Author Topic: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon  (Read 24236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #120 on: March 10, 2014, 04:28:19 PM »
Little boys?


Damn. Did you just come up with that? On your own?

That's really good, imaginative stuff.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #121 on: March 10, 2014, 04:33:13 PM »
Nah I just followed your comment to its logical conclusion.  So does this mean you're on a first name basis with Gary Gliitter?

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #122 on: March 10, 2014, 04:43:13 PM »
Nah I just followed your comment to its logical conclusion.  So does this mean you're on a first name basis with Gary Gliitter?


Well, whomever Mr. Glitter is, you certainly appear to know far more about him than I. Perhaps you are trying to ''reach out''. A cry for help, perhaps?


Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #123 on: March 10, 2014, 04:51:58 PM »

Well, whomever Mr. Glitter is, you certainly appear to know far more about him than I. Perhaps you are trying to ''reach out''. A cry for help, perhaps?
I'm not the one getting handjobs from little Thai boys.


Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #124 on: March 10, 2014, 04:58:50 PM »
I'm not the one getting handjobs from little Thai boys.


Your friend, Mr. Glitter, does that,  does he? And he tells you all about it, I'm assuming.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #125 on: March 10, 2014, 05:06:05 PM »
Your friend, Mr. Glitter, does that,  does he? And he tells you all about it, I'm assuming.
Again you're the one making trips to Thailand for sketchy massages.  Your confusion may be due to an advanced STD that you may have picked up from one of your friends.  You're going to want to see a doctor about that ASAP.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #126 on: March 10, 2014, 05:20:05 PM »
Again you're the one making trips to Thailand for sketchy massages.  Your confusion may be due to an advanced STD that you may have picked up from one of your friends.  You're going to want to see a doctor about that ASAP.


You see, that's where the Ritalin™ can help you. You wouldn't be so inclined to  constantly leap to bizarre and inaccurate conclusions. Don't get me wrong; you definitely amuse me, but you probably should use a bit more discretion when accusing people of being a pedophile. I'm sure your friend, Mr. Glitter, isn't pleased with you, either.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #127 on: March 10, 2014, 05:40:35 PM »
If they were the kind of massages I used to get in Thailand...
So what kind of massages were you getting in Thailand that weren't available here in the US?

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #128 on: March 10, 2014, 05:54:21 PM »
So what kind of massages were you getting in Thailand that weren't available here in the US?


Well,  the last time I was there was 25 years ago. And I assure you, it wasn't by choice. None-the-less, I doubt your mom would approve of you being on the Internet, talking about grown-up stuff with strangers.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #129 on: March 09, 2015, 02:39:32 PM »
Limbaugh is great, even when I disagree with him completely.

But I have one thing against him - when I want to pirate some torrents of Rush (the band) performances all I get as results are pirated Limbaugh shows. FUCK YOU YOU FAT BLOB!

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #130 on: March 10, 2015, 12:40:29 AM »
Limbaugh is great, even when I disagree with him completely.

But I have one thing against him - when I want to pirate some torrents of Rush (the band) performances all I get as results are pirated Limbaugh shows. FUCK YOU YOU FAT BLOB!

i'm not very interested in political talk radio any longer.  however, i do still listen to rush when a presidential election is near.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #131 on: March 10, 2015, 12:57:09 AM »
Quote
Limbaugh is great, even when I disagree with him completely.

He is great and can be a great optimist and inspirational speaker. He's also quite funny. The fact he gets under liberals skin SO much just makes him funnier. He came along at time when conservative media consisted of 10 minutes a week of George Will on this week with David Brinkley. He's the reason AM radio still exists, talk radio exists, Fox News exists. The in show commercials Noorie does were started by Limbaugh. You know, the life lock commercials that sound like a news story but aren't. Limbaugh started that.

As for his ratings, and everyone else's rating being down, a big part of it is the choices we all have. A zillion podcasts. Satellite radio. 5000 cable channels. Smart phones. Sports ratings are way down too. The world series ratings are nothing compared to the 1980s. We all have more choices for our entertainment.

Limbaugh will be hard shoes to follow. He doesn't just toe the line like Hannity who is quite vanilla. And he doesn't go off on endless rants like the Michael Savage types. He has a diverse audience and discusses a diverse group of topics aside from politics, and he will be missed when he leaves radio.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #132 on: March 22, 2015, 07:30:33 PM »
The muslim atheists are begging for money. Again? Still? So I turned on Rush and he's playing this epic rant about Billary -

Everything's Awesome and Camille Paglia is Unhappy!


