I mean really your honest opinion on the guy. With all the crap coming down the pipe of him lately with CNN. About these "comments" he's made in the past (ignoring completely that no body. Absolutely nobody has any real audio proof of these words even though Rush Limbaugh apparently said these slanderous things on air) The media has been ground pounding the guy for at least a week now? All over a football team.
I came in expecting to talk about an awesome band. 
Otherwise, no opinion. I've heard nothing but bad things about the guy, but I myself have never listened to his show, so yeah.
oops i'm sorry i better add his last name before someone beats me for false advertising
*GLARE*
I shall take my leave of this mis-leading thread. Good day sirs.
Rush Limbaugh has the same initials as me! Other than that, dude's a douche. Plain and simple.
Oh no, the reprobate bigot who used his airtime to push more indefensible evil than can even be chronicled here is getting media coverage. This calls for the world's first nanometer violin.
Even when I considered myself to be a conservative, I never cared for Rush Limbaugh. I was always more of a moderate and a centrist, and he is nothing but scornful of moderates and centrists because there's no money for him in that.
I mean, the man is a genius when it comes to propagating his brand, which is his name and his radio show. He has inspired the kind of brand loyalty every marketer strives for. When he is "persecuted", the consumers of his brand feel persecuted as well and become even more loyal. How loyal? $400 million for talking for a few hours a week should do the trick.
What is one to do in such a situation than try to become the most "persecuted" man alive?
why is making money on his own show a bad thing? I mean I know I didn't ask for any deep replies but a lot of these responses seem baseless. NelStone had the best comment yet so far!
@ Srol : while there's value in avoiding extremism, I think you miss his reasoning for being scornful of moderates completely. And marketing skills aside, are the reactions of the "consumers of his brand" all that different from the reactions of Obama supporters whenever anyone criticizes Obama? imagine if i made the kinds of comments Rishi and Veckums made about Obama--the place would light up like a Christmas tree.
.... Well now that I think about it. I think a lot of people here are too lethargic to care either way.
Hey, it's great for him. You asked for my opinion, and there it is. I think he's a genius marketer, and if my tone seemed scornful it's because ...
a) I think I made it plain from the outset I don't care for the gentleman or his views or the manner in which he presents them.
b) Even though I respect his business acumen, I don't think he deserves $400 million between now and 2016 for doing a radio show. I don't think anyone deserves $400 million for a radio show. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any job the deserves a $400 million salary. But my not-liking it isn't going to stop it from happening. It's his employers money, and they wouldn't give it to him if he wasn't bringing in much more than that on ad revenue. And would you believe they didn't run the contract by me before going through with it? The nerve!
EDIT: Whoops, looks like you've added some stuff since I started typing. I'll just say this about the moderates issue. I voted for McCain in the last election. I was "invited to leave" the party by Limbaugh and other right-wing personalities of the party. So I did.
Who isn't happy with this relationship?
Ok fair enough. You're entitled to that. We agree to disagree.
$400 million dollars is indeed a lot of money for a radio show. But I don't think it's anyone else's business (besides the people that pay him) to decide how much money he 'deserves', though. but from the sound of it, i guess that means we more or less agree on that point.
And marketing skills aside, are the reactions of the "consumers of his brand" all that different from the reactions of Obama supporters whenever anyone criticizes Obama?
First, I am not an Obama supporter, technically. He's just dis guy, you know? It's just that he is the least objectionable person to be a party nominee since I've been around. Many of us "liberal intellectual elitists" were excited to discover a quasi-progressive who actually had charisma and PR skills and with no skeletons in his closet whatsoever. I knew he would drive the mudslingers crazy. Bush is responsible for a lot of republican brain drain, but Obama really finished it because since he won the party's been taken over by howlers who flail to come up with ANYTHING they can use against him, to the point that they cheer a city not getting the olympics just because he wanted it to.
Second, plenty of those who are self-identified Obama supporters criticize the hell out of him. Another desperate attempt at an attack is the "worship" meme, but it just is not true. That meme confuses (or intentionally conflates) enthusiasm over his skills, and anecdotal evidence of the usual sycophants you get with any politician, into a messiah complex. It's just that most of the opposition attacks are incredibly stupid, and it's hard not to respond to them.
For example, the stupid:
Rush Limbaugh: "You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white."
It makes me feel dirty just to copy that, but let's analyze this. First, the incident was not racially motivated. Initial reports suggested it might be, but the quote about saying the white kid deserved it was pure race-baiting speculation. Second, what does Obama have to do with a school bus fight? Apparently he suggests that the election of a black president has turned America into a place where blacks are emboldened into random violence. Is there any other way to interpret it that isn't incredibly racist?
For example, the valid:
Criticize Obama for appointing financial industry insiders to handle the financial crisis their former employers created.
That is a very dangerous situation, and hundreds of billions of tax dollars are being given to some of the most corrupt people in the world. Amidst the asinine/paranoid/racist/insane ramblings of the teabaggers is this kernel of truth, but teh stoopid gets the attention. It would be great if this got more publicity, and people could come together to oppose it regardless of political affiliation, but stupid is easier to respond to, gets more ratings, and conveniently distracts the populace to a massive redistribution of cash to corporations the media conglomerates are invested in.
If you bring this up, most Obama supporters will agree that he is wrong.
The thing is, there are many things that could be resolved without a network of Limbaughs with distracting partisan red meat. They create controversies of subjects that would not be controversial if there wasn't somebody trying to make political points with them. That is what he is about, plus giving some simpletons convenient scapegoats for their lack of power.
I came in expecting to talk about an awesome band.
Otherwise, no opinion. I've heard nothing but bad things about the guy, but I myself have never listened to his show, so yeah.
Yeah, I just started getting into them too :S
And marketing skills aside, are the reactions of the "consumers of his brand" all that different from the reactions of Obama supporters whenever anyone criticizes Obama?
First, I am not an Obama supporter, technically. He's just dis guy, you know? It's just that he is the least objectionable person to be a party nominee since I've been around. Many of us "liberal intellectual elitists" were excited to discover a quasi-progressive who actually had charisma and PR skills and with no skeletons in his closet whatsoever. I knew he would drive the mudslingers crazy. Bush is responsible for a lot of republican brain drain, but Obama really finished it because since he won the party's been taken over by howlers who flail to come up with ANYTHING they can use against him, to the point that they cheer a city not getting the olympics just because he wanted it to.
Second, plenty of those who are self-identified Obama supporters criticize the hell out of him. Another desperate attempt at an attack is the "worship" meme, but it just is not true. That meme confuses (or intentionally conflates) enthusiasm over his skills, and anecdotal evidence of the usual sycophants you get with any politician, into a messiah complex. It's just that most of the opposition attacks are incredibly stupid, and it's hard not to respond to them.
For example, the stupid:
Rush Limbaugh: "You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white."
It makes me feel dirty just to copy that, but let's analyze this. First, the incident was not racially motivated. Initial reports suggested it might be, but the quote about saying the white kid deserved it was pure race-baiting speculation. Second, what does Obama have to do with a school bus fight? Apparently he suggests that the election of a black president has turned America into a place where blacks are emboldened into random violence. Is there any other way to interpret it that isn't incredibly racist?
For example, the valid:
Criticize Obama for appointing financial industry insiders to handle the financial crisis their former employers created.
That is a very dangerous situation, and hundreds of billions of tax dollars are being given to some of the most corrupt people in the world. Amidst the asinine/paranoid/racist/insane ramblings of the teabaggers is this kernel of truth, but teh stoopid gets the attention. It would be great if this got more publicity, and people could come together to oppose it regardless of political affiliation, but stupid is easier to respond to, gets more ratings, and conveniently distracts the populace to a massive redistribution of cash to corporations the media conglomerates are invested in.
