It is obvious that you answered his questions with your questions as a rhetorical device.
And no, I do not believe that he understands your point.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
About Rush...
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
It is obvious that you answered his questions with your questions as a rhetorical device.
And no, I do not believe that he understands your point.
saturneptune
New Member
What defines your standards of character?
saturneptune
New Member
This is the exact type of mindset that has us in the dilemma in the we find ourselves today for this country's leadership. One agrees with the message, so one tolerates the messenger being a piece of trash. One lowers the bar for the Republican nominee, and we end up with someone just as bad as Obama. In this years election, we have two liberals running against each other. Neither is a Christian, and both are pro abortion and pro gay rights.
Very seldom do I agree with Crabtree on politics, because we are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but on Rush Limbaugh, he is exactly right. To answer the other question, yes I used to listen to him on the midnight shift until I got tired of the filthy language and rude remarks. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is no different that watching Jerry Springer, or dabbling in other forms of trash that I will not mention.
glfredrick
New Member
My standards of character are high indeed. Rush does not meet my standards.
But he is just a radio personality...
And, if we are going to continue to discuss character, then we need to open the discussion to all the media personalities. Several have been listed already. Don't hear the outcry over them. Seems like this isn't at all about anyone's character but rather to remove Rush from the air because he is hurting the efforts of the Marxist socialists to take over America.
If this were truly about character then people like Dan Rather, who LIED about sitting President George W. Bush, or Al Gore, sitting Vice President, who lied to the world concerning global warming, would all be part of the discussion, not to mention the President who somehow "stained" a blue dress while in the Oval Office. Or an Ed Shultz who has said FAR worse, yet remains on the air with no ourcry, or perhaps a Bill Maher, who has ued words that would get any of us booted off the board for even typing in response to Sarah Palin. No, this isn't about character, it is about character assassination!
saturneptune
New Member
Here is a copy of post 56 I made three days ago in the thread War on Women, which is directly related to this subject:
"I agree 100%, and neither should be tolerated. That is the point. Left or right, we have a whole spectrum of leaders, not just political, but entertainers, commentaters, whatever the walk of life, that hover around the level trash. That says more about us than them. If they are poltical leaders, we elected them. If they are entertainers of some type, we keep their ratings up."
You never heard me defend moderate to liberal Republicans in the past, although I ended up voting for them over their Democrat rivals. This would include Bush the First, Bush the Second, Dole, and McCain. Each person has his or her own level of crossing a line in which they say enough is enough. After the Bush bailouts and the McCain happening at the same time, that is where my limit was reached. I said four years ago, never again another vote for a liberal, wishy washy Republican. Actually, I thought at the time with the stunning loss in 2008 to Obama, I thought the Republicans would be jolted into a sense of reality they had in 1980 and 1984. Given that Obama carried states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, I thought this to be especially true. I really thought the liberal slide to oblivion would stop.
However, by 2011, it became apparant that not only were we going to get another liberal type Rockerfeller candidate, the added diminsion of pro abortion, pro gay rights, gun control and a government run health care issue was added to the mix, on top of not being a Chrisitan and proud of it. The idea of someone being President who does not care one way or another about abortion, but would use the issue to pander for votes, told me nothing had changed and in fact, had gotten worse. At that point, I left the Republican Party after 45 years and joined the Constitution Party. It gets so bad that Obama winning or losing becomes a mute point.
If one looks at that results of the 1980 and 1984 elections, it becomes clear that an honest, upfront, conservative message makes the best impression. This was especially true in 1980 when Reagan clobbered a sitting President. It takes a person who stays on course on issues he or she knows is right, regardless of polls, the direction of the wind, or where the votes come from.
This is where the problem of Rush Limbaugh comes in. He is a high profile person who influences voters, especially in close elections. Who he is for at the moment in the Republican nominating process is not the point. The point is, people hear him talk about moral value issues, like abortion, like families, like work ethic, all the things that make us function as a nation. He talks about people being reponsible for their lives and their actions. Then he turns right around and does the opposite in any form he can think of, and the public sees this. It is also a fact of life that Americans not only dislike a hypocrite, they dislike arrogance.
