      18  
      Well, if we're talking about during WWII, he kind of did through his own jackbooted heavy handed way.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 19, 2012 6:17 pm ET)
        7  
        That's a good point. It could be argued that Stalingrad saved Europe.

        "Conservatives" don't like to acknowledge the Soviet Union's contribution to defeating Hitler... their Binary Brains can't process it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 19, 2012 7:12 pm ET)
          5  
          It's true. I mean, without the Soviets defeating Hitler on the Eastern front, and then helping the Allies take Germany, we probably would have still won the war, but... It would have taken a lot longer.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (January 19, 2012 4:45 pm ET)
      18  
      Riddle me this Limbaugh...

      We have a lot of the republican candidates who are now running for President saying that it is a matter of course that they need to take down Obama so that they can save the country.

      Let's just imagine for a moment that one of them actually wins and is then seated as the chief executive of the USA. They will try to enact legislation and policies that THEY believe will benefit America through governing and governmental means.

      Would this mean they're Stalinistic as well?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mmfvl (January 20, 2012 9:52 am ET)
          1
        Only if the results would be as leftys have had done to this creation, creating a dependency 'for the right reasons'.

        With conservatism you would have a different result 'for doing the right things for the right reasons'. You would have a vibrant economy, individuals spurred by freedom to act on their own abilities, motivated to improve society through personal charity not depending on government to take care of others and individual liberty creating a desire to be educated and equipped for the next century. These are all things anathema to leftyism.

        So if you consider results, not just one's intentions, with conservatism we won't end up like the Ukraine under stalin, not venezulamerica under obama.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Imbecile (January 19, 2012 4:47 pm ET)
      19  
      We conservatives do not see black and white, male, female, gay, straight...When we look at people we see potential; we want the best for everybody.


      If this were actually true, I would be a conservative. But I'm not because it's not true.

      Rush thinking that his comment summarizes his movement's belief is like seeing a very large girl in skinny jeans and a tight top and knowing that she probably doesn't have a very accurate self-image.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Chameo (January 19, 2012 4:58 pm ET)
        11  
        They do want the "best" for everyone -- they just want to define what IS best for everyone.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 19, 2012 5:20 pm ET)
        12  
        That may, in fact, be one of Blimpy's biggest lies ever.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 19, 2012 5:22 pm ET)
        9  
        Oh, wait. Blimpy is talking about "conservatives" in the classic sense... not the Theofascist NeoConfederate Reactionary Trogldoytes who have taken over the Republican Party.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete x tp (January 19, 2012 5:56 pm ET)
          8  
          May I entertain a minor semantic quibble? I know that the right-wing has traditionally been called reactionary but that would imply that they are reacting to something the left-wing has done. Now? They simply make stuff up. I would like to submit that the modern American Reichwhiners should be called "reckless radicals" while the rest of us have become the "reactionaries"; forced to counter the insane machinations of said Reichwhiners.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (January 19, 2012 6:23 pm ET)
            5  
            That's a valid point, and I don't totally disagree. However, in their own minds, the Troglodytes are "reacting" to everything achieved by Progressives from Teddy Roosevelt forward.

            I view their current temper tantrum as a backlash to pretty much everything that happened in the 20th century, including the New Deal, Women's Lib and Civil Rights. They hate it all, especially the cultural revolution of the 60s.

            The so-called "Movement Conservatives" are desperately trying to drag us back to the Gilded Age.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pete x tp (January 19, 2012 6:35 pm ET)
              4  
              True enough. Still, they seem to be "reacting" to misconceptions about those same progressive accomplishments rather than anything based in reality. I suppose we could just avoid the somewhat confusing "R" words and just call them liars, cowards, and fools until we decide on how to reconcile old terms with new realities.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (January 20, 2012 2:03 am ET)
                1  
                Well, at one point in time, Rush Limbaugh said, "[Franklin] Roosevelt is dead! His policies may live on but we're in the process about doing something about that as well."