If you bring this up, most Obama supporters will agree that he is wrong.
The thing is, there are many things that could be resolved without a network of Limbaughs with distracting partisan red meat. They create controversies of subjects that would not be controversial if there wasn't somebody trying to make political points with them. That is what he is about, plus giving some simpletons convenient scapegoats for their lack of power.
You've raised several valid points and I completely agree with you, Vec. Although I am usually what could be called an 'Obama supporter' in the sense that I support many of the policies Obama stands for, I am not afraid to constructively criticise him. For example, I don't agree with the stimulus package that Obama signed into law earlier this year, as it unnecessarily increased the already astronomical size of the US deficit. But I agree with Obama's plans for universal health care. The current Obama administration has both its pros and its cons. No presidency has ever been perfect and none ever will be. I comprehend this. Nevertheless, Obama is one of the US Presidents I've facepalmed at the least so far. Hopefully, he'll earn his Nobel Peace Prize in the years of his presidency still to come.
I don't know anything about this guy other than everybody hates him for some unknown reason
All Good points Vec. I think the AP ran an article last weekend where they got back a FOIA request for Geithner's schedule and it shows he talks to the CEOs of three banks (I know two are Bank of America and Citigroup, but I forget the third) more than anyone else, including the president. That was face-tuggingly frustrating.
Also, if you want another instance of Obama supporters criticizing the president, there was a march of several thousand people last weekend protesting Obama failing to deliver on his gay rights promises. Of course, CNN didn't send a reporter and Fox News only covered it for 4 minutes using courtesy footage from ABC news, so I'm not surprised if you weren't aware of it.
I don't like Rush Limbaugh... I'll leave it at that. X3
For example, the stupid:
Rush Limbaugh: "You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white."
It makes me feel dirty just to copy that, but let's analyze this. First, the incident was not racially motivated. Initial reports suggested it might be, but the quote about saying the white kid deserved it was pure race-baiting speculation. Second, what does Obama have to do with a school bus fight? Apparently he suggests that the election of a black president has turned America into a place where blacks are emboldened into random violence. Is there any other way to interpret it that isn't incredibly racist?
Why am I not surprised that this was quoted out of context?
Here's the link to the whole transcript, from September 15th of this year. Here's the paragraph you partially quoted in full.
RUSH: Hey, look, folks, the white kid on that bus in Belleville, Illinois, he deserved to be beat up. You don't know about this story? Oh, there's video of this. The school bus filled with mostly black students beat up a white student a couple of times with all the black students cheering. Of course the white student on the bus deserved the beating. He was born a racist. That's what Newsweek magazine told us in its most recent cover. It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.
And that's just the first paragraph from a rather long transcript.
That was ALL in response to Newsweek and its stupid cover story of that point in time asking "Is Your Baby Racist?" Seriously, read the whole transcript, he cites endless examples of the media stating that criticism of Obama MUST be racist in nature; so Rush ran with it and the Newsweek story, concluding that this white kid must be a racist, so he therefore deserved to get beat! Absurdity to demonstrate the absurd.
As for the Rush Limbaugh/NFL bit, I find it hilarious that the media cited WIKIPEDIA for the 'James Earl Ray deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor' and 'slavery built the South' quotes, which were completely made up. Rush has transcripts and his entire show backlogged on his servers. All they have to do is cite when the show occurred where it was uttered, and it can be pulled up. But they can't, because those two comments were made up!
It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,"
You addressed where he got the "born racist" business, true. Then he got that point from somewhere, even if saying "everybody" is persecution complex hyperbole (I seriously doubt you could find many who would agree with the sensationalist headline, and that's why Time magazine used it). But what about the MAIN point, that there is no non-racist way to interpret that and it has nothing to do with Obama other than race?
Searching for quotes I discovered that some were made up, so I deliberately stuck with one I could be reasonably certain of.
Also, if you want another instance of Obama supporters criticizing the president, there was a march of several thousand people last weekend protesting Obama failing to deliver on his gay rights promises. Of course, CNN didn't send a reporter and Fox News only covered it for 4 minutes using courtesy footage from ABC news, so I'm not surprised if you weren't aware of it.
I'd heard of that, plus war protests, but wanted to keep the number of examples small to save time, which is also why my initial comment was spammish as DB mentioned. I've got tons of links to various articles about related subjects but have not posted much of it due to time and not wanting a mountain of aforementioned red meat. But legitimate complaints are nothing like red meat that is manufactured controversy, so I may post some of it. I guarantee no posts about who's got which pin, or used what common phrase that somebody found a way to be offended by.
I'll probably edit this post later unless someone comes by and replies. But I just wanted to say how curious it is that the government fact checked an SNL skit but weren't brave enough to fact check these quotes. Wikipedia is the most unreliable source out there since anyone can write in it. Despite that fact many students use it because our teachers don't know any better! 
EDIT: Anyway I just came back from some quick research before I made a big reply again.
@ Vec:
"First, I am not an Obama supporter, technically. He's just dis guy, you know? It's just that he is the least objectionable person to be a party nominee since I've been around. Many of us "liberal intellectual elitists" were excited to discover a quasi-progressive who actually had charisma and PR skills..."
Sounds like a supporter to me.
"...and with no skeletons in his closet whatsoever."
Other than his associations with a noted terrorist, a noted anti-semite, a noted racist, some real estate fraud, the lack of birth certificate, no experience beyond a couple hundred days in the senate where he mostly voted 'present', etc...
"I knew he would drive the mudslingers crazy."
I call it pointing out facts.
"Bush is responsible for a lot of republican brain drain, but Obama really finished it because since he won the party's been taken over by howlers who flail to come up with ANYTHING they can use against him..."
The Republican party is largely run by too many wishy-washy people with no spines, who swear that the path to victory is a candidate like McCain.
"...to the point that they cheer a city not getting the olympics just because he wanted it to."
Only about half of the city wanted the olympics. Furthermore, Obama and his wife made their speeches more about themselves rather than America or Chicago, so they deserved to lose. Personally I did enjoy him getting a good smack to his ego.
"Second, plenty of those who are self-identified Obama supporters criticize the hell out of him."
I'll grant you that the number of Obama voters with buyers' remorse is on the rise, but the major media networks are still flying cover for him rather than genuinely critiquing him.
"Another desperate attempt at an attack is the 'worship' meme, but it just is not true. That meme confuses (or intentionally conflates) enthusiasm over his skills, and anecdotal evidence of the usual sycophants you get with any politician, into a messiah complex. It's just that most of the opposition attacks are incredibly stupid, and it's hard not to respond to them."
There is an awful lot of anecdotal evidence to hint at this. Moreso than any other president I can remember--I don't recall there being any "Mmm, mmm, mmm, George Walker Bush" songs, or any people swearing that Clinton would pay for their gas, their rent, etc. Is the notion of a cult of Obama zombies overblown? Probably, but again, the problem here is more with the media than it is the actual people.
Furthermore, if you'd like to point out some examples (other than the one below, since Ultra covered it pretty well) of these 'incredibly stupid' opposition attacks, I'd be happy to tell you what I think of them.
"For example, the stupid:
Rush Limbaugh: "You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white."
It makes me feel dirty just to copy that, but let's analyze this. First, the incident was not racially motivated. Initial reports suggested it might be, but the quote about saying the white kid deserved it was pure race-baiting speculation. Second, what does Obama have to do with a school bus fight? Apparently he suggests that the election of a black president has turned America into a place where blacks are emboldened into random violence. Is there any other way to interpret it that isn't incredibly racist?"
See above response.
