I am absolutely ignoring what you consider the issues. I have my own issue, and that is the freedom to live your own life without undue influence from elitists who believe they know what's best for everyone.

No one should post in a serious manor when refering to Rush. Please remember, he is a comedian and not an information sourse.

Of course he is one of, if the the most, influential member of the media and has had history changing effects with his commentary.

But, you're free to be a bit delusional about him. God knows you are not alone.

Rush is ignoring the issues because he has no plausable arguments against them. And you are ignoring the issues because you are his faithful follower.

Undue influence, obviously, by your standards, is when one or two people in the U.S. speak up and say something contrairy to Rush's beliefs. You can't tolerate it. That's what comes from football elitists.

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.

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

Because he is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rush is becoming a bigger and bigger jerk every day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Ignorance is bliss. :laugh:

For you it always has been.

I guess people who hate Limbaugh feel it convient to believe he represents the Repbulican Party and hence attempt to interpret his words and actions Repbulican .

Guess what believe it or not there are many people like me who do not listen to Limbaugh or other pundits but actually follow the issues and decide independently. Its call being an individual.

And how about you; do you feel better now?

If you actually read Richie's reference, you would have noted that she objected to football in publicly funded schools and made no reference to the costs or monies made from the sport. She also objected to other contact sports such as soccer. Since she objects to contact sports this would necessarily extend to not only football and soccer, but basketball, hockey, girls field hockey, lacrosse, cheerleading, etc as well.

What sports, if any do you believe should be played at public high schools? Apparently you would go along with chess, checkers and little else. No risk of injury and no taxpayer money. Can't you just hear the cheers for a double jump? If you believe some sports should be allowed, do you think students and parents should have a voice in their selection or is up to the superior wisdom of people such as yourself and Patty Saxton? If you can find a reference that shows that football at schools in the Eastern PA area does not pay for itself, please provide it.

I'm not a leftist, and so of course I don't make those ignorant assumptions about Rush Limbaugh and his listeners views which he validates.

Who are these nebulous "people" who hate Limbaugh? Can you be more specific?

I don't accept your premise that one cannot listen to Rush and still be an individual. I want to stay informed of the latest "stupid things" he's feeding his blind followers.

By the way, I believe he claims to represent conservatives rather than the Republican party. That's why I'm perplexed as to why he didn't support the tax and liability issues put forth by Patty Saxton. Well, not only didn't he support her, he called her a "busybody woman".

I wonder why no one on this board has been able to explain this?

Who are these mysterious detractors? Anyone who questions what he says?
If you dare question what he says, you're a detractor! Very interesting.
You're either a follower or a detractor; there's no inbetween.

Why are you referring to "most leftists"? Can't you be more specific?

I believe I did just that is post 64. Why don't you read it and see if it answers your question and then answer the ones I posted.

So, now you are objecting to what she didn't say. But you don't object to what Rush didn't say. Rush didn't say that high school football pays for itself. You were the one that said high school football pays for itself and now you're changing the subject because you can't back it up.

No, it wouldn't "necessarily extend" to other sports. Stop trying to change the subject.

Again, stop trying to change the subject.

As I have already indicated, all of these decissions should ultimately be determined by the taxpayers and their representatives.

You were the one who made the contrary (contrary to what a knowledgeable school board member said) statement that high school football pays for itself. So, the burden of proof is on you.

What Ms. Paxton did say was that she objected to football being played in taxpayer funded schools. She did not say that she objected to taxpayer money being spent on football. Unless you have another source, please do not extend her objection to football being played in publicly funded schools to taxpayer funding of football. An entirely different thing. You invented this claim out of whole cloth and need to back it up or admit you cannot. I doubt you'll do either since you keep trying to avoid the issues.

What other sports? If spending of taxpayer money is part of the issue as you contend, then THIS IS THE SUBJECT. Stop trying to avoid the issue of taxpayer funding of sports in public schools. The same applies to your next comment.

You did clearly answer that students and their parents should not have a voice in the matter of sports to be selected, but rather that it be determined by, "taxpayers and their representatives." Students have no voice and instead of direct parental involvement you favor determination by government. Local, State or Federal? What are you favoring?

Your 'knowledgeable school board member' did not make the assertion that football does not pay for itself. This was your claim and again I ask you for proof of your assertion.

Of course, you're just nit-picking because you can't back up your statement that high school football pays for itself in Penn. I'm simply defending her statement that, "schools funded by the general taxpayer base is inappropriate."

Football is the issue.

Whatever Patty Saxton was calling for as a school board member.

In my opinion, the burden of proof is still on you because you brought it up. Anyway, I don't much care one way or the other. Whatever her exact position is on the matter, I'm simply defending her right (as a school board member) to make a judgement and express her opinion. Obviously, there may be budget issues we don't know about.

And I notice you cleaverly left out the issue of potential liability that may result from serious injuries. Who would pay, for example, a multi-million dollar judgement, if not taxpayers?