                They are still reacting to the Red Scare, 50 years later.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Dem02020 (January 19, 2012 6:37 pm ET)
            9 1

            It's not 'ideology' or philosophy (conservative or whatever) that drives these people's politics, it is instead a singular objective to capture and control the legislative and administrative authority of the US Government, for the primary purpose of increasing or maintaining their wealth, and for perhaps the secondary purpose of simply exercising authority for it's own sake... to lord it over others and in the process be as much above the law as is possible.

            They have no true politics or 'ideology' but only the false and simulated appearance of it, and it's far easier to simulate and pretend a 'conservative' political appearance, for the reason that it encompasses little more than mouthing fear and anger and suspicion and hatred of foreigners and minorities and intellectuals and gays and 'liberals' and environmentalists and public school teachers and union labor and Democrats...

            Because none of that requires any 'payoff' so to speak, as they are not required to actually improve any government service or function if elected on such a platform, they are not even expected to govern at all on such a platform, but they instead will have appealed to and satisfied the fears and suspicions and anger of millions of self-identified 'conservatives', and of course in so doing they will have captured the authority of making and administering US law, and enriched themselves greatly for it, which as I said is the whole point with these people, these pretend 'conservatives'.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete x tp (January 19, 2012 5:49 pm ET)
        8 1
        We conservatives do not see black and white, male, female, gay, straight...When we look at people we see potential for exploitation; we want the best for everybody rich enough to exploit those who are not.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (January 19, 2012 5:50 pm ET)
        5  
        We conservatives do not see black and white, male, female, gay, straight...When we look at people we see potential; we want the best for everybody.
        So, Rush is another conservative who doesn't realize that Steven Colbert is having them on.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MsYellowDog (January 19, 2012 5:58 pm ET)
        5 1
        Definitely! I agree with Charles Barkley,who I once heard say,"Every time I hear the word CONSERVATIVE,it makes me sick at my stomach."
        When someone claims that "title," you are about to get screwed.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 19, 2012 7:13 pm ET)
        2  
        Notice how they always say that...

        When they're talking about someone's race.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete x tp (January 19, 2012 5:47 pm ET)
      7  
      Stocks are up. Unemployment is down. The Reichwhiners are confused and outraged.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (January 19, 2012 5:54 pm ET)
        3  
        There was a writer named Adelle Davis, popular in the 60's, who wrote a series of "Let's Eat Right" books, in favor of natural foods, whole grains,etc. She was outraged when diagnosed with stomach cancer. "This can't happen to me. This happens to people who eat white bread."
        The difference is that her advice was good.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by danielsangeo (January 19, 2012 5:55 pm ET)
      3  
      Alrighty then, Rush. So, you're against all the Republicans running for office too, right?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (January 19, 2012 6:05 pm ET)
      7  
      George Bush thought he saved Iraq, too.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (January 19, 2012 6:32 pm ET)
      5  
      We conservatives do not see black and white, male, female, gay, straight...When we look at people we see potential; we want the best for everybody.
      -kudos to imbecile for parsing that pile of verbal crap

      I...don't know if I've ever seen such self delusion.

      Black and white are the only colors binary, right wing authoritarian minds can see.

      I will concede they do see people's potential: the potential to make them more money.
      ________
      Why Newt Should Thank Occupy Wall Street
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latichever (January 19, 2012 9:51 pm ET)
        2  
        Actually, it was Leon Trotsky as commander of the Red Army who saved the Soviet Union. Stalin had a not insignificant but decidedly second tier role in the revolution. I'm no Trot but that's history. Stalin arguably saved the Soviet Union from its destruction by the Nazis, but it was despite his purging of the Red Army (along with the murder of Trotsky) that destroyed its leadership cadre. He also ignored valid warning of the German invasion.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Joej1986 (January 20, 2012 6:27 am ET)
      3  
      Spoken like a true college dropout.
      Report Abuse