Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Icon pundit.svg

This Political pundits related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Soros-DNC Conspiracy Theories?[edit]

This page really underplays how much he's gone off the deep end in terms of Alex Jones-ian conspiracy theories. Rush Limbaugh accuses George Soros of paying millions of liberal protesters to march, says Obama orders movies to have secret subliminal messages, pushes conspiracy BS like Seth Rich, says that Obama is still running things through a deep state conspiracy etc. I think it's his defining feature in the Trump era, and deserves a section. I could write a section, but I'm not too familiar with Wiki editing... — Unsigned, by: 73.67.148.110 / talk / contribs

Category:Homophobia...uh...why?[edit]

I can't recall any examples of him being homophobic, veiled or otherwise. Just because he's an asshat in general and allies himself with homophobes doesn't mean he's said anything particularly homophobic.

Anyone willing to give me another reason to hate him? Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 19:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me, and ratcheting up my misanthropy for the night. Gotta love the irony on the abortion bit. Wonder how may Good Christians would be pro-"choice" if the alleged gay gene was discovered. Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 19:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough I'd say he kinda doesn't seem to attack gays nearly as much as women. Not that either one is acceptable but I think it's telling how his homophobia isn't brought up as much as his attack on women. Though to be honest I've worked with a lot of his fans and they are some of the most vile people you'll ever encounter. I'm a conservative person but they are just looney tunes. I think honestly they are jealous of how radical muslims treat gays and women in the middle east. My point was that I myself had to stop and think if I recalled hearing him say anything homophobic (coworker would listen to it at our station, wanted to shoot myself) because he usually is attacking politicians for their positions. Gays kind of get a light treatment compared to his other attacks on people (i.e. Fluke). Not that it isn't any less wrong, it's just not as frequent.PeeBay (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Feminazi?![edit]

we should give feminazi its own page. it's use is similal to grammar-nazi and the like so I dont think it should redirect here.— Unsigned, by: Betrix5068 / talk / contribs

Non-gendered pronouns[edit]

This article is exceedingly hard to read because of the non-gendered pronouns ('it' instead of 'he'). I'm not sure if it is an exceedingly funny joke that I am not aware of, but it really disrupts the flow. What say you all? Tielec01 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get on it. TyJFBAA 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've finished what you started now; hopefully the article reads better. I did notice while proofreading that there are alot of jokes in the article that really fall flat, including the classic 'strikethrough joke'. The NAME section seems particularly unfunny. If no-one objects I will remove it soon.Tielec01 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't wish to step on any toes, but[edit]

I'm not sure I'm too fond of the way that drug addiction is kinda being used as an insult here. I don't know much about this guy, so I may be missing something, but either way, it kind of makes me feel a little uncomfortable. Petrichor (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He's being attacked for hypocrisy, of criticising drug addicts while being one himself, and promoting draconian law-and-order policies while breaking the law. Annquin (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, righto. That makes more sense. I don't know if I just missed that in translation or what, but would it help if that wasade more obvious? Sorry, I feel I'm being irritating now. I'll leave it. Petrichor (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)