Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

Because he is.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

First of all I reject your theory on "millions" of Americans. I believe you wish that were true.

But in answer to your question; it's because he exposes his critics for the people they are.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

First of all I reject your theory on "millions" of Americans. I believe you wish that were true.

But in answer to your question; it's because he exposes his critics for the people they are.

Would he not have any critics to expose if he were a little more sensitive to others and their feelings. I remember the saying YOU CATCH MORE BEES WITH SUGAR THAN SALT. For that reason alone he could do more good for the country with sensible words rather than hateful criticism. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Would he not have any critics to expose if he were a little more sensitive to others and their feelings. I remember the saying YOU CATCH MORE BEES WITH SUGAR THAN SALT. For that reason alone he could do more good for the country with sensible words rather than hateful criticism. Just a thought.

I guess Rush could be a bit nicer and non-confrontational to the targets of his commentary, and I would bet that contrary to your opinion his ratings would plummet to the basement like the ratings of his competitors.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I guess Rush could be a bit nicer and non-confrontational to the targets of his commentary, and I would bet that contrary to your opinion his ratings would plummet to the basement like the ratings of his competitors.

Your probably right. Just Like bill Moyer. I guess most viewers want to hear the negative. It is like a wreck on the highway, people seem to be disappointed if they slow down but don't see any blood.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh.

You subscribe to his (whatever it's called) 24/7 newsletter? Whatever it is, you pay for the garbage he puts out. That says it all.

I'm much too busy. I read your post and then went to read his transcript and saw that you mislead everyone on this issue...."

In what way did I mislead? Unlike you, I told the truth. I gave my commentary in the form satire. And then stated that the above words were not his. That was full disclosure. And then you came along as if you were saving everyone. I stand by that first post. He doesn't appear to give a damn about injuries or taxes. And that was the point of my satire.

....because you have a bee in your bonnet about people's behavior that you deem dangerous, whether it's sports or foods you don't approve of, and really believe you know better than anyone else what's good for them, and that you should be able to curtail that activity.

And of course everyone knows it is YOU who knows better than anyone else what' good for them. And what is it? FOOTBALL. And we must all fall in line, or else.

I think Rush is right and you are wrong.

Rush is becoming a bigger and bigger jerk every day.

It's an issue of personal freedom and Rush believes in freedom, and you believe in a nanny state that would control the behaviors of people that you don't like. You should write Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in NY and see if he needs an assistant.

If Rush doesn't want a "nanny state" then let's stop funding football with taxpayer money.

I have plenty to say about Bloomberg and NY but that's another topic. If you want to talk about it start another thread.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm much too busy. I read your post and then went to read his transcript and saw that you mislead everyone on this issue because you have a bee in your bonnet about people's behavior that you deem dangerous, whether it's sports or foods you don't approve of, and really believe you know better than anyone else what's good for them, and that you should be able to curtail that activity.

I think Rush is right and you are wrong. It's an issue of personal freedom and Rush believes in freedom, and you believe in a nanny state that would control the behaviors of people that you don't like. You should write Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in NY and see if he needs an assistant.

May I suggest a subcri[tion to Rush 24/7. You get the show and morning update in podcasts. An hour takes around 34min without commercials. He also does not send the music an parodies. If you are at your computer from 12-3 you can watch him do the show on the "Dittocam".

I got an iPod just for Rush so I could listen to him after work.

Important to hear what Elrushbo really says, not what the Drive-by Media claims he said.

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

Originally Posted by Bavarian

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

This is about high school football. If budgets are stretched thin and taxpayers (and their representatives) are looking for somthing to cut, they are free to consider cutting football. Therefore, the decision should be made by those who pay for football, not by football players. And, Patty Saxton, a school board member, had every right to make the comments that she made.

High school football players, who are still wet behind the ears, don't get to dictate school policy, as you suggested. The state (that you call Nanny) represents the people who pay the bills.

Originally Posted by Bavarian

May I suggest a subcri[tion to Rush 24/7. You get the show and morning update in podcasts. An hour takes around 34min without commercials. He also does not send the music an parodies. If you are at your computer from 12-3 you can watch him do the show on the "Dittocam".

I got an iPod just for Rush so I could listen to him after work.

Important to hear what Elrushbo really says, not what the Drive-by Media claims he said.

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

I do subscribe, but rarely have time to listen. If I'm home and on the computer I will listen to his stream, but not on his site as he does not stream live on it. I listen on News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York out of NYC where you can listen to their whole line-up online for free.

I mostly subscribe for his immense library; what he calls his "stack of stuff". So much good stuff there.

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

This is about high school football. If budgets are stretched thin and taxpayers (and their representatives) are looking for somthing to cut, they are free to consider cutting football. Therefore, the decision should be made by those who pay for football, not by football players. And, Patty Saxton, a school board member, had every right to make the comments that she made.

High school football players, who are still wet behind the ears, don't get to dictate school policy, as you suggested. The state (that you call Nanny) represents the people who pay the bills.

As I pointed outgo earlier in this thread, in most parts of this country Football costs are not paid by the taxpayer. Football pays the bills for itself and most of the rest (or in some cases all the rest) of high school and college athletic programs.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

And his blind followers have been exposed as those who can't think for themselves.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

As I pointed outgo earlier in this thread, in most parts of this country Football costs are not paid by the taxpayer. Football pays the bills for itself and most of the rest (or in some cases all the rest) of high school and college athletic programs.

What about Penn. where a school board member, Patty Saxton, complained that taxpayers shouldn't fund high school football? Are you saying she didn't know that football pays for itself? And she worried about expensive law suits; what would happen if someone was awarded multiple millions of dollars? Who would pay? If what you say is true, why didn't Rush point that out? Instead, he didn't address the issue of taxes at all, and didn't adddress the issue of injuries.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

And his blind followers have been exposed as those who can't think for themselves.

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

Ignorance is bliss.