Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Overcoming homosexuality

2009-02-07T10:48:34Z

Paulcspring: /* Criticism */

[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|right|thumb|250px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
'''Overcoming homosexuality''' is definitely possible for those who wish to abandon [[homosexuality]], and the testimonies of [[ex-homosexuals]] attest to this matter. Today people still report overcoming homosexuality and becoming heterosexuals or celibate through their [[Christianity|Christian]] faith. In 1980, a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref> The results of this study are not surprising since Christian faith has shown itself to be effective in combating drug addiction. For example, Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref>

Many people do not understand the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes of homosexuality]] so they mistakenly believe that overcoming homosexuality is not an available option. However, the the [[Apostle Paul]] offered great hope to those who wish to overcome homosexuality when he wrote the following:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}
==Testimony of an Ex-Homosexual Pastor Darryl L. Foster==
[[Image:Pastorfostergso1_op_444x600.jpg‎|right|thumb|200px|Pastor [[D.L. Foster]]]]
Pastor [[D. L. Foster]], an [[Ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]], states the following regarding overcoming homosexuality:
{{cquote|Former homosexuals joyfully point to one definitive Scripture that mentions them and the redemptive process they are embracing: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites ... will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" ([http://nasb.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/6.htm 1 Cor. 6:9-11]).

When I met and married my wife, Dee, almost 12 years ago, she and I both were clueless about what my post-homosexual life would be like. As painful as my past sin was to me, my wife was not the cause of my change; rather, she was the fruit of my change...

Our responsibility as Christians is to pour love out without measure on those who struggle to overcome homosexuality. Compassion was the hallmark of the Chief Shepherd, and as His disciples, we should be characterized by it too as we encourage them to embrace the freedom Christ offers.<ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref>}}

==Testimony of an Ex-Lesbian Jeanette Howard Regarding Overcoming Homosexuality==
Below is a portion of a testimonial from the ex-lesbian Jeanette Howard in regards to her overcoming homosexuality:
{{cquote|Growing up, I felt strangely alienated from other girls. But I couldn't identify with boys either. I didn't seem to belong anywhere. Who was I, anyway?

"Jeanette, stand in front of the mirror every morning and thank God that He's made you a woman." This challenge came from a teacher at the Bible school I attended as a young Christian. What a ridiculous task! I thought, but reluctantly agreed. The next morning I got up and struggled to look at myself in the mirror. Try as I would, I could not acknowledge myself as a female....

Then came a breakthrough during a retreat in February, 1989. "You have believed a lie", [[God]] told me, "but I'm going to change your name". From now on, He showed me, I was to be called "woman". This was God's intention for me from my conception.

In faith I received my new name. Almost immediately I felt a weight fall away from me. In amazement, I looked around at the other women. No longer did I feel distanced from them; we were united by a common bond in Jesus Christ.

That day, the wall I had erected as a child came tumbling down. I entered into my rightful role as a woman of Christ. I felt as though I belonged-at long last.

As I have entered into my identity as a woman, God is healing my views on men. Now I see them as having a major role in my life. We complement each other, and I realize now that my life has been enriched because of them...<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/pages/jeanette.html</ref>}}

==Testimony of Ex-Lesbian Luanna Hansberger==
Ex-Lesbian Luanna Hasberger stated the following regarding conquering homosexuality:
{{cquote|I prayed every night for years that God would undo the mistake He had made: "God, please make me a boy."

Most of the people who knew me when I was growing up would probably have a hard time believing what my life was like during my twenties, when I became involved in the seemingly hopeless morass of a lesbian relationship...

My friends encouraged me to contact Regeneration, a local ministry which reaches out to those seeking a way out of homosexuality. Thus, in January 1981, the healing process was accelerated.

When I first came to the ministry I was extremely shy and introverted. I bounced back and forth between a masculine and a feminine identity...

The friends I first shared with continue to be a great help and support for me. That support has carried on literally from around the world as they have moved about with the military. At the end of March 1985, I got out of the Army to go to work for Regeneration. During the time since entering full time Christian service, I can really see the changes the Lord has made in me. Through Him I can now not only accept, but rejoice in, my femininity. I am now joyfully preparing for marriage. I praise the Lord for the work He has done in my life. When I was born female, God didn't make a mistake!<ref>http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/pages/luanna.html</ref>}}

==Concerned Women of American Regarding Overcoming Homosexuality==
The organization [[Concerned Women of America]] states the following regarding overcoming homosexuality:
{{cquote|Homosexual behavior can be conquered, as evidenced by the thousands of people who have completely given up the lifestyle...

If homosexual behavior [[Homosexuality and Genetics|were thought to be inborn]], Scripture would not have said, "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." (Romans 1:[http://scripturetext.com/romans/1-26.htm 26]-[http://scripturetext.com/romans/1-27.htm 27]). The clear implication is that the homosexual acts were deliberate choices.

