Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rush Limbaugh

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I listened to Rush for many years, usually in the car with my dad. I cannot say I have any positive evaluation of him, other than on very rare occasions being entertaining. I'm surprised no one else has called him on being so blatantly anti-intellectual.

He's not anti-intellectual. The modern left is anti-intellectual in the extreme, and most especially those in universities, but not Rush

He's not down on intellectuals. Rush promotes intellectual books of the highest caliber and is a voracious reader of such books, including Ayn Rand’s works. What he is down on are fraudulent intellectuals. He spots fakes and calls them out.

Anyway, I've given my assessment of Rush and I think its dead on. Some of you guys act like I'm giving him a carte-blanche pass, when it's far from the case. I’m very critical of him. I consider my evaluation of him to be concise and objective.

You're right, K-Mac, :pimp: and I know from your comments that you've listened to quite a bit of him. The media distorts him constantly. The most recent case is their perpetrating a twisted view of what Rush meant by him wanting Obama to "fail". What is strange about that is how the media is so concerned with anyone criticizing Obama. Hell the great thing about Rush is he is a rare individual who does not buckle to the pressure of the mainstream media and government thugs. That is awesome! to behold. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is that all it takes to get Objectivists to like you? Just throw in a few blurbs about free-markets and an Ayn Rand quote and they seemingly drop any standards of decency they had to give you undeserved respect.

Strange, but in the thread on whether Obama is a socialist, didn't you just cite a couple of comments where he or people in his administration threw in a few blurbs about how they are pro-capitalism? Their actions clearly demonstrate something entirely different.

Why do you support Obama?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I don't understand is how it's so easy to show Rush as being an incompetent, asshole-bully and yet their are so many Objectivists who basically say, "His religious comments irk me, but other than that I like him"

There are two levels from which to answer this, both apply here:

1> You can show ANYONE to be an "incompetent asshole-bully" if you have years of video and audio and the time and desire to splice together a short segment to show them to be bad. I mean, hell, what is incompetent is you accepting this as evidence. If you show me a 37 second video of a life long friend whom I know to be a good guy and present him as despicable, I’ll know you to be a fraud. Rush has millions of fans who have known him for years.

2> With the power of Objectivism I can show pretty much anyone who ventures into politics or philosophy to be incompetent. Ayn Rand has given us a powerful tool. I submit that Rush fairs better against this template than the vast majority of modern commentators, even though he is far from right on certain fundamentals.

Again, let's be clear, you presented as your "evidence" a heavily edited, very short (37 seconds) video from an network with extreme bias against republicans and a history of distorting the facts. Furthermore, the msm has distorted Rush time and time again, because they can't deal with him straight up and honest.

Oh, and did anyone notice how the financial expert Jim Cramer buckled under to Obama's thugs? After saying some two weeks ago that Obama has been the biggest destroyer of wealth in his life time, he recently said that Obama has been doing a great job for the financial markets. He stuck to his guns for a while, but he caved within two or three weeks. Rush doesn't do that. He stands up for what he believes against an onslaught, and that, again, is awesome to behold.

And, again, I disagree with Rush on fundamentals and would not want him to be president for philosophical reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a 37 second clip from MSNBC. msnbc, are you kidding me? That’s as biased a network as there is. Also, that clip has clearly been heavily edited.

If MSNBC said gravity existed would you stop thinking gravity existed? That's the typical conservative response to any and all criticisms, "bias!" "agenda!" "the MSM" "intellectuals!"

It’s been over two years and I'm impressed I remember the details as well as I did: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessent...mjf0.guest.html

Does he have have the actual transcript from the actual show in question on there? Please link that instead. I don't have time to sip through his backpedaling revisions of what he actually said.

Rush does care about people a great deal and he does wish people the best.

Yeah, people who think and vote in the exact way he does. I've never seen him care to much about anyone else.

I know this from having listened to him since about 1993. I think that long stretch trumps your 37 second, heavily edited clip from an insanely biased network.

No matter how long you listened to him, that doesn't change the what he said in those clips. He still said what said. And what are we to think of his movements when he was saying Fox was "acting"? I guess that was Rush doing a little dance to work out during the show and he just happened to do it at the same time and the big, mean, evil, MSM is spinning it into something it's not?

Obviously I disagree fundamentally with Rush on his position on this matter, but I like to deal with the ideas, not some side issue.