"For example, the valid:
Criticize Obama for appointing financial industry insiders to handle the financial crisis their former employers created.
That is a very dangerous situation, and hundreds of billions of tax dollars are being given to some of the most corrupt people in the world."
I'm sort of with you on this one, but I'm curious who you would appoint instead of insiders. The idea of using people who have no practical experience in the field (IE, those who've only studied it academically) doesn't sound like the smartest thing either. It's kind of a snafu either way, IMO. That said, the only way to get qualified people is to pay high rates. The best people rarely work for free.
"Amidst the asinine/paranoid/racist/insane ramblings of the teabaggers..."
How very open-minded, accepting, and tolerant of you. Any time a republican talks that way about a democrat, we are warned that the moderates and independents will immediately flee to the democrat party. Does this work both ways? Also, would you care to point out some of these so-called asinine, paranoid, racist, and insane ramblings?
"...is this kernel of truth, but teh stoopid gets the attention. It would be great if this got more publicity, and people could come together to oppose it regardless of political affiliation, but stupid is easier to respond to, gets more ratings, and conveniently distracts the populace to a massive redistribution of cash to corporations the media conglomerates are invested in."
I'm with you on the mainstream media going for the low-hanging fruit in order to get ratings. And if by that last line you mean that redistribution of wealth is a bad thing, then I'm with you there, too. I don't want General Electric getting my tax dollars just because MSNBC and other networks GE owns devote extra time to trying to convince us all that Cap and Trade is a good idea.
"If you bring this up, most Obama supporters will agree that he is wrong."
I wish I saw more of them do it on a bigger scale, but bravo.
"The thing is, there are many things that could be resolved without a network of Limbaughs with distracting partisan red meat."
There are many things that would get ramrodded through without any of us knowing about it, too.
"They create controversies of subjects that would not be controversial if there wasn't somebody trying to make political points with them. That is what he is about, plus giving some simpletons convenient scapegoats for their lack of power."
Reminds me of the mainstream media during the Bush years.
@ Rishi:
"For example, I don't agree with the stimulus package that Obama signed into law earlier this year, as it unnecessarily increased the already astronomical size of the US deficit. But I agree with Obama's plans for universal health care."
A healthcare plan that will also dramatically increase costs, according to both logic and the CBO, regardless of what the Obama administration and the media say.
"Hopefully, he'll earn his Nobel Peace Prize in the years of his presidency still to come."
Out of curiousity, what sorts of things would you like to see him do to earn that?
@ Srol:
"Also, if you want another instance of Obama supporters criticizing the president, there was a march of several thousand people last weekend protesting Obama failing to deliver on his gay rights promises. Of course, CNN didn't send a reporter and Fox News only covered it for 4 minutes using courtesy footage from ABC news, so I'm not surprised if you weren't aware of it."
It may only be tangentially relevant, but there was a march of ~2 million tea party protesters on the DC mall just a few weeks ago, and it was pushed under the rug by the media as quickly and as much as possible. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
@ Ultra:
"As for the Rush Limbaugh/NFL bit, I find it hilarious that the media cited WIKIPEDIA for the 'James Earl Ray deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor' and 'slavery built the South' quotes, which were completely made up. Rush has transcripts and his entire show backlogged on his servers. All they have to do is cite when the show occurred where it was uttered, and it can be pulled up. But they can't, because those two comments were made up!"
Kudos for bringing this travesty of national journalism up. I could hardly believe it either when I heard that--also, the notion that he could've said that on-air, and we wouldn't know about it until just now, years later, is absurd. Remember that Don Imus dude? Yeeeeeaaaaa....
Oh my god. I can't believe you just said most of that. But it will take a while to collect sources.
<strong class="quote-title"
B Vulpix wrote:
Out of curiousity, what sorts of things would you like to see him do to earn that?
Find a cure for cancer and provide free energy for everyone. 
Nah, seriously though, I honestly don't know right now. I'll wait and see.
This is why I'm glad to be a libertarian! No one cares about my political views! 
This is why I'm glad to be a libertarian! No one cares about my political views!
Pshaw, oh, but you have Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and John Stossel (all Libertarians) who care about your views cuz the "share"* them! 
*Note, because of the wide variety of views within the Libertarian sphere , I fully recognize that these men may not share any of your views, especially Beck and Boortz.
This is why I'm glad to be a libertarian! No one cares about my political views!
Pshaw, oh, but you have Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and John Stossel (all Libertarians) who care about your views cuz the "share"* them!
*Note, because of the wide variety of views within the Libertarian sphere , I fully recognize that these men may not share any of your views, especially Beck and Boortz.
Seriously, Glen Beck of all people?!
I always thought he was a republican for some reason.......
I'm not too knowledgeable in political matters so I try to stay out of large arguments like that, but from what I've read, I come across as a libertarian given I support lessening government as much as humanly possible and supporting human rights. But I suppose you could say I lean more towards the anarchist side of Libertarianism, which I'm sure those dudes don't quite support.
Eh, not too surprised you thought Beck was a Republican afterall he is very conservative and is even more loud than Rush. Anyway, that's why I put the note in the post cuz I've seen people that call themselves a libertarian and they lean more towards liberalism, and then I've seen some that leaned more conservative.
What do I think of Rush Limbaugh?
Personally, I hope he dies on the air. I hope he has a heart attack during his show and nobody goes in to save him and I hope he takes his last gasp loud enough for everyone listening on the radio to hear.
I don't wish death on people often, but Rush Limbaugh is a racist hypocrite druggie ignorant self-selling oxygen thief.
I'm also hoping that Glenn Beck finally comes out and puts to rest these terrible rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Now, I'm not saying that he DID it, because that would be silly. But the fact that he hasn't come out and denied it speaks volumes, I feel. I dunno, I'm just asking questions here, but Glenn Beck needs to just come forward and give proof that he DIDN'T rape and murder a girl in 1990. If he could just provide his whereabouts for all of 1990, this would all be put to bed. But hey, I'm not accusing him of raping and murdering a girl in 1990, but people are asking questions, and that's their right: to ask questions. I'm not saying he DID it, but he really should just come out and say that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990.
I'm also hoping that Glenn Beck finally comes out and puts to rest these terrible rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Now, I'm not saying that he DID it, because that would be silly. But the fact that he hasn't come out and denied it speaks volumes, I feel. I dunno, I'm just asking questions here, but Glenn Beck needs to just come forward and give proof that he DIDN'T rape and murder a girl in 1990. If he could just provide his whereabouts for all of 1990, this would all be put to bed. But hey, I'm not accusing him of raping and murdering a girl in 1990, but people are asking questions, and that's their right: to ask questions. I'm not saying he DID it, but he really should just come out and say that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990.
Hmm, I haven't heard about this, but I agree with you about putting it to bed. Hey, perhaps the President can release his birth certificate, to shut up the idiot birthers and put that to bed, on the same day as Beck.
@ Castor Troy
What do I think of Rush Limbaugh?
Personally, I hope he dies on the air. I hope he has a heart attack during his show and nobody goes in to save him and I hope he takes his last gasp loud enough for everyone listening on the radio to hear.
I don't wish death on people often....
And I thought it was supposed to be us conservatives who were full of seething hate and intolerance.
"...but Rush Limbaugh is a racist..."
Prove it ...
"...hypocrite..."
Examples?
"...druggie..."
He got over that years ago. Obama admitted in his own book to using drugs, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html
"...ignorant..."
Based on what? The amount of research that goes on in his organization requires an entire staff to handle.
"...self-selling..."
And Obama isn't? What's so wrong with making money based on your talents?
"...oxygen thief."
If that's your opinion, fine.