If homosexual behavior were thought to be unchangeable, Scripture would not have said, "And that is what some of you were [past tense]. But you have been washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:[http://scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/6-11.htm 11])<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3456/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref>}}
==Christians and Helping Others in Respect to Overcoming Homosexuality==
[[Image:Mark_copeland.jpg‎|right|thumb|200px|Pastor [[Mark A. Copeland]]]]
Pastor Mark A. Copeland states the following regarding Christians helping others in regards to overcoming homosexuality:
{{cquote|BE READY TO ASSIST THOSE WHO DESIRE TO OVERCOME HOMOSEXUALITY

Even as Jesus was quick to receive sinners and to lead them to the way of righteousness and life
everlasting, so should those who claim to be His disciples. Again, the challenge will be to do it in the
proper way.

Paul's instructions to the Galatians can serve as good beginning:

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Ga 6:[http://scripturetext.com/galatians/6-1.htm 1]-[http://scripturetext.com/galatians/6-2.htm 2])

In a spirit of gentleness we need to be able to show them how, and to provide the encouragement they will
need along the way.<ref>http://christianlibrary.org/authors/Mark_A_Copeland/hom/hom.pdf</ref>}}

==Television Show Cuts Message of Christian Who Overcame Homosexuality==
[[Image:StephenBennett.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Stephen Bennett]]]]
The organization [[Concerned Women of America]] states the following regarding an instance of [[Homosexuality in the Media|how the media and covers ex-homosexuals and the homosexuality issue]]:
{{cquote|[[Stephen Bennett]], a former homosexual and Christian recording artist who runs a ministry to free people from homosexuality, saw his testimony cut from an appearance on The Ananda Lewis Show, a syndicated TV talk program that airs on [[WB]], [[NBC]] and [[CBS]] affiliates. The program in question aired on Tuesday (February 19, 2002) in several markets.

Not only was any mention of [[Jesus]] dropped from Bennett's six-minute segment, but he charges that the show had a misleading caption on the screen while he and his wife Irene were featured. The title read: "Says he and his wife pray daily that he doesn't revert to being gay."

This gave the impression that Mr. Bennett had told them he was still struggling with homosexuality. But Bennett, who left homosexuality behind when he accepted Jesus Christ years ago, had said during pre-interviews that he was completely healed and had no homosexual temptations. He said that neither he nor Irene told anyone on the show that he was struggling...

"I just can't get over how this completely misrepresented me," Bennett told C&F Report. He said he knew that the show's lineup would be lopsided, but, "they completely lied about my story" by leaving out how he overcame homosexuality.<ref>http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=450&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport</ref>}}

==Criticism==
Some people who claimed to have overcome homosexuality have reverted back or continued to dabble in aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the same can be said of any sin. For example, people with illegal drug use problems who leave that lifestyle can later relapse and start taking illegal drugs again, although those that overcome drugs frequently do it without God, and are more likely to lapse.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/hom/hom_06.htm Homosexuality - A Christian Perspective - Helping Homosexuals To Overcome]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2009-02-07T10:44:39Z

Paulcspring:

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Who's phony?==

Based on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html this] and other news stories, I'd say that Limbaugh was using the term ''phony'' ambiguously. But there are no grounds to suggest that he mean "all soldiers who oppose US military policy in Iraq".

He apparently had two other meanings in mind, although (unlike yours truly) he's not an expert on clarifying word meanings:
#a phony is a [[ringer]], someone who pretends to be representative of a typical person but has been specially selected, with the hope of swaying public opinion; or,
#a phony is someone who says something he knows to be false (also with the intent of swaying public opinion)

Reid correctly pointed out that Limbaugh used the same term for more than one soldier. But his error lies in concluding that Limbaugh had the entire "anti-war" population of soldiers in mind.

It doesn't make sense for Reid to condemn a remark (especially when it's only two words long, in an unscripted conversation). Now condemning an opinion which a speaker confirms and stands by is another thing. But Limbaugh has repudiated the meaning Reid attributed to him, so what's to condemn?

Only a chimera, an false image constructed for the single purpose of discrediting a man. And it's pretty clear that Reid is not after truth but about making Limbaugh shut up.

Democrats and Republicans should debate the issues; neither side should engage in [[ad hominem]] arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cochlear Implant ==

I'm not overly familiar with Mr Limbaugh, but he is a notable [[cochlear implant]] recipient[http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432]. Is this worthy of mention? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 07:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed, I think it most certainly is. If you want, prepare a paragraph, and I can either open it for you to add, or paste it from here, crediting you. Whatever works best for you Ferret. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::Given time zone issues, probably easiest if I leave something here for you to post. Many thanks TK.