Why do you like him if he is fundamentally wrong on something that's so important? For the record I don't think he has ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If MSNBC said gravity existed would you stop thinking gravity existed? That's the typical conservative response to any and all criticisms, "bias!" "agenda!" "the MSM" "intellectuals!"

They are biased and dishonest, thoroughly dishonest.

I'm not a conservative. Do you typically make things up out of whole cloth in order to bolster your "arguments"?

Go bother someone else with your odd view of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He's not anti-intellectual. The modern left is anti-intellectual in the extreme, and most especially those in universities, but not Rush

I'd say he appears anti-intellectual because of his choice of words and methods of argument. He resorts to name calling and childish antics. Like with Fox, he didn't bother checking the facts before he said "he must of been off his meds" ... He doesn't appear to think about things before he just says them. Also, I agree with what themadkat was saying. She's listened to him for years and doesn't hold in high esteem so I don't think insisting that listening to him more makes everything magically better.

He's not down on intellectuals. Rush promotes intellectual books of the highest caliber and is a voracious reader of such books, including Ayn Rand’s works. What he is down on are fraudulent intellectuals. He spots fakes and calls them out.

Let's see him write a doctoral thesis if he's so much more intellectual than all those college folks.

I've said it before, that the fact he promotes Rand is such a disappointing thing because he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what Rand actually tried to get people to understand in her works. I remember someone on this board saying something along the lines of "if they advocate Rand or her philosophy, what principles of that philosophy do they specifically advocate" Maybe it was about someone else, I couldn't find it.

But, the point stands with Rush. It would be nice if he grasped some principles and talked about those to show it, other then misrepresenting Rand by blatantly advocating things she spoke passionately against. It doesn't do her justice. It might not be a big deal for other people here, but it is for me because I take her ideas and ideals seriously.

Anyway, I've given my assessment of Rush and I think its dead on. Some of you guys act like I'm giving him a carte-blanche pass, when it's far from the case. I’m very critical of him. I consider my evaluation of him to be concise and objective.

I do think you're giving him a free pass. But I'll coincide that you know more about him than I do. I know what I've seen and what I've heard, and I have not liked either, ever. I don't much like the idea of digging through cow manure looking for a gold ring I heard a rumor about it.

But again, other people have listened to him a lot and despise him too. So, you're obviously seeing something there other people aren't, or vice versa. Maybe it's something we see and you don't?

Hell the great thing about Rush is he is a rare individual who does not buckle to the pressure of the mainstream media and government thugs. That is awesome! to behold. :P

I have to take issue with this because just a few years ago, Rush was pretty much an apologist for the government and their actions.

Edited by Mammon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange, but in the thread on whether Obama is a socialist, didn't you just cite a couple of comments where he or people in his administration threw in a few blurbs about how they are pro-capitalism? Their actions clearly demonstrate something entirely different.

You're dropping the context. I never said they were "pro-capitalism" or at least what we considered "pro-capitalism", I was illustrating that Obama has not satisfied the criteria for being a blatant socialist although there is a lot of dialogue that suggests he is a socialist.

I like defined terms and objective measures. When judging something, you need to look at the facts, not subjective interpretation. In the context of this thread and what was said... it does actually raise some issues.

Obama had moments of showing support for "free-markets" and this is enough for socialists to crictize him and yet not enough to convince others that he is not a socialist.

With Objectivists, they show support for conservative commentators and politicians who say they are for "free-markets", but not for the President when he says the same after being accused of being the opposite.

There is a double standard.

Again, for the record. That post in that other thread that you insisted on bringing up was to provide clarification on what Obama is not.

Why do you support Obama?

Off-topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two levels from which to answer this, both apply here:

1> You can show ANYONE to be an "incompetent asshole-bully" if you have years of video and audio and the time and desire to splice together a short segment to show them to be bad. I mean, hell, what is incompetent is you accepting this as evidence. If you show me a 37 second video of a life long friend whom I know to be a good guy and present him as despicable, I’ll know you to be a fraud. Rush has millions of fans who have known him for years.

I can shot the following holes in that.

A.) Edited or not, it doesn't change the fact that he said it. So why should I just ignore it because it appeared on a certain network?

B.) Having millions of fans does not make you right. See: Hitler, Chavez, (Bin Laden?)

C.) You act like this is the only exposure I've ever had to Limbaugh. I just showed this as one of many examples of this man being despicable.