I am not on a national radio show, and neither do I have influence over anyone except maybe my family and to a small degree, my work in our local church. If I used language in everyday life like Rush, if my actions towards my marriage vows were like Rushs', if my pattern of self indulgence was like his, I would have lost my family, job, church membership, and credibility years ago, and I am a nobody. Higher profile and leadership positions require higher standards of conduct.
There are some on this board, in fact many, who vote for a Republican regardless of the consequences to this country, and without thinking. They equate rejecting a Romney person as voting for Obama. It shows a total lack of understanding. These same people evoke the name of Rush Limbaugh constantly and have for years. One can only wonder how many votes did Rush Limbaugh send to the opposition because of his mouth and actions.
Comparing people like Dan Rather, or Al Gore does not help solve the problem. We are not in a contest with liberals and Democrats to see who can be the most dishonest, we are suppose to be doing things to better this country, and raise the standards, not fight over who lowers them the quickest.
glfredrick
New Member
Yes, I'm sure that comparing all the other media persons or others who accept their accolades (Obama taking $1 million from Maher) with the actions of Rush is not a part of this coversation...
In which world is that true? :BangHead:
The calls against Rush are nothing more than what they appear to be -- an excuse to silence THE single biggest conservative voice on the radio in America.
If they cannot get it done via some leftist legislative piece like the Fairness Doctrine, which would force local radio stations to give equal time to alternative views, then they will find another way via Saul Alinski and Chicago thug political practice, slaughtering their intended target by way of other media.
That is what is happening to Rush right now and if they succed with him, they will just move to the next largest voice and start with he or she.
Wake up folks, this is not about TWO WORDS uttered that were misconstrued and ill-appropriate. This is about silencing the voice of the opposition, for if it WERE about the words, then the cleaning party would HAVE to start at home. Fat chance of that... It is FAR more vile on the other side of the aisle. So vile, in fact, that we cannot print the words used in this forum.
In which world is that true? :BangHead:
The calls against Rush are nothing more than what they appear to be -- an excuse to silence THE single biggest conservative voice on the radio in America.
If they cannot get it done via some leftist legislative piece like the Fairness Doctrine, which would force local radio stations to give equal time to alternative views, then they will find another way via Saul Alinski and Chicago thug political practice, slaughtering their intended target by way of other media.
That is what is happening to Rush right now and if they succed with him, they will just move to the next largest voice and start with he or she.
Wake up folks, this is not about TWO WORDS uttered that were misconstrued and ill-appropriate. This is about silencing the voice of the opposition, for if it WERE about the words, then the cleaning party would HAVE to start at home. Fat chance of that... It is FAR more vile on the other side of the aisle. So vile, in fact, that we cannot print the words used in this forum.
saturneptune
New Member
There is no substance to your assertion that if Rush was silenced, the conservative message would not get out. Rude, foul mouthed language has nothing to do with getting out a message. Sean Hannity does not use messages and tactics like that.
If you ignore everything else that has been said about Rush Limbaugh, his use of the phrase "talent on loan from God" combined with his lifestyle ought to decide the issue for you on the spot. That it the epitimy of disrespect for anything decent.
Since the opposition's words are so "vile" you cannot type them, why not type some of the phrases of Rush and see what happens. If you feel uncomfortable typing his phrases, why not quit defending the slob.
If I remember correctly Rather reported on what he was given - thus he did not lie. (a lie is intentional statement to deceive)
Ed Schultz was suspended from MSNBC
(side note - glf - did you lie about Ed Schultz - or were you just mis-informed.)
FTR - I am not a "pro" fan of Ed Schultz, but I do listen to him, as I like to get all three sides of a story.
Rather chose to report what he believed in spite of the evidence.