Limbaugh is a sufferer of Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease, a condition which leads to a profound hearing loss. In 2002 he became one of the highest profile people to receive a [[cochlear implant]] [http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432], a device which can provide some deaf people with the ability to hear artificially.

== Rush Limbaugh on Paul Hackett ==

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a civil affairs officer assigned to Ramadi. After he returned home, he ran as a Democrat in a special election for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat in August 2005, narrowly losing to Republican Jean Schmidt. On the day of the election, Mr. Limbaugh accused him of "hiding behind a military uniform" while "lying and denying his liberalism." Mr. Limbaugh claimed later in the show that Mr. Hackett went "to Iraq to pad the resume." -- [[Frey]] December 12, 2007 (Forgive me if this is inappropriate for the talk page, but it's relevant to Rush Limbaugh's attitude on certain things, and the article itself is currently locked from any additions.)

:I am thinking this might be more appropriate under an article on Paul Hackett. Rush Limbaugh, as a talk show host, talks on many people each day. I don't see this particular incident as standing out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Phony soldier incident ==

Phony soldier incident
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.[4]
Here the caller is using the word real in the typical media way, distinguishing interviewees picked at random (as in a legitimate survey) from those specially selected to give predetermined views. The context is the liberal media's desire to portray the average US soldier as opposing administration policy or otherwise bad-mouthing the military.

There was not even a hint that the soldiers called "phony" were in any way not doing their jobs competent. The meaning of phony in this context was obviously "picked to give a predetermined" view.

A parallel can be found in the distinction between models and "real people" often made by photographers. Another example is employees to demonstrate a product vs. casual users or customers (real people).

In the street hustle of three-card monte, shills will place bets and give and receive money from the dealer, but it is all a sham. The shills are not "real people" (actual gamblers) but ringers.

Why is this here? This is the most irrelevant piece of information that I have ever seen on a biography on any website. Limbaugh has done many amazing things in his career and this piece of imformation is placed on his short biography. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

:It's here because a senior officer of the [[United States Senate]] dared threaten a media executive with some unspecified business harm in connection with that call to Rush's radio program. It is not here because we believe for one second any part of that Senator's fevered claims.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 02:56, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:Limbaugh used "phony soldiers" to identify those individuals who claim to have fought in Iraq, got wounded in Iraq, and were discharged from the Army when in fact they were never in the Army at all. This grew out of an individual who was washed out of boot camp at Fort Bragg during his fourth week; this same man did a video that was posted on YouTube dressed in his Army battle dress uniform, but wearing the insignia of an officer. As a veteran myself, I'm not going to put up with phony soldiers, neither am I going to put up with those who'll believe their idiotic rants and dare to broadcast them here as if they were gospel truth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::This is the link to Rush Limbaugh's site, which he goes into detail about his use of "phony soldiers" [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html]; it also includes references to other sites, as well as the original phony soldier himself admitting he's a liar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== 1/2 News Hour ==

Should read "was involved" as the show lasted about six episodes before being canceled. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Please add a link ==

Please add a link to his brother's article [[David Limbaugh]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock Please ==

I'd like to add some information to the article. Could a sysop please unlock? Thanks. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Normally unlocking is only done by the Sysop who first protected the article, but since he is no longer active I can do that for you. Please be considerate of what additions or updates are appropriate and add those as you see fit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Obama will Fail ==

Can I inquire as to why no one has talked about how Rush recently stated that he wanted President Obama to fail? {{unsigned|Hwuya}}-- 19:18, 2 February 2009