"I'm also hoping that Glenn Beck finally comes out and puts to rest these terrible rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Now, I'm not saying that he DID it, because that would be silly. But the fact that he hasn't come out and denied it speaks volumes, I feel. I dunno, I'm just asking questions here, but Glenn Beck needs to just come forward and give proof
that he DIDN'T rape and murder a girl in 1990. If he could just provide his whereabouts for all of 1990, this would all be put to bed. But hey, I'm not accusing him of raping and murdering a girl in 1990, but people are asking questions, and that's their right: to ask questions. I'm not saying he DID it, but he really should just come out and say that he did not rape and murder a
girl in 1990."I'm guessing this accusation is intended to point out some flaw in the logic of the Birthers, and while it is clever, the chief difference between something utterly baseless like that, and the issue of Obama's citizenship, is that the birther movement--which I'm not heavily invested in but I don't discount offhand because of my own ego--has some semblance of a basis for its claims.
This does a fair job of summing it up:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born/
@ Full Metal Rayzor
"Hmm, I haven't heard about this, but I agree with you about putting it to bed. Hey, perhaps the President can release his birth certificate, to shut up the idiot birthers and put that to bed, on the same day as Beck."
So people who ask legitimate questions are idiots? Oy... people.
I'm also hoping that Glenn Beck finally comes out and puts to rest these terrible rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Now, I'm not saying that he DID it, because that would be silly. But the fact that he hasn't come out and denied it speaks volumes, I feel. I dunno, I'm just asking questions here, but Glenn Beck needs to just come forward and give proof that he DIDN'T rape and murder a girl in 1990. If he could just provide his whereabouts for all of 1990, this would all be put to bed. But hey, I'm not accusing him of raping and murdering a girl in 1990, but people are asking questions, and that's their right: to ask questions. I'm not saying he DID it, but he really should just come out and say that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990.
Hmm, I haven't heard about this, but I agree with you about putting it to bed. Hey, perhaps the President can release his birth certificate, to shut up the idiot birthers and put that to bed, on the same day as Beck.
Eva: Has anyone ever told you that you're a bit slow?
Eh, that's my opinion of Limbaugh, I don't agree with the guy, but that can be said for most mainstream news anchors (I'm not sure if that's the right word.) Like most news anchors, I don't listen to him, mainly because he's rude and obnoxious. I don't have any seething hatred for him, I just don't feel the need to listen to him rant for an hour about the same subject, it's the reason I don't watch news channels.
<strong class="quote-title"
@ Full Metal Rayzor
"Hmm, I haven't heard about this, but I agree with you about putting it to bed. Hey, perhaps the President can release his birth certificate, to shut up the idiot birthers and put that to bed, on the same day as Beck."
So people who ask legitimate questions are idiots? Oy... people.
No, but people who keep on trying to push something when there is absolutely no evidence that they could even have a chance of being right about it are idiots. There is absolutely nothing to show that Obama was born in another country when even the newspapers in the area had anouncements of his birth in their pages. While I'm no supporter of Obama, the burden of proof in this instance is with the Birthers and not the President; if they have evidence that he wasn't born in America then by all means he needs to be removed from office but until it comes out they're being idiots.
Eva: Has anyone ever told you that you're a bit slow?
Hmm, I guess I am as I have no idea what you're talking about nor do I get what the reference of Eva is from!
Eva from Wall-E?
EDIT: Yeah so...uh. Anyway.
Full Metal Rayzor. I don't understand what you're saying.
So, the birthers are idiots, unless they're right, in which case you stand with them. Yet for them to so much as put forth the idea or even try to look into it, to, you know, find out if they're right, makes them idiots. There is no utter lack of evidence as you describe; I linked some in my previous post. In addition to that, the Kenyan ambassador even hinted at this, provided it wasn't a misunderstanding of semantics
As I mentioned in the last post, I'm not heavily invested in the idea. I'm not saying the birthers are absolutely and undoubtedly right. I'm just saying that I don't dismiss them offhand, because they have something (right or wrong) to try and support their case. And what they have is worth debating. Calling them idiots only makes you look intolerant.
<strong class="quote-title"
Eva from Wall-E?
EDIT: Yeah so...uh. Anyway.
Full Metal Rayzor. I don't understand what you're saying.
So, the birthers are idiots, unless they're right, in which case you stand with them. Yet for them to so much as put forth the idea or even try to look into it, to, you know, find out if they're right, makes them idiots. There is no utter lack of evidence as you describe; I linked some in my previous post. In addition to that, the Kenyan ambassador even hinted at this, provided it wasn't a misunderstanding of semantics
As I mentioned in the last post, I'm not heavily invested in the idea. I'm not saying the birthers are absolutely and undoubtedly right. I'm just saying that I don't dismiss them offhand, because they have something (right or wrong) to try and support their case. And what they have is worth debating. Calling them idiots only makes you look intolerant.
That, and the Glenn Beck ';example' is completely missing the point, given that we are talking about the President of the United States of America. You want to make sure the people vying for the Office are Constitutionally qualified. Comparing it to a rumor about a TV/radio talk show host is sort of aiming a little low.
*glances at CastorTroy* In any case, what IS it about Rush Limbaugh that drives people absolutely batty?
I'm still not part of this thread, due to it's lack of Canadian rock bands... and until Geddy, Neil and Alex appear I simply do not give a crap (especially as I'm only vaguely aware there's a guy on the radio with a ridiculous first name)... but I cannot help but notice some of the rebuttals in this endless quoting war seem to be "but Obama" or "Obama..." blah blah blah.
I could quote a line of text and say "This may be true, but Chuck Norris kicks eagles in the stomach so hard they explode, so I don't see how you can say it and expect it to hold water" --- my point here is. Unless the title is "What do you think of Rush Limbaugh in comparison to Obama?" please stop plaguing an otherwise intriguing debate thread with needless comparrisons.
Just because a person dislikes Rush doesn't mean they automatically like Obama.
Given I barely acknowledge either one's existance, I say this as an impartial source. Stop being petty. Debate properly. You owe it to me for making me think this thread was about the best Canadian rock band on the planet (and tied third best selling (in terms of albums) band on the planet after Beatles and Rolling Stones).
PS: Rush are amazing. The band that is.
You owe it to me for making me think this thread was about the best Canadian rock band on the planet (and tied third best selling (in terms of albums) band on the planet after Beatles and Rolling Stones).
PS: Rush are amazing. The band that is.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY! THE MORE THE MERRIER!
...er, wait. You know what they say about assumption. Yeah, that's what I meant.
>_>
Uh yeah...Sorry Craig? Even though I'm the one who made this thread in the first place and you don't even care about what we're talking about.
Well anyway I guess we are getting off topic dangerously. So more about Rush and less about Obama please.
<strong class="quote-title"
Even though I'm the one who made this thread in the first place and you don't even care about what we're talking about.
I don't blame the guy for not caring about Rush. He's the least interesting man on Earth - even wet farts are more interesting than him. And that's my final comment on this thread. Good night and God bless!
If he's the least interesting man on Earth then why is everyone trying to destroy him? Is he so un interesting that he just....inverts into this...spectacular everlasting hatred magnet?
[quote:83ec5cdb01="
EDIT: Yeah so...uh. Anyway.
Full Metal Rayzor. I don't understand what you're saying.
So, the birthers are idiots, unless they're right, in which case you stand with them. Yet for them to so much as put forth the idea or even try to look into it, to, you know, find out if they're right, makes them idiots. There is no utter lack of evidence as you describe; I linked some in my previous post. In addition to that, the Kenyan ambassador even hinted at this, provided it wasn't a misunderstanding of semantics
As I mentioned in the last post, I'm not heavily invested in the idea. I'm not saying the birthers are absolutely and undoubtedly right. I'm just saying that I don't dismiss them offhand, because they have something (right or wrong) to try and support their case. And what they have is worth debating. Calling them idiots only makes you look intolerant.