Even now Rather is still claiming that - "We reported a story that was true, that was an uncomfortable truth for a lot of people" Rather said. "As a result to that I was asked to leave the anchor chair, and eventually CBS News."
glfredrick
New Member
Thanks... I was going to make the same point. He failed to vet a story that, if true, was a game changer in the political race that cycle.
It took regular citizens, what -- 30 seconds, to debunk that story as a forgery. And, Rather with the whole weight of See, BS! behind him could not figure that out. Yup... He was an innocent dupe. :laugh:
glfredrick
New Member
Didn't realize he was released. I thought that I heard him on the radio just recently (within the past 3 months or so).
I believe he returned to work at MSNBC after that one week suspension. Has he since been removed?
And, have any of you ever listened to HIS radio program (I know, it is hard to find... XM, Air America, liberal talk radio channel)?
He is VILE.
They have a whole cast of vile characters, but the prefered talking point now is to pile on Rush and take the focus off this administrations failures.
saturneptune
New Member
Let me get this straight, he is vile, and you defend Rush Limbaugh. Do I have that correct?
glfredrick
New Member
Let me get this straight, he is vile, and you defend Rush Limbaugh. Do I have that correct?
Let's just say that I can post every word Rush has ever used on his program in this thread. The two that created the most recent flap are "slut" and "prostitute." Wow... pretty darn vile...
I cannot even begin to do that for some of the liberal talking heads.
Time to spell some things out for some of the dense ones out there. Prepare to be offended. This is what was actually said:
Bill Maher, about Sarah Palin: “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”)
Dana Loesch, about Tea Party persons: “Teabagger" (a teabagger is a male who drapes his naked testicals over the face of another individual)
Bill Maher, about Tim Tebow's loss to Buffalo: "Wow, Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad!"
Ed Shultz, about Laura Ingram: "slut"
Bill Maher, about Sarah Palin: "Oh speaking of dumb twats....”
Bill Maher, about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, "bimbos"
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on... But for time sake, I'll leave it at that...
None of them, regardless of political philosophy should use such language.
The primary reason IMHO that his has been blow up so large is that Rush claims to be a spokesman for the GOP. I do not believe any of the ones you mentioned have climed to be the spokesman for the Democrats. And I am pretty sure none of those have claimed as Rush has that they are "Talent on loan from God".
But as far as I am concerned all who use such langauge should be barred from both radio and TV.
saturneptune
New Member
You are the type that would debate the merits of getting an F+ over an F on a report card, without regard to an A, B, C, or a D. This is the exact reason and the beginning of the path that leads to people being nominated like John McCain and Mitt Romney.
It is also amazing, for all the filthy names you post, you forget the most vile inuendo of all, "talent on loan from God" spoken by the moral degenerate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where has Rush claimed this ?
I believe that his claim is the opposite - that he is NOT a spokesman for the GOP.
I'm not offended by his "Talent on loan, from God-uh." That is the case, with all of us. We will all answer for how we used them.
What offends me about him is not his weight, nor his pill-popping, or his language. But it is his carrying the water for the GOP during the spending frenzy, leading to them losing everything by 2008.
He has never claimed to be the spokesmon, head, or leader, nor has he ever claimed to have any part in the decision making of the GOP. The quotes where he might seem to be, are all quotes, from other sources who have claimed such things about him. That is researchable, by the way.
So, C.T.Boy, if that is why you are saying his language is worse than others, your argument was built on sand.
What offends me about him is not his weight, nor his pill-popping, or his language. But it is his carrying the water for the GOP during the spending frenzy, leading to them losing everything by 2008.
He has never claimed to be the spokesmon, head, or leader, nor has he ever claimed to have any part in the decision making of the GOP. The quotes where he might seem to be, are all quotes, from other sources who have claimed such things about him. That is researchable, by the way.
So, C.T.Boy, if that is why you are saying his language is worse than others, your argument was built on sand.
- Status