"She's a fraud!  Hillary is a mess, okay?  We're going to reward with the presidency a woman who has enabled the depredations and the exploitation of women, okay, by that corn pone husband of hers, and the way feminists have made us blind, okay, to Hillary's record of trashing, then gonna try to destroy Monica Lewinsky.  It's a scandal.  Anyone who their in sexual harassment guidelines, okay, should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime!  He's a sex criminal, and we're gonna put that guy back in the White House?  Hillary has ridden on his coattails."
-Paglia

"And there you have one of the many reasons why we so admire Camille Paglia.  She's a liberal. She's a classic, classicist liberal in the classic liberal sense of the word.  But she's right on the money."
-Rush
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/20/hillary_suggests_camps_for_adults


Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #133 on: April 18, 2015, 03:07:18 PM »
 I used to listen to Rush until he said Ross Perot didn`t cost elder Bush the election. Of course he did. Then in 2008 I  decided to tune in and see if maybe Rush was more `in touch` with voters this time. The first thing I hear him say  is  enough "church-going  African Americans will abandon Obama " because of his stance on abortion that he would lose the election. Wrong again. Rush preaches to the chior but he gets no new converts from the laity. And now he thinks he knows the millennials.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #134 on: April 18, 2015, 03:11:37 PM »
Ross Perot did not cost H W Bush the election.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #135 on: April 18, 2015, 05:09:23 PM »
Ross Perot did not cost H W Bush the election.
Then why did Rush himself , four years later admit it saying " I looked at the Perot voters  nationwide and have to admit they were usual Republican voters."  That was about 20% of the voters. When he said "looked" he meant the broader sense of past voting trends, attitudes on big issues etc. Not physical appearance.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #136 on: April 18, 2015, 06:08:12 PM »
1.I wouldn't take Rush's word for anything, not what he first says, or even when he rebuts himself.  This also disputes Rush's later claim: In 1992, 53 percent of those who backed Perot for president described themselves as moderate, with 27 percent calling themselves conservative and 20 percent liberal, according to the exit polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041701613.html

2.Some of them may have been traditional Republican voters, but there was also a desire to throw H W Bush out.  The exit polls show that 1/3 of Perot voters would have voted for H W, 1/3 would have voted for Clinton and 1/3 would not have voted.

3.Even if you disagree with the above stats, H W lost by nearly 6% and Perot received 19% of the vote.  Simple math shows that H W would have needed nearly 2/3 of Perot voters to win the popular vote, assuming that every Perot voter would have voted.  Highly unlikely to the point of being impossible.

4.Of course, the popular vote does not decide the Presidency but the electoral college vote does.  Republican pollsters at the time agreed that the only states that went to Clinton that may have gone to H W without Perot being on the ballot was Montana (Dole won Montana in 1996).  Obviously Montana would not have altered the electoral college vote outcome. 
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

5.So, we know by exit vote, we know by simple math and we know by the electoral college totals that Clinton would have defeated H W without Perot on the ballot. The only argument left is that Perot changed the dynamic of the election and aided Clinton.

This is obviously counterfactual and can't be proved one way or the other with any definity. What we do know that is that Perot dropped out of the race for around two months and during that time, Clinton actually gained slightly in the polls, not H W. In fact, it was argued by some at the time Perot reentered the race, that his reentry would cost Clinton the election.

Upon Perot's departure:
Departure Of Perot Could Hurt Bush More
A surprising number of Republican strategists were talking defeat yesterday. Some fretting publicly, and some grousing privately, but their message was the same:
http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-17/news/26026358_1_perot-voters-perot-and-clinton-democrat-bill-clinton

Clinton reaps the rewards of Perot's withdrawal. And George Bush's re- election effort is in serious, serious trouble.

While it is certainly true that Perot mainly set his fire upon H W, he also went after Clinton ("going from Governor of Arkansas to President of the United States is like going from managing a small business to being CEO of Wallmart".)   It's also true that Clinton was doing fine on his own going after H W.

So it seems even the 'dynamic' argument is dubious at best.

The whole "H W would have won" is nothing but Republican historical revisionism that was an attempt to claim Clinton was somehow an 'illegitimate' President.  Similar to the claims that McCain and Romney lost because 'they weren't conservative enough.'