*glances at CastorTroy* In any case, what IS it about Rush Limbaugh that drives people absolutely batty?
He manufactures outrage in people just so he can sell merch. He wishes failure upon America (and yes, the success of America is directly tied to the success of its president. Just look at what the previous administration's failures did to America both domestically and internationally (yes, I am talking about G.W. Bush here)) merely because he doesn't like the legitmately elected President's political party. This odious fat pile of douche, who once equated dissent with treason, is now rooting for American failure. He takes people who have real concerns about the things going haywire in their lives and whips them into a fury over a percieved unrelated boogeyman just so he can keep earning lots of money off their backs. He attacks, misleads, lies and yells so much that it's hard to discern what he really believes and what he SAYS he believes.
He's a filthy race-baiting bigot (his comments on Donovan McNabb right before ESPN fired him). He trashes the sick because they disagree with him (like his repulsive 'jiggle dance' imitation of Parkinson's sufferer Michael J. Fox). He railed against medical marijuana even while he popped Oxycontin like they were Skittles, and was caught carrying Viagra without a legal prescription in from the Dominican Republic (a massive center of the sex trade). This makes him a bigot, a douchebag and a hypocrite.
In fact, at this point I'm convinced that he was EXPECTING to lose the bid to partly-own the Rams just because he knew losing it would give him something to rail about on his show and stay in the news (which he did when he went on his 'my trials mirror the trials of AMERICA' rant).
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the real-life realizations of the movie 'Network'. They're entertainment figures who have fooled people into thinking that they can lead movements, just like the deluded Howard Beale. They say whatever makes the public wallet cough up more money to them, gleefully playing on the real fears of people who were bankrupted by the Republican party over the last ten years (starting with the deregulation bill authored by Phil "America is a nation of whiners (said 6/2008)" Gramm that got us into this mess in the first place) and turning them into a screaming mass of incoherent rage for their benefit.
So yes, I hate Rush Limbaugh. I hate his greed, I hate his rhetoric and I hate his desire to see America sink into the abyss just so he can bankroll more drug and sex-fueled trips to the Dominican Republic.
And YES, Birthers are butthurt racist idiots who just can't seem to fathom that "one o' them DARK PEOPLE" is president. They are completely 100% racist to continue to make such suggestions at this point. There is a birth certificate. It's been there the entire time. A 'CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH' IS A 'BIRTH CERTIFICATE'. End of story. The only way you could still argue against Obama's citizenship status is if you're both an incredible racist AND impossibly deluded.
PS: No, I'm not going to link you to a damn thing. Just plug the key words into Google. Do your own damn footwork if you want to defend the retched hatebeast. Besides, not like anything I cite would just be meant with keening wails of "But the CONTEXT HERP-A-DERP!"
I don't really care too much since I don't know too much about Limbaugh, but I will say what I think from the things I know.
I think he's a stubborn arse mainly, purely for his piss taking of Michael J Fox's shaking brought on by the medication for his Parkinsons disease, claiming that he was exaggerating them and so on, followed by the standing by his opinions even after medical experts explained the situation, he continued to refuse to apologize.
Having seen the extreme affects of Parkinsons disease on my own grandfather up until his death 9 years ago that strikes a hefty cord with me.
However I chose to just avoid paying attention to him from that point on, only coming across a few things every now and then which I just shrug off and don't care, which means also that if he has apologized I wouldn't know, but would appreciate it.
Given I barely acknowledge either one's existance, I say this as an impartial source. Stop being petty. Debate properly. You owe it to me for making me think this thread was about the best Canadian rock band on the planet (and tied third best selling (in terms of albums) band on the planet after Beatles and Rolling Stones).
PS: Rush are amazing. The band that is.
Kinda off-topic here, but since I figure you're the Rush-guru, what albums past the classic ones should I look into? 2112 - Moving Pictures is what I have so far, but I hear their other stuff isn't as proggy
Shame it took them a while to grow in me though XD
Also, Rush can be the greatest canadian rock band, but who would be the greatest canadian metal band? I must find out! :O
For the record Castor, when Michael J. Fox appeared in both the Katie Couric interview and an ad for a Democratic candidate, he mischaracterized Republicans as 'opposing medicine' and how Republicans want people to die due to lack of proper medicine simply because they opposed embryonic stem cell research (which only made it more ironic because the bill being talked about in Missouri was about human cloning and NOT stem cells, which is a whole different can of fish). Here's Rush (the link also includes the video bit you mention):
This Michael J. Fox business they continue to get wrong even though all they have to do is go to my website back then or listen to me talk about it on the radio. We spent two hours talking about it on the first day. What they've got is that video, that Dittocam video, and I had seen that commercial that Michael J. Fox ran, which was for Claire McCaskill at that time. I had never seen him this way. He was suffering the symptoms of the disease, Parkinson's disease. I was demonstrating to people what I had seen. I had never seen him this way anywhere, not in any movie, not in any television show, not in any personal appearance. I'd never seen him that way. We radio broadcasters emulate. We're mimics and so forth, and I'm showing people what I had seen. That video, two or three seconds, got looped to 12 or 15 seconds. They admitted this at MSNBC. They sped it up and they then said I was "making fun of him," which wasn't the case at all. Here was a guy who had been thrust into the political process, and he was running a commercial for Democrat candidates accusing Republican candidates of not caring about people who have incurable diseases. He was saying that Republicans wanted to criminalize people who were working on cures via embryonic stem cells. I don't care who you are and I don't care what your malady, when you enter the political arena and you start -- I'm a Republican -- and you start lying about Republicans and my party, I am going to defend. If you are lying and not telling the truth, I'm going to point that out.
Now, the Democrats use people like this. They used Christopher Reeve and his family; they used Michael J. Fox, because they think they're above criticism. They've got these diseases that we all feel sorry about and we all think, you know, there but for the grace of God go all of us. The Democrats use that as a way of insulating them from any criticism. Therefore they can go on television and read the script that's written for them and lie, mischaracterizing, without criticism. Remember, liberals don't want debate. There is no alternative point of view. Now, all of this, I said. I said, you're going to go on television in a commercial -- and, by the way, the television commercial is videotaped. So they wanted it to appear that way. Whoever put this together, these producers, these directors, they wanted the Michael J. Fox commercials to look the way they did, for a purpose. I just didn't play along with the game of considering all that hands off and untouchable.
You go in the political arena, and you are going to be subject to analysis and criticism. That's what they can't believe that I did. "Why, that's heartless and cold and cruel." They were saying, "Doesn't he have hope?" He can exercise his hope all day. We all have hope. I'd love to get my hearing back. We all have hope. But you don't get to lie in the political arena and not have yourself called on it. That's my only point. So this whole thing was I was "making fun of him," which I wasn't. Michael J. Fox himself in his book [ video | excerpt ] admitted that he manipulated his meds before Senate committee hearings so as to demonstrate these symptoms, to make a connection and an impression on the senators, which I said I can understand. You're trying to get attention. You're trying to draw attention to the disease. You think you need federal funding and assistance for research into a cure. I can understand that. Well, then, if the man admits to having done this, it's not outside the realm of possibility that such things could have happened for the TV commercial, which is what I speculated on -- and when he said later on, "I overmedicated when I did the commercial," I apologized. He said he overmedicated. In other words, he used more medication than he normally does. For whatever reason, I don't know.
So that's his side. Make of it what you will, but at least you now have context herp-a-derp.