2> With the power of Objectivism I can show pretty much anyone who ventures into politics or philosophy to be incompetent. Ayn Rand has given us a powerful tool. I submit that Rush fairs better against this template than the vast majority of modern commentators, even though he is far from right on certain fundamentals.

I guess it all depends on where you set you standards then. Which is an interesting point of discussion for all Objectivists on this board.

Again, let's be clear, you presented as your "evidence" a heavily edited, very short (37 seconds) video from an network with extreme bias against republicans and a history of distorting the facts.

This could be true. But I think the Republicans have a history of distorting facts themselves. So what do you get when you have people distorting people who distort, exactly?

Furthermore, the msm has distorted Rush time and time again, because they can't deal with him straight up and honest.

I don't believe in the existence of "the MSM", but you're right, there are distortions all around. However, people who criticize Rush seem to hit the right nails sometimes. I can't help but agree.

Oh, and did anyone notice how the financial expert Jim Cramer buckled under to Obama's thugs? After saying some two weeks ago that Obama has been the biggest destroyer of wealth in his life time, he recently said that Obama has been doing a great job for the financial markets. He stuck to his guns for a while, but he caved within two or three weeks. Rush doesn't do that. He stands up for what he believes against an onslaught, and that, again, is awesome to behold.

Again, Rush had the backing of the government thugs for years so I don't think it's that impressive.

And, again, I disagree with Rush on fundamentals and would not want him to be president for philosophical reasons.

That's nice to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If MSNBC said gravity existed would you stop thinking gravity existed? That's the typical conservative response to any and all criticisms, "bias!" "agenda!" "the MSM" "intellectuals!"

Do you think that the mainstream media is fair and balanced?! I don't care if you watch MSNBC or FoxNews, they're all biased and give half-assed information if they think it will get them ratings.

Yeah, people who think and vote in the exact way he does. I've never seen him care to much about anyone else.

He cares about those that threaten his freedom about as much as you care about those who threaten yours. What's wrong with that? For example, Rush wants Obama to fail because Obama is a threat to his liberties. You want conservative Republicans to fail because they are a threat to your liberties. That doesn't mean that you or Rush don't care about other people. Furthermore, how would you have seen any examples of Rush caring for others when you obviously don't listen to his show? He's constantly playing charity golf events, giving callers cars, free air time to advertise their businesses, etc.

Again, Rush had the backing of the government thugs for years so I don't think it's that impressive.

What do you mean by backing? Rush is constantly having to defend himself against not only the left, but the right as well. He just had a falling out with a Republican legislator and Michael Steele within the past few months. Many conservative/Republican politicians distance themselves from Limbaugh even if they agree with him because they are cowardly and don't want the negative press.

If you mean financial backing, you are way off. Rush is the biggest money-maker on talk radio and has set records for AM radio advertising revenues, much less his own contract.

Rush is pretty much out there on his own, less his tens of millions of fans. I think a good number of those fans would be open to Objectivism if introduced to it. I was. I am a converted "Ditto Head" ;)

That's nice to know.

None of us have said we agree with him 100%, we just don't agree with everything you or some others are saying about him. That's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're dropping the context. I never said they were "pro-capitalism" or at least what we considered "pro-capitalism", I was illustrating that Obama has not satisfied the criteria for being a blatant socialist although there is a lot of dialogue that suggests he is a socialist.

I don't know what you consider to be a "blatant socialist" as opposed to just a socialist. Perhaps a blatant socialist runs around wearing one of those Che T-shirts? In any event, I'd like to make it perfectly clear who is dropping context. You said the following in the thread on whether Obama is a Socialist:

Since he hasn't nationalized things left and right like Chavez has, since the Administration said they still prefer a private banking system over a nationalized one. and the fact that senior officials although still oblivious, still profess that greed and markets work.
You made this statement in response to Maximus, who said: "And the Socialist quoted in the article is incorrect - he states that Obama believes in the the free-market. Really? When did that happen?" You were clearly attempting to provide evidence that people in the Obama Administration talk about Capitalism (i.e. free markets) favorably and so this somehow makes Obama less of a Socialist. The point that you don't seem to comprehend is that Obama is like most politicians in that he and his people say one thing and then they do something entirely different. He is happy to claim to be for free markets when it serves his purpose. At the same time as he claims to be for free markets, his surrogates are floating legislation to allow government takeovers of private businesses while giving bailouts to failed companies. Obama's actions have been the actions of a statist and to a large degree a socialist as well.