This is one article that backs up my argument: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
Here is another article: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

There used to be an article by, I believe, CNN polling analyst Bill Schneider on it (which is where I got the 1/3 Bush, 1/3 Clinton... from) but it doesn't seem to be around anymore.

It's pretty clear the only thing Dimbaugh was sorry for was that he was sorry he was late to join in the Republican historical revisionism.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #137 on: April 19, 2015, 07:18:06 AM »
1.I wouldn't take Rush's word for anything, not what he first says, or even when he rebuts himself.  This also disputes Rush's later claim: In 1992, 53 percent of those who backed Perot for president described themselves as moderate, with 27 percent calling themselves conservative and 20 percent liberal, according to the exit polls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041701613.html

2.Some of them may have been traditional Republican voters, but there was also a desire to throw H W Bush out.  The exit polls show that 1/3 of Perot voters would have voted for H W, 1/3 would have voted for Clinton and 1/3 would not have voted.

3.Even if you disagree with the above stats, H W lost by nearly 6% and Perot received 19% of the vote.  Simple math shows that H W would have needed nearly 2/3 of Perot voters to win the popular vote, assuming that every Perot voter would have voted.  Highly unlikely to the point of being impossible.

4.Of course, the popular vote does not decide the Presidency but the electoral college vote does.  Republican pollsters at the time agreed that the only states that went to Clinton that may have gone to H W without Perot being on the ballot was Montana (Dole won Montana in 1996).  Obviously Montana would not have altered the electoral college vote outcome. 
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

5.So, we know by exit vote, we know by simple math and we know by the electoral college totals that Clinton would have defeated H W without Perot on the ballot. The only argument left is that Perot changed the dynamic of the election and aided Clinton.

This is obviously counterfactual and can't be proved one way or the other with any definity. What we do know that is that Perot dropped out of the race for around two months and during that time, Clinton actually gained slightly in the polls, not H W. In fact, it was argued by some at the time Perot reentered the race, that his reentry would cost Clinton the election.

Upon Perot's departure:
Departure Of Perot Could Hurt Bush More
A surprising number of Republican strategists were talking defeat yesterday. Some fretting publicly, and some grousing privately, but their message was the same:
http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-17/news/26026358_1_perot-voters-perot-and-clinton-democrat-bill-clinton

Clinton reaps the rewards of Perot's withdrawal. And George Bush's re- election effort is in serious, serious trouble.

While it is certainly true that Perot mainly set his fire upon H W, he also went after Clinton ("going from Governor of Arkansas to President of the United States is like going from managing a small business to being CEO of Wallmart".)   It's also true that Clinton was doing fine on his own going after H W.

So it seems even the 'dynamic' argument is dubious at best.

The whole "H W would have won" is nothing but Republican historical revisionism that was an attempt to claim Clinton was somehow an 'illegitimate' President.  Similar to the claims that McCain and Romney lost because 'they weren't conservative enough.'

This is one article that backs up my argument: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
Here is another article: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

There used to be an article by, I believe, CNN polling analyst Bill Schneider on it (which is where I got the 1/3 Bush, 1/3 Clinton... from) but it doesn't seem to be around anymore.

It's pretty clear the only thing Dimbaugh was sorry for was that he was sorry he was late to join in the Republican historical revisionism.
  First let me say,excellent post!  The truth is we`ll never know. My point is that it wasn`t 4%, 6%,or even 9%- it was a whopping 19%! It is not difficult to see how those votes could have made a difference in states like Georgia,Ohio,Colorado and Montana is all.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #138 on: April 20, 2015, 02:25:57 AM »
  First let me say,excellent post!  The truth is we`ll never know. My point is that it wasn`t 4%, 6%,or even 9%- it was a whopping 19%! It is not difficult to see how those votes could have made a difference in states like Georgia,Ohio,Colorado and Montana is all.

Thanks. Clinton lost Georgia, Colorado and Montana in 1996 (but won Florida after losing it in 1992) so it is possible.  However, even had he lost those three states  (I doubt he would have lost Ohio) and even had he lost Ohio, Clinton still would have won the electoral college.

That said, as I said earlier, before Republicans decided to get into revisionist history over this, it was generally agreed by pollsters on both the left and the right that the only state Perot helped Clinton win that he likely would have lost is Montana.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #139 on: April 20, 2015, 03:57:08 AM »
Thanks. Clinton lost Georgia, Colorado and Montana in 1996 (but won Florida after losing it in 1992) so it is possible.  However, even had he lost those three states  (I doubt he would have lost Ohio) and even had he lost Ohio, Clinton still would have won the electoral college.