He's a filthy race-baiting bigot (his comments on Donovan McNabb right before ESPN fired him).
That comment was about the media and their treatment of certain players. He had an opinion about the play of an NFL quarterback and thought the media was treating him differently and voiced that thought. Even Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson agreed with him at the time. So don't even try.
He wishes failure upon America (and yes, the success of America is directly tied to the success of its president. Just look at what the previous administration's failures did to America both domestically and internationally (yes, I am talking about G.W. Bush here)) merely because he doesn't like the legitmately elected President's political party.
Bullcrap.
What does it mean for America to succeed? To have a stronger economy, true. To have a government that's geared towards letting the individual work, to letting free markets work. Obama's words and stated goals involve such a centralization of government control over the states and the citizenry that society as we know it would no longer be the same. THAT would be the end of America as we know it, and America would no longer be the success it has been. Obama succeeding in his policy objectives means the America as we know it is over. So no, I don't agree. The success of a President being the success of America depends on who is in office and what they're doing. And besides, I know people villify Bush for making the world 'hate us' (as if they hadn't before, what do you expect being the most powerful country in the world at a particular point in time?), but when I see dictators and tyrants cheering Obama on as he politically emasculates America, while our allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Japan, etc.) become uneasy and uncertain, it simply makes me chuckle to hear people say 'But at least the world doesn't hate us anymore!' (by the way, since was being a leader and trying to do the right thing subject to popularity?).
He takes people who have real concerns about the things going haywire in their lives and whips them into a fury over a percieved unrelated boogeyman just so he can keep earning lots of money off their backs. He attacks, misleads, lies and yells so much that it's hard to discern what he really believes and what he SAYS he believes.
This just tells me you've hardly listened to his show for any considerable length of time. Understandable if you don't like him, but don't pretend you know what he's saying.
Besides, not like anything I cite would just be meant with keening wails of "But the CONTEXT HERP-A-DERP!"
Because all context does is prove you wrong. No wonder you deride it.
Given I barely acknowledge either one's existance, I say this as an impartial source. Stop being petty. Debate properly. You owe it to me for making me think this thread was about the best Canadian rock band on the planet (and tied third best selling (in terms of albums) band on the planet after Beatles and Rolling Stones).
PS: Rush are amazing. The band that is.
Kinda off-topic here, but since I figure you're the Rush-guru, what albums past the classic ones should I look into? 2112 - Moving Pictures is what I have so far, but I hear their other stuff isn't as proggy
Shame it took them a while to grow in me though XD
Also, Rush can be the greatest canadian rock band, but who would be the greatest canadian metal band? I must find out! :O
Well, my good sir. It is all dependant on what you look for from the band, wether it be the raw 3 man show you got from the early days, the complicated time signitures and decent compositions or Neil's lyrics. I'd hasten to say every Rush fan is different based on their favorite era of the band.
If you're looking for pure prog, then the following my pique your interest:
Caress of Steel: Predating 2112 by a year, this album is often seen as the weakest of Rush's work, but does feature their first concept songs, The Necromancer (loosely based off of Tolkein) and the epic "Fountain of Lamneth". The latter has six portions to the song which chronicle the stages of life for the average man, from birth, to the lessons they are taught growing up, to the rebellious teen taking the steering wheel of their life for the first time, to falling in love and losing sight of dreams, to falling into a major rut and remembering the things you once aimed for, to shooting your entire spirit to achieve the dream--- and then the moral that life goes on, and the dreams we hold are nothing more than carrots on a stick and to achieve those goals does not make life complete at all. Possibly a reference to Neil's feelings about joining the band.
A Farewell to Kings: The album released after 2112. It features a 8 minute epic called "Xanadu" with the band painting a picture of paradise with their lyrics and closes with "Cygnus X-1: Part 1", a voyage into the deep dark recesses of a black hole, into the heart of danger. Other songs include the ever classic "Closer to the Heart", a radio friendly tune which got a lot of airplay back in the day and the title track which warns us to be wary of how the future will percieve us. All in all an amazing album with a slightly Ye Olde English tint to it. I'd listen to Xanadu before deciding wether to buy the whole album.
Hemispheres: The title track (full title "Cygnus X-1 Part II: Hemisphere) is a 22 minute epic based on Greek mythology, loosely continuing the story from the previous album. The theme is the two "hemispheres" of the brain battling between emotional responces and rational responces. In my opinion it is the best of the three 20+ minute Rush songs. If that's not enough to wet your appetite, the B-Side of the album includes a live show favorite The Trees and 9 minute instrumental masterpiece "La Villa Strangiato". Listen to La Villa. Infact, anyone reading this right now. Listen to La Villa. You wont regret it.
Permanent Waves: Before Moving Pictures, this is the last of the prog albums, with Natural Science being the last truly great "concept" song. I once gave a review of the entire album in a perfect album thread and in terms of quality, I am adamant that this is the best album Rush have made. Not my favorite, mind. But the best overal.
---
Now, outside of the progressive ones, let me give capsule reviews on the albums after Moving Pictures (PS: I know I ignored RUSH and Fly By Night. They're early albums, they're not ones to sell the band on, only stuff to listen to when you already care)
Signals: Kind of a disappointment after Moving Pictures, but there are good tracks. Subdivisions is a live staple. Listen to it for an idea of the rest of the album.
Grace Under Pressure: Too tied down by the cold war era in my opinion, but some amazing tracks. The B-Side is more or less wasted run time, but the first four tracks and the last are pretty magnificient. Distant Early Warning and Red Sector A are both live staples now, so judge from those.
Power Windows: My second favorite album, if it says anything. There are no bad tracks and the majority get played quite a bit live. If prog is what you care for, Marathon and Mystic Rhythms will be up your alley.
Hold Your Fire: This is when the synth keyboard starts invading heavily. If that's good with you, you'll like this album. If you enjoy the song Mission, you'll enjoy the album. Has some dud tracks (specifically on the B-Side) but it's really high quality.
Presto: Alex's guitar playing has seen better albums. Let's say that. Give Show Don't Tell and the title track a listen. If you think the tinny guitar is tolerable, go for it. Otherwise avoid. If it says anything, during the past two tours which played at least one song from every album, no Presto song was played. Though The Pass showed up in the 2002 Vapor Trails tour, so it's not entirely forgotten.
Roll The Bones: My first album, and therefore my favorite. Has a theme of destiny throughout the entire thing, and features silly gimmicky rap section. But the entire album only has about three weak songs out of 10 and I'd consider Dreamline to be the definitive concert opening song.
Counterparts: This is a return to the more raw Rush fans from the early days enjoyed. So it's very hit or miss with the newer fans. Tricia adores the album, I'm impartial. Listen to Animate, the first track, to see what you think.
Test For Echo: Never was a fan of this one, the songs just don't seem either good or bad. Nothing memorable at all, though an acoustic version of the song Resist has become a concert staple now.
Vapor Trails: The sound quality on the album release is abysmall. Atlantic Records have a remastered version in the vault ready to send to us (they featured two tracks from it in a recent compillation CD) but the official album clips and is distorted. The songs, however, are pretty rock awesome. Very heavy and loud. I'd give Secret Touch a listen to judge the album.
Snakes & Arrows: The most recent Rush release, and it's quite a doozey with it's moral message. Since Vapor Trails, Neil has had a lot of stuff in the basement (with good cause) and his method of expression is his lyrics. Tricia would kill me for not mentioning all of the songs are E minor, so the usually erratic and inventive compossitions suffer through this, and the messages have an anti-right wing slant to them (though, much like Alan Moore and all over genius', Neil have fondness for liberals, either). My favorite song is Armor & Sword, but the best on the album is Far Cry. Give one or the other a listen to see what you're getting into.