I like defined terms and objective measures. When judging something, you need to look at the facts, not subjective interpretation. In the context of this thread and what was said... it does actually raise some issues.

Obama had moments of showing support for "free-markets" and this is enough for socialists to crictize him and yet not enough to convince others that he is not a socialist.

Again, look at the man's actions, not the lies he tells us. He is currently engaged in a massive push to drag the American economy over to European style Socialism. Since you claim to like objective measures, why are you ignoring the evidence provided by what the man has been doing since he was elected?

With Objectivists, they show support for conservative commentators and politicians who say they are for "free-markets", but not for the President when he says the same after being accused of being the opposite.

There is a double standard.

There's no double standard. Most Objectivists are smart enough to see through the garbage that comes out of the mouths of politicians like Obama. Are you capable of doing that?

Again, for the record. That post in that other thread that you insisted on bringing up was to provide clarification on what Obama is not.
Again, for the record, you didn't accomplish what you set out to do because you ignore his actions while assuming he means what he says. The man has demonstrated that he is happy to say one thing and do exactly the opposite.

Off-topic.

Then why don't you answer the question in one of the many other threads where it is on-topic? Like this one: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry211661

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think that singling out a person's sexuality as a source of mockery is very intellectual, especially when it is done in a completely unfunny way.

When the subject of the joke is a sleaze bag like Barney Frank, Limbaugh (or anyone else for that matter) would have to try pretty hard to come up with something that I'd think was out of bounds or in bad taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the subject of the joke is a sleaze bag like Barney Frank, Limbaugh (or anyone else for that matter) would have to try pretty hard to come up with something that I'd think was out of bounds or in bad taste.

There aren't any bounds (1st ammendment, remember), and what's in bad taste is a personal choice (I wouldn't find it strictly in bad taste either), but what The Egoist was saying is that it is stupid to say something like that. And I agree, it is incredibly stupid. (unless it's really funny -- which Limbaugh, since you mentioned him, isn't)

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the subject of the joke is a sleaze bag like Barney Frank, Limbaugh (or anyone else for that matter) would have to try pretty hard to come up with something that I'd think was out of bounds or in bad taste.

(Oops I did mean to add in that I meant Limbaugh mocking Frank, I'm glad you got it)

Singling out someone's sexuality is cruel. Yeah, Barney Frank might be incompetent at very best but hurling insults of someone being a "Queen" makes you seem like an unintelligent brute. Why not mock him for things that are actually immoral, and not just something that has a ridiculous social stigma around? I'm not the P.C police, and I think joking among friends is fine but you don't do it when you are actually disagreeing with someone and use it as a tool to mock them. It's just cruel and very unintellectual. The argument here is if Limbaugh is intellectual or not, and things like that as an example serve to prove my point that he is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they called themselves queens? (At least, the gay guys I know refer to other gay men as queens or queenie when describing them.)

Is this kinda like me not being able to use the "N" word because I'm white? They call Rush Limbaugh fat, windbag, racist, druggie, etc., all the time. I don't get it. :P

The Banking Queen parody song is funny because Barney Frank wants all this bank/mortgage regulation/overhaul/takeovers, yet HE was part of the problem! That's the point. Banking King wouldn't even make sense. In fact, the gay community would probably get pissed saying he's not a King, he's a Queen! You don't recognize our right to be gay! I can hear it now! :P

If Barney Frank is so sensitive about his lifestyle and his rights and wants them respected, perhaps he should respect mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Singling out someone's sexuality is cruel. Yeah, Barney Frank might be incompetent at very best but hurling insults of someone being a "Queen" makes you seem like an unintelligent brute. Why not mock him for things that are actually immoral, and not just something that has a ridiculous social stigma around? I'm not the P.C police, and I think joking among friends is fine but you don't do it when you are actually disagreeing with someone and use it as a tool to mock them. It's just cruel and very unintellectual. The argument here is if Limbaugh is intellectual or not, and things like that as an example serve to prove my point that he is not.

What people find humorous is a matter of personal preference, so I don't see any reason to argue with you about whether or not Limbaugh is funny. However, with a guy like Barney Frank (who may well be about as close to Ellsworth Toohey as one can get in real life) just about any form of mockery and abuse (short of physical) is fine with me. On second thought, he deserves to be roughed up a little, but he'd probably enjoy that. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought they called themselves queens? (At least, the gay guys I know refer to other gay men as queens or queenie when describing them.)