: I don't know why. I think it was very unpatriotic of Rush Limbaugh to say that. I really didn't have an opinion of Rush before that, but now I resent him. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::Can you show us exactly what Rush said? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here's his [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html statement from his own web site]. "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.'" [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::And for what reason does Limbaugh want Obama to fail in? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Well, I'm sure you can read it yourself - the link's right there for you. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::That isn't good enough. I want YOU to read it and SAY it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Sorry?!!!! I'm only here to provide the information, not to take drive-by insults. And I'm not doing ''anything'' you tell me to - this isn't even my thread. Please read the information yourself and form your own opinion. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Excuse me, but when you say that you're only here "to provide the information" does not give you the authority to distort it, which is what is implied in the above remarks. A question has been put to you because I am not going to tolerate this distortion of what Limbaugh said, and this liberal/MSM distortion is not going to be pushed here. Now, please answer the question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::EXCUSE ME???!!!!! Who on Earth are you? Please READ the above thread. Note that I DIDN'T START IT. Next, note that ''YOU'' asked to be shown exactly what Rush said. Next, I dropped into the thread and provided ''YOU'' with the information ''YOU'' REQUESTED. I note that you never once said "thanks for the link, FNNoonan". Note that I provided NOT ONE opinion on what Rush said, merely quoting the relevant passage in this discussion. Now - where the H*LL do you get off accusing me of distorting information? Who's liberal/MSM distortion? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Finally, no, I'm not going to answer your question. perhaps JArneal will, since your beef would appear to be with him? Right little Hitler, aren't you? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:36, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::And you just exposed yourself as another liberal fascist who takes the exact same line used by the MSM and pushes it here...and refuses to read the rest of what was said, namely that Rush fully intends Obama to fail in his socialism and his liberalism and the pushing of both on Americans, and NOT to fail over-all as president. Something you were afraid to admit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::WOW. Just WOW. You're quite a piece of work. I didn't even read the article, and was simply providing the link for you. Please point out to me where anything I submitted above contained any ''opinion'' on Rush's words? And "liberal fascist"? Where does that come from? And what was I "afraid to admit"? I really can't believe this unbelievably aggressive attack. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 20:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Yes, I am quite a piece of work aren't I? You admitted to not reading the article, just pulled up a single line and used it like the MSM in a brief statement...exactly as I've said. And the term "liberal fascist" comes from way back in the 1930's by sci-fi author [[H.G. Wells]], an admitted far-left socialist who admired Benito Mussolini's facsism and wanted the leftists in this country to adopt it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*You can't FNNoonan? Really? I am not as accommodating with liberal, argumentative trolls as Karajou. Before you (or anyone else) continues to waste our time here with silly, extended, non-issues taken from out-of-context quotes, agree with them, and then continue to argue, understand I will be wishing you God's speed if you do. If you are so delicate, that the comments "offend" you, perhaps the entire Internet isn't the place for you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== '''From Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh, 22 January, 2009:'''[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html] ==

''HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.

So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?''

LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.

''HANNITY: I'm glad to.''

LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.

Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.

''HANNITY: Yes.''

'''LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?'''

'''Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.'''

'''"If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great."'''

<big>'''''"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"'''''
</big>

*So, Karajou, you are absolutely correct. Liberal trolls make a out-of-context headline statement, and the knee-jerker's respond with their usual hate and [[deceit]]. What is acceptable for liberals is not allowed for conservatives, ''in their book''. As Rush said:

{{cquote|'''Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? ''Why do we have to play the game by their rules?'' Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."'''}}

'''Context is everything.''' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:But what did FNNoonan do wrong?? --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 01:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::And aside from you both being Aussies, your business in this is? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:12, 5 February 2009 (EST)

:::I couldn't keep away. After being so insulted, I couldn't resist popping back to see what, if any, were the repercussions. I see there are few. But I'd just like to point out I'm not Australian, and I'm curious as to why you thought so? No matter. I'd also like to point out that as a 17 year listener and fan of Rush, I'm pretty damn disappointed with the way this dialog went. Best to you all. [[User:FrankNN|FrankNN]] 14:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::You previously admitted that you never read the link you yourself provided, just pulled a line out of context. It could have been solved had you read what was in the link and pulled out the whole paragraph involved, but you chose a different route. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, I actually understand Rush's statement now. I'm now not as appalled as I once was. But here's the problem with the logic: Barack Obama and liberalism are not the same thing. If Barack Obama fails, the United States will suffer, especially with the scale at which Obama wants to do things. I don't know why anyone would wish suffering on their country. That's my two cents. Either way, Obama seems to be failing so far with his cabinet appointments. That couldn't have been executed more poorly. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 19:54, 5 February 2009 (EST)

He isn't talking about anything other than socialism will fail, because that is what he is trying now, JArneal. If we fail because of that, allowing him to do so, we deserve to. Let me resurrect an old saying from before your time: "Better Dead, Than Red.". Think about it. I doubt there are more than a handful here, including Andy, who understands with, and agrees with what that means. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:33, 6 February 2009 (EST)

:There is also something else here, and it's the pushing of the "I hope he fails" line by the MSM despite everything else that was said with it; it's as if that line was the ''only thing said'', and it's continually being pushed in another effort to shut down conservative talk radio and the First Amendment which protects it. All the liberal media and their surrogates are doing is following this little statement by [[Adolf Hitler]] to the letter: ''"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."'' Liberal fascism at work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:58, 6 February 2009 (EST)

::Exactly. That's the mantra of liberals, Communists and Nazi's and all the other leftist slime in history. Lie. Lie big, lie bigger, but always make the argument about your opponents, not yourself or the truth. ''Exactly what CP faces from our enemies, and those people, in those secret, unlighted places, where secrecy rules their plans to destroy us, with their parody, vandalism and trolling.'' And their true masters like Soros, Pelosi, Reid and Obama plan the destruction of America itself, ready to remake the "Workers Paradise" anew. And it seems like only yesterday most of the World celebrated its rightful consignment to the ash heap. How quick people are to trade their freedom for a little, precious little, silver! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)

:::The irony being that liberals wanted Bush to fail while we were at war with troop's lives on the line, but Obama failing upsets them? Liberals :P --[[User:Paulcspring|Paulcspring]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)