---hope that helps!
PS: MFC is a general discussion forum, and encourages topics branching off, so long as it's topical and not spam. Do not accuse me of de-railing the thread or going off-topic. I know the rules, I've been here long enough.
For the record Castor, when Michael J. Fox appeared in both the Katie Couric interview and an ad for a Democratic candidate, he mischaracterized Republicans as 'opposing medicine' and how Republicans want people to die due to lack of proper medicine simply because they opposed embryonic stem cell research (which only made it more ironic because the bill being talked about in Missouri was about human cloning and NOT stem cells, which is a whole different can of fish). Here's Rush (the link also includes the video bit you mention):
This Michael J. Fox business they continue to get wrong even though all they have to do is go to my website back then or listen to me talk about it on the radio. We spent two hours talking about it on the first day. What they've got is that video, that Dittocam video, and I had seen that commercial that Michael J. Fox ran, which was for Claire McCaskill at that time. I had never seen him this way. He was suffering the symptoms of the disease, Parkinson's disease. I was demonstrating to people what I had seen. I had never seen him this way anywhere, not in any movie, not in any television show, not in any personal appearance. I'd never seen him that way. We radio broadcasters emulate. We're mimics and so forth, and I'm showing people what I had seen. That video, two or three seconds, got looped to 12 or 15 seconds. They admitted this at MSNBC. They sped it up and they then said I was "making fun of him," which wasn't the case at all. Here was a guy who had been thrust into the political process, and he was running a commercial for Democrat candidates accusing Republican candidates of not caring about people who have incurable diseases. He was saying that Republicans wanted to criminalize people who were working on cures via embryonic stem cells. I don't care who you are and I don't care what your malady, when you enter the political arena and you start -- I'm a Republican -- and you start lying about Republicans and my party, I am going to defend. If you are lying and not telling the truth, I'm going to point that out.
Now, the Democrats use people like this. They used Christopher Reeve and his family; they used Michael J. Fox, because they think they're above criticism. They've got these diseases that we all feel sorry about and we all think, you know, there but for the grace of God go all of us. The Democrats use that as a way of insulating them from any criticism. Therefore they can go on television and read the script that's written for them and lie, mischaracterizing, without criticism. Remember, liberals don't want debate. There is no alternative point of view. Now, all of this, I said. I said, you're going to go on television in a commercial -- and, by the way, the television commercial is videotaped. So they wanted it to appear that way. Whoever put this together, these producers, these directors, they wanted the Michael J. Fox commercials to look the way they did, for a purpose. I just didn't play along with the game of considering all that hands off and untouchable.
You go in the political arena, and you are going to be subject to analysis and criticism. That's what they can't believe that I did. "Why, that's heartless and cold and cruel." They were saying, "Doesn't he have hope?" He can exercise his hope all day. We all have hope. I'd love to get my hearing back. We all have hope. But you don't get to lie in the political arena and not have yourself called on it. That's my only point. So this whole thing was I was "making fun of him," which I wasn't. Michael J. Fox himself in his book [ video | excerpt ] admitted that he manipulated his meds before Senate committee hearings so as to demonstrate these symptoms, to make a connection and an impression on the senators, which I said I can understand. You're trying to get attention. You're trying to draw attention to the disease. You think you need federal funding and assistance for research into a cure. I can understand that. Well, then, if the man admits to having done this, it's not outside the realm of possibility that such things could have happened for the TV commercial, which is what I speculated on -- and when he said later on, "I overmedicated when I did the commercial," I apologized. He said he overmedicated. In other words, he used more medication than he normally does. For whatever reason, I don't know.So that's his side. Make of it what you will, but at least you now have context herp-a-derp.
Oh, So Rush made fun of a Parkinson's sufferer because he thought he was overplaying the symptoms of his disease. I guess it's okay, then. Hold on, I'm going to go find someone with muscular dystrophy and make fun of them, because you just said it was okay with context.
He's a filthy race-baiting bigot (his comments on Donovan McNabb right before ESPN fired him).
That comment was about the media and their treatment of certain players. He had an opinion about the play of an NFL quarterback and thought the media was treating him differently and voiced that thought. Even Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson agreed with him at the time. So don't even try.
The man's a dog-whistle spewing bigot. You need examples? I got examples.
"Obama's entire economic program is reparations"
"Half-rican America"
"Barack the Magic Negro" (written once in an LA Times article, said 27 times by Limbaugh the next day with one of them being sung in the tune of 'Puff the Magic Dragon')
"All (they) had to do is nominate an African-American and (they've) got Colin Powell!"
"Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate"
And there's more. Good God, there's lots more.
Just scads of race-baiting dog-whistling bigotry. He hasn't said the N-word yet, and he probably never will on air because he's a genius at self-preservation. But every single thing on there is just more whining about the poor put-upon discriminated against white man all at the hands of the evil liberal Other.
Then again, I'd feel defensive too if thirty of the senators in my party were pro-workplace rape.
He wishes failure upon America (and yes, the success of America is directly tied to the success of its president. Just look at what the previous administration's failures did to America both domestically and internationally (yes, I am talking about G.W. Bush here)) merely because he doesn't like the legitmately elected President's political party.
Bullcrap.
What does it mean for America to succeed? To have a stronger economy, true. To have a government that's geared towards letting the individual work, to letting free markets work. Obama's words and stated goals involve such a centralization of government control over the states and the citizenry that society as we know it would no longer be the same. THAT would be the end of America as we know it, and America would no longer be the success it has been. Obama succeeding in his policy objectives means the America as we know it is over. So no, I don't agree. The success of a President being the success of America depends on who is in office and what they're doing. And besides, I know people villify Bush for making the world 'hate us' (as if they hadn't before, what do you expect being the most powerful country in the world at a particular point in time?), but when I see dictators and tyrants cheering Obama on as he politically emasculates America, while our allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Japan, etc.) become uneasy and uncertain, it simply makes me chuckle to hear people say 'But at least the world doesn't hate us anymore!' (by the way, since was being a leader and trying to do the right thing subject to popularity?).
Oh GOD, save it for the Freepers.
The free market is NOT some miracle salve that cures all the nation's ills. In fact, an unregulated free market is the REASON we're in the economic mess we are in the first place. SOME THINGS DO NOT NEED TO BE FOR PROFIT.
"But oh, government never does anything right!" you say. Yes it does. All you have to do to see it is walk out to the nearest paved street. If the free market were in charge of road construction, you'd probably still not have a road there, or it'd still be rock and gravel. Wanna see another victim of state government and the free market? Go check out the World Trade Crater. Main reason it's still a crater is because of local government and business greed. ' about it." target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUePURI4WA">Penn and Teller had a great episode of 'Bull*' about it. You should check it out.
But NOOOOO, apparently universal health care is just government's way of injecting pure socialism into our veins! Because, I mean, insurance companies are pretty altruistic. Yep, super altruistic. They may SAY 'for profit', but they are definitely for 'the people' first.
The healthy young mother was shocked when the Golden Rule Insurance company denied her coverage due to the C-Section birth of her son. "I called Golden Rule and they said that if I would get sterilized, they would then be able to offer insurance to me."
Yep, they're like Mother Theresa, Ghandi and Jesus all rolled into one.
So yeah, I'm not seeing how Obama's success would destroy a country that has survived the failures of one president (and the republican Congress that precided him) which allowed its buildings to be destroyed, its banks to collapse and its standing in the free world drop.
He takes people who have real concerns about the things going haywire in their lives and whips them into a fury over a percieved unrelated boogeyman just so he can keep earning lots of money off their backs. He attacks, misleads, lies and yells so much that it's hard to discern what he really believes and what he SAYS he believes.
