Talk:Rush Limbaugh

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DinsdaleP (Talk | contribs) at 01:52, March 3, 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hwuya (talk)-- 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. -- JArneal 18:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Can you show us exactly what Rush said? Karajou 18:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Here's his 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.'" FNNoonan 18:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)
And for what reason does Limbaugh want Obama to fail in? Karajou 18:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Well, I'm sure you can read it yourself - the link's right there for you. FNNoonan 18:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)
That isn't good enough. I want YOU to read it and SAY it here. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

From Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh, 22 January, 2009:[7]

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.


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."

"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?"

  • 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:

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. --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

But what did FNNoonan do wrong?? --PMichael 01:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)
And aside from you both being Aussies, your business in this is? --₮K/Admin/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. 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. 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. -- 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. --₮K/Admin/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. 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! --₮K/Admin/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 --Paulcspring 05:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Reversion of "Role" comments

I'm not going to edit-war over this, but I object to the characterization that my edits reflected "liberal Bias" and were "introduced without context and without citations". This was a top news story today (3/2/2009), and coming off of the CPAC conference mentioned on the CP home page they are certainly in context. They are also sourced from the same CNN story, and a 30-second effort on can find multiple correlating sources so there is no lack of citation. Finally, the characterization of Limbaugh as an incendiary entertainer versus a legitimate leader for conservative Republicans didn't come from me - it came from RNC Chair Michael Steel as quoted, and followed up by Eric Cantor stating that the GOP does not want Obama to fail, as Limbaugh did to great applause.

The bottom line is that many would see my edits as Limbaugh-bashing and want to censor them as liberal bias, but all I did was point out divisions of opinion within the GOP itself. This a legitimate issue that conservatives and Republicans should examine openly and be wiling to discuss in a civil manner. Does the future of the GOP lie with moderates who look to bridge differences with the Obama leadership, or with conservatives like Limbaugh who feel the party can only succeed by moving further to the right and embracing the difference of being more conservative instead?

I won't restore these edits since they were reverted by a sysop, but I hope my comments lead to the reversion being reconsidered. --DinsdaleP 16:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, and the "context" continues, covered this time by the Christian Science Monitor. --DinsdaleP 18:49, 2 March 2009 (EST)
So, I missed the citations to the actual news stories, the links? Your information included Limbaugh's response, broadcast today on...what..3,000 radio stations? The "Limbaugh bashing" if there was any, was on the part of Michael Steel, who will be lucky to hold on to his job, within the next few weeks. Limbaugh is far more a leader of gravatis than is Steel or Cantor, who took what Libaugh said out-of-context, and as Limbaugh took great time to explain before CPAC, some fifty feet away from where I sat. This out-of-context hooey was also discussed/debated on another page here, right, Dinsdale? --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I can honestly say that I haven't seen this issue raised on another CP page, so if this is redundant it's by coincidence. I saw the Steele comments earlier today while reading the online news on Google (I'm a news junkie, I admit). There's no point in discussing this further if the Steele/Limbaugh conflict is not considered relevant for the Limbaugh page. My parting comment relates to the concept of Limbaugh having gravitas - frankly, the man strikes me as a hypocrite (regarding drug abuse at least) and an opportunist, who's more interested in making millions each year being a conservative demagogue from the safety of a broadcast booth than he is in being part of the solution to serious problems in this country. It was easy for him to take shots at McCain and others last year as being unworthy candidates for conservative values, but if he's got all the answers, then let him run for national public office and walk the walk, not just talk the talk. --DinsdaleP 19:56, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Well, by your own admission, DinsdaleP, you shouldn't be editing anything having to do with conservative icon's like Limbaugh, because you 1) display a gaping ignorance about him, and 2) have a pronounced un-Christian like attitude towards drug abuse, and those who, because of extreme, chronic pain, as Limbaugh was afflicted with, become dependent. And you, of all people, caring if anyone took shots at McCain is kind of hard to swallow! --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:44, 2 March 2009 (EST)

For the record, I didn't criticize Limbaugh for being a drug abuser - I criticized him for being a hypocrite who judged and attacked others for having addictions while being an addict himself. I'll move on now. --DinsdaleP 20:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)