Is this kinda like me not being able to use the "N" word because I'm white? They call Rush Limbaugh fat, windbag, racist, druggie, etc., all the time. I don't get it. :o

The Banking Queen parody song is funny because Barney Frank wants all this bank/mortgage regulation/overhaul/takeovers, yet HE was part of the problem! That's the point. Banking King wouldn't even make sense. In fact, the gay community would probably get pissed saying he's not a King, he's a Queen! You don't recognize our right to be gay! I can hear it now! :lol:

If Barney Frank is so sensitive about his lifestyle and his rights and wants them respected, perhaps he should respect mine.

Yes, that damn gay community...Or something.

Calling Rush THOSE things might be fine cause being most of those things is something that would be a place to mock someone. If someone is a racist, you should mock and denounce them for it. You could mock Frank for so much. I mean, I didn't even know he was gay until a couple of months ago until I thought "Hey, that guy's probably gay" and googled it. He's a character to begin with, there is no need to use his sexual orientation as a form of mockery because it's totally irrelevant to his personality, and it's mean. And again, it proves Rush isn't an intellectual. He isn't attacking Frank's ideas, but what he likes to have sex with.

And no, the song isn't funny because it isn't CLEVER. It is just blatant. There is no subtlety, no irony, no comedic enhancements besides the extremely ridiculous voice.

Edited by TheEgoist
Link to post
Share on other sites
What people find humorous is a matter of personal preference...

What people find humorous is a matter of sophistication. A one year old finds my little finger humorous, and a five year old will maybe still find someone repeating "he's a queen, he's a queen" in a funny voice humorous. But after around the age of six or seven, if one is living in America, exposed to both brilliant and clichéd comedy in the myriad of cartoons, movies, TV shows and stand up acts, one shouldn't find parody songs funny. (there may be some exceptions--somewhere, someone might come up with an idea that hasn't been done a billion times-- but definitely not on talk radio, and most definitely not this one)

Link to post
Share on other sites
What people find humorous is a matter of sophistication.

As difficult as it is for me to accept, I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm just not as sophisticated as you Jake. Now that you've caused me to admit my lack of sophistication, I'm going to let you in on another dirty little secret: I laugh at the Three Stooges. :wacko:

I also chuckle when I see someone make fun of a powerful Congressman who is a serial rights-violator of the worst kind. I think it's mildly funny when Limbaugh pokes fun at that same lawmaker because he had a male prostitution ring being run out of his Washington apartment by a man who lived with him and was paid to have sex with him. If I remember correctly, Frank also fixed his lover's parking tickets, just as a favor. Remember, this guy wants to run our financial system and control our lives, telling people how much they can make and how much of what they make they can keep.

On my 1-10 humor scale, the Banking Queen thing is about a 5. Now if Limbaugh were simply poking fun at some random gay man who did nothing to deserve it, then I wouldn't find that funny at all. However, if someone attacks Barney Frank, Joe Stalin, or Chairman Mao for something that normally wouldn't merit attacking (i.e. their sexuallity), I tend to relax my normally high standards (see my admission re: the Stooges) when it comes to humor. Then again, I find it funny when people draw cartoons or photoshop Bin Laden in a dress or Ahmadinejad as a male prostitute. All of these people are scum in my book and if they can be attacked through humor, more power to the attackers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On my 1-10 humor scale, the Banking Queen thing is about a 5. Now if Limbaugh were simply poking fun at some random gay man who did nothing to deserve it, then I wouldn't find that funny at all.

Laughter is an involuntary reflex. I doubt you can turn it off depending on the public vs. private status or political views of the man who's sexuality is being mocked. I think you're being a hypocrite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laughter is an involuntary reflex. I doubt you can turn it off depending on the public vs. private status or political views of the man who's sexuality is being mocked.
Really? There's no thought involved with humor. That's news to me.

I think you're being a hypocrite.

Well, I think you're being a punk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As difficult as it is for me to accept, I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm just not as sophisticated as you Jake. Now that you've caused me to admit my lack of sophistication...

I don't like it when people become passive aggressive as a result of my comments. How can I prevent this?

Should I stop making general statements about people lest someone decides I, a total stranger, am talking about them personally?

Well, I think you're being a punk.

That may be, but my opinion is based on some solid evidence you volunteered in your previous post. What's yours based on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...