Talk:Rush Limbaugh

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hwuya (Talk | contribs) at 21:18, 2 February 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --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.--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. Aziraphale 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --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.--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 :) --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. MountainDew 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


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.--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.--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. - Factcheck 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Denounced as a Witch?

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


I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). Myk 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this removal. Crocoitetalk 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


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.--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. 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. --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.--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.--Reginod 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'. --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[1][2]. Things the politician were involved in yes. Family members - no. --Mtur 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--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[3]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --Mtur 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found here, which I have complained about in that talk page.--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). --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. 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. --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.--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.--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).--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.--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).--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. 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).--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. 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. --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).--Reginod 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination? 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 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. 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 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. Dpbsmith 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on 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.'" 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. Flippin 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--Autofire 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind. I got it.--Autofire 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Who's phony?

Based on 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:

  1. 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,
  2. 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. --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[4]. Is this worthy of mention? -- 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. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/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 [5], 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. 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. 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.--TerryHTalk 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. 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" [6]; it also includes references to other sites, as well as the original phony soldier himself admitting he's a liar. 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. --Jareddr 09:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Please add a link

Please add a link to his brother's article David Limbaugh -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 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. --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. 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?