That said, as I said earlier, before Republicans decided to get into revisionist history over this, it was generally agreed by pollsters on both the left and the right that the only state Perot helped Clinton win that he likely would have lost is Montana.

No revisionist history is needed, those who followed politics at the time know Perot's support was clearly made up of conservatives. The reason the buffoon from Arkansas was even a nominee was because the old guard in the Democrat party knew they had no chance of beating Bush, so none of their big wigs ran in the primaries. By the time Perot came along, Clinton was their candidate and they were stuck with him. Then sure enough Bubba slid in with 43% and the rest was history.

The best part was the media calling the 43% a landslide. They'd been so eager to have a landslide of their own after Reagan's 59% landslide in '84, they'd say anything to make themselves feel good. Those lucky enough to be attending institutions of higher education at the time were blessed with professors running around celebrating, in tears, holding up newspapers. It was hysterical.  ;D

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #140 on: March 02, 2016, 02:13:12 PM »
I wish Rush would figure out when his breaks are and leave a little breathing room.
He's always mid sentence and starts trying to cram words in edgewise at the last second.
Lay off the coffee and look at the clock, Rush! How long have you been broadcasting?

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #141 on: March 02, 2016, 02:16:40 PM »
He should get back on the pills.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #142 on: March 02, 2016, 02:19:32 PM »
I wish Rush would figure out when his breaks are and leave a little breathing room.
He's always mid sentence and starts trying to cram words in edgewise at the last second.
Lay off the coffee and look at the clock, Rush! How long have you been broadcasting?
Love listening to Rush. It seems his detractors who ineffectually bleat about him don't get it. But he's getting better each day.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #143 on: March 02, 2016, 02:23:53 PM »
Love listening to Rush. It seems his detractors who ineffectually bleat about him don't get it. But he's getting better each day.

Yeah, he's great and all, but I wish he'd master the art of going into a break.
Art was such a master at that. 

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #144 on: March 04, 2016, 01:38:14 PM »
the commercial load makes rush's show unlistenable live.  i download the podcast version each day, and it averages between 31 and 36 minutes of actual content.  appalling.  i'd gouge my eyes with a spoon if i had to listen to his show live.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #145 on: March 04, 2016, 02:05:21 PM »
When Rush started his broadcast went national in 1988, Houston did not have 10 digit dialing. You didn't dial the area code for local calls. My work phone number was 282-2882. We didn't have caller ID, but we had a different ring tone for inside vs. outside calls. For 3 hours a day, I couldn't take outside calls, I had to let them just go to voice mail.

Even with my own voice and message on the voicemail recording, it was unbelievable the number of calls I would get with people going off on Rush. I wish that I would have kept some of the juicier ones. It would have made a great "Best of" mashup.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #146 on: March 04, 2016, 05:23:04 PM »
When Rush started his broadcast went national in 1988, Houston did not have 10 digit dialing. You didn't dial the area code for local calls. My work phone number was 282-2882. We didn't have caller ID, but we had a different ring tone for inside vs. outside calls. For 3 hours a day, I couldn't take outside calls, I had to let them just go to voice mail.

Even with my own voice and message on the voicemail recording, it was unbelievable the number of calls I would get with people going off on Rush. I wish that I would have kept some of the juicier ones. It would have made a great "Best of" mashup.

so there were THAT many people dumb enough not to know they had to put the 800 in front of the number?

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #147 on: March 04, 2016, 05:37:34 PM »
so there were THAT many people dumb enough not to know they had to put the 800 in front of the number?

Many of the calls/messages would be the same people day after day...

A couple of times I answered the phone and tried to explain they had to dial 800 first... They would go off on a swearing spree yelling at me that they had, I was trying to keep them off the air, they knew Rush was right there sitting next to me, and I had better put them on the air.

It makes you wonder what Rush's call screeners have to go through, especially given the limited number of callers he actually takes.

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #148 on: January 10, 2017, 10:30:17 PM »
would anybody be willing to let me access their rush 24/7 account?

Re: The Rush Limbaugh Phenomenon
« Reply #149 on: January 10, 2017, 10:50:51 PM »
Rush is no longer carried live on WLS AM in Chicago. He's on a one hour delay. They're getting ready to dump his program.