This just tells me you've hardly listened to his show for any considerable length of time. Understandable if you don't like him, but don't pretend you know what he's saying.
Fine then, tell me what his message is. If it's close to "White people are in DANGER", "Old people are in DANGER" or "the evil commies are putting you in DANGER", then I'm pretty sure that I know what he's saying: whatever makes you buy his next book.
Besides, not like anything I cite would just be meant with keening wails of "But the CONTEXT HERP-A-DERP!"
Because all context does is prove you wrong. No wonder you deride it.
Hahaha, save it for your next Freeper campout. I hear they make s'mores with dark chocolate because it proves that they're 'post-racial'.
Given I barely acknowledge either one's existance, I say this as an impartial source. Stop being petty. Debate properly. You owe it to me for making me think this thread was about the best Canadian rock band on the planet (and tied third best selling (in terms of albums) band on the planet after Beatles and Rolling Stones).
PS: Rush are amazing. The band that is.
Kinda off-topic here, but since I figure you're the Rush-guru, what albums past the classic ones should I look into? 2112 - Moving Pictures is what I have so far, but I hear their other stuff isn't as proggy
Shame it took them a while to grow in me though XD
Also, Rush can be the greatest canadian rock band, but who would be the greatest canadian metal band? I must find out! :O
Well, my good sir. It is all dependant on what you look for from the band, wether it be the raw 3 man show you got from the early days, the complicated time signitures and decent compositions or Neil's lyrics. I'd hasten to say every Rush fan is different based on their favorite era of the band.
If you're looking for pure prog, then the following my pique your interest:
Caress of Steel: Predating 2112 by a year, this album is often seen as the weakest of Rush's work, but does feature their first concept songs, The Necromancer (loosely based off of Tolkein) and the epic "Fountain of Lamneth". The latter has six portions to the song which chronicle the stages of life for the average man, from birth, to the lessons they are taught growing up, to the rebellious teen taking the steering wheel of their life for the first time, to falling in love and losing sight of dreams, to falling into a major rut and remembering the things you once aimed for, to shooting your entire spirit to achieve the dream--- and then the moral that life goes on, and the dreams we hold are nothing more than carrots on a stick and to achieve those goals does not make life complete at all. Possibly a reference to Neil's feelings about joining the band.
A Farewell to Kings: The album released after 2112. It features a 8 minute epic called "Xanadu" with the band painting a picture of paradise with their lyrics and closes with "Cygnus X-1: Part 1", a voyage into the deep dark recesses of a black hole, into the heart of danger. Other songs include the ever classic "Closer to the Heart", a radio friendly tune which got a lot of airplay back in the day and the title track which warns us to be wary of how the future will percieve us. All in all an amazing album with a slightly Ye Olde English tint to it. I'd listen to Xanadu before deciding wether to buy the whole album.
Hemispheres: The title track (full title "Cygnus X-1 Part II: Hemisphere) is a 22 minute epic based on Greek mythology, loosely continuing the story from the previous album. The theme is the two "hemispheres" of the brain battling between emotional responces and rational responces. In my opinion it is the best of the three 20+ minute Rush songs. If that's not enough to wet your appetite, the B-Side of the album includes a live show favorite The Trees and 9 minute instrumental masterpiece "La Villa Strangiato". Listen to La Villa. Infact, anyone reading this right now. Listen to La Villa. You wont regret it.
Permanent Waves: Before Moving Pictures, this is the last of the prog albums, with Natural Science being the last truly great "concept" song. I once gave a review of the entire album in a perfect album thread and in terms of quality, I am adamant that this is the best album Rush have made. Not my favorite, mind. But the best overal.
---
Now, outside of the progressive ones, let me give capsule reviews on the albums after Moving Pictures (PS: I know I ignored RUSH and Fly By Night. They're early albums, they're not ones to sell the band on, only stuff to listen to when you already care)
Signals: Kind of a disappointment after Moving Pictures, but there are good tracks. Subdivisions is a live staple. Listen to it for an idea of the rest of the album.
Grace Under Pressure: Too tied down by the cold war era in my opinion, but some amazing tracks. The B-Side is more or less wasted run time, but the first four tracks and the last are pretty magnificient. Distant Early Warning and Red Sector A are both live staples now, so judge from those.
Power Windows: My second favorite album, if it says anything. There are no bad tracks and the majority get played quite a bit live. If prog is what you care for, Marathon and Mystic Rhythms will be up your alley.
Hold Your Fire: This is when the synth keyboard starts invading heavily. If that's good with you, you'll like this album. If you enjoy the song Mission, you'll enjoy the album. Has some dud tracks (specifically on the B-Side) but it's really high quality.
Presto: Alex's guitar playing has seen better albums. Let's say that. Give Show Don't Tell and the title track a listen. If you think the tinny guitar is tolerable, go for it. Otherwise avoid. If it says anything, during the past two tours which played at least one song from every album, no Presto song was played. Though The Pass showed up in the 2002 Vapor Trails tour, so it's not entirely forgotten.
Roll The Bones: My first album, and therefore my favorite. Has a theme of destiny throughout the entire thing, and features silly gimmicky rap section. But the entire album only has about three weak songs out of 10 and I'd consider Dreamline to be the definitive concert opening song.
Counterparts: This is a return to the more raw Rush fans from the early days enjoyed. So it's very hit or miss with the newer fans. Tricia adores the album, I'm impartial. Listen to Animate, the first track, to see what you think.
Test For Echo: Never was a fan of this one, the songs just don't seem either good or bad. Nothing memorable at all, though an acoustic version of the song Resist has become a concert staple now.
Vapor Trails: The sound quality on the album release is abysmall. Atlantic Records have a remastered version in the vault ready to send to us (they featured two tracks from it in a recent compillation CD) but the official album clips and is distorted. The songs, however, are pretty rock awesome. Very heavy and loud. I'd give Secret Touch a listen to judge the album.
Snakes & Arrows: The most recent Rush release, and it's quite a doozey with it's moral message. Since Vapor Trails, Neil has had a lot of stuff in the basement (with good cause) and his method of expression is his lyrics. Tricia would kill me for not mentioning all of the songs are E minor, so the usually erratic and inventive compossitions suffer through this, and the messages have an anti-right wing slant to them (though, much like Alan Moore and all over genius', Neil have fondness for liberals, either). My favorite song is Armor & Sword, but the best on the album is Far Cry. Give one or the other a listen to see what you're getting into.
---hope that helps!
PS: MFC is a general discussion forum, and encourages topics branching off, so long as it's topical and not spam. Do not accuse me of de-railing the thread or going off-topic. I know the rules, I've been here long enough.
Nothing wrong with derailing the thread given the fact that a potential flame war is going to erupt very soon, might as well make the topic all that much happier! I consider myself a bit of a metal/prog rock person, so I really liked their classic proggy stuff but I'll be sure to try and check them out. Oh, when I said 2112 - Moving Pictures, I had the albums in between >.>
From what I gather, AFtK>PW to me. I just loved the two epics it had too much.
In that case, my suggestion would be to try out Power Windows. If you don't like that, then one of the two new albums. If they don't resonate with you, then you'll just be among the legions of fans who dropped the ball after Moving Pictures.
Will do in that case. They seem solid from what I've heard so far, so I doubt that would be the case. But that's not uncommon with bands that change musical style in their careers to alienate a bunch of fans. *Shrug*
I don't consider it an impending flame war! I call it healthy boisterous communication!
<strong class="quote-title"
I don't consider it an impending flame war! I call it healthy boisterous communication!
<strong class="quote-title"
I don't consider it an impending flame war! I call it healthy boisterous communication!
