Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Opinions

This article has some opinions, but it is better than the Ann Coulter article. Heart♥Gold^{Demonstrate the spirit of stupor} 15:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

recovering drug addict

Does Rush describe himself as a "recovering drug addict"? Heart♥Gold^{Demonstrate the spirit of stupor} 23:18, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Don't know, don't care - but he was hooked on painkillers. Now he's recovered from it. Res ipso loquitor. PFoster 23:19, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

links versus footnotes

I will try to merge these. Most of the "links" at the bottom are really footnotes to topics in the article. human 23:31, 10 February 2008 (EST)

2 = 3?

"two prominent Republicans (Eric Cantor and Michael Steele) to apologize for saying they thought his comments were unacceptable[11]. All three promptly apologized"

Were there three, or should that say "both"? ħuman 17:10, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The Rush Limbaugh Song

For those Thom Hartmann fans, here is a link to his famous Rush Limbaugh song.The Goonie 1 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never heard the whole thing, just snippets next to commercial breaks... ħuman 22:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone say Godwin's? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but to lose on a Godwin you have to be the first to make the Hitler/Nazi accusation. Since this is composed of Rush's own words, he obviously was the first to throw that particular stone. ħuman 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "taken out of context" would be a vast understatement here. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the ultimate in quote mining, yes. Although, since the result is both funny and true... ħuman 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ListenerX, while what you say is valid, you must remember, this video is is a hilarious parody, and nothing more. All it does is say what we are all thinking. If there is typos in this post, please excuse my drunken self.The Goonie 1

"It"

I love RW's snark, and I think Rush Limbaugh is a pile of shit, but the use of "it" instead of "he" makes this article harder to read than it ought to be. Just my 2 cents. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrug. Don't like it, change it. Тy^rannis 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not married to it. Change it if you want.--^talk 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm seconding the "it" not cause it's mean or anything, just confusing. I was reading a section on a caller, the show, and "it", and had no reference for what the "it" is. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are many places where editors (such as myself) didn't realize what was going on and put "he". There's an inconsistency. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It took myself a while to realize what's going on with the "it" thing but after a good laugh I didn't find the article too hard to read because of it (no pun intended). I say keep the "it" and instead remove all "he" to avoid inconsistency. Hilavitkutin (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

big advertisers like toyota pulling out from all Premier shows

is pretty good stuff. but I'm not sure where to put it on the article.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Even some of the public service announcement folks, the free ads, are trying to get them pulled [1]. sterile^talk 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sandra Fluke thing

The current description of the incident reinforces the fallacy that RL's specific wording was the problem, not the notion behind it. I suggest expanding the text to explain the controversy. At the very least, it should be re-ordered, explaining who Sandra Fluke is and then describing RL's reaction. A big fat quote will be good, too.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though she was just a private citizen two weeks ago, the details here now are almost worthy of her own article. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont' really think she should have her own article, she's not more or less than the rest of us with something to say. But I do think the entire BC incident, from the FIVE OLD MEN talking about the importance of religion over birth control, the way congress blocked Fluke's testimony, and the various levels of outcry. Including discussions of what Obama's bill originally said, how he changed it to "give in" to them, and how they are STILL whining after he said "ok, fine, you don't have to pay". (he's a clever man, by the way). Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You gotta admire his knowledge of game theory, or whomever might be advising him on such things if that's the case. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. in this particular case, he let them scream and while that COST was teh issue, so then he said "ok, I won't make you pay, but i'll mandate the insurance co's provide it for free". They whined and moaned, but not one legal issue can be made. How are your religious rights even approached, much less violated when now, you don't even have to pay. They spit and spin, he laughs. He did something similar (is doing) with DADT, and DOMA by saying "go fluff up all you want, and we'll work a back door". he seems to throw out scraps of meat for the dogs, then quietly do what is right (or what he wants to do) while the whole world is distracted. clearly, not always for our bennie, but mostly for it. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An article on the Blunt Amendment? Including also the whole "emplyees are slaves" thing?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I was wondering what to title the vague thing forming in my head. what is this "employees are slaves". Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The original protest was that "forcing" the employers to provide coverage for contraception infringes their religious freedom. Then Obama for once pulled a compromise that actually worked and should have satisfied both sides, but that wasn't enough - apparently, employing someone means that you should be able to control their life choices. The underpinning logic does sound suspiciously like "if I employ you, I own you". :)

It would be nice to have an article about the Blunt, because a lot of right-wingers people seem to be missing the details, including some alleged skeptics. See the thread(s) on the JREF forum for example (Teflon suit recommended).--ZooGuard (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an article on the Blunt amendment started, with my sarcastic petty humor. That said, I'd love us to develop it. What I always want to scream about this is "You are being regulated as an EMPLOYEER. Don't like it, don't employ people. But "religious exemption" would not work for not paying someone, not paying someone on time, not paying their employment taxes, not paying them for overtime, not giving them breaks, not giving them time off for sick children, not giving them leave for jury duty, etc. These are all laws we have in place to protect emploees. you don't get to ignore them because you are "religious" so why should you get to ingore others? it's clearly not about what they CLAIM it is about.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing that a lot of people have missed

Not only were his remarks sexist, they demonstrated he didn't even understand how the birth control pill works. He didn't say it directly, but his logic, in part, seemed to be "you take the pill every time you have sex." Uh... no. Birth control pills are a daily thing. (Well, at least some require a week off every month or something.) In other words, Rush, they're scheduled, like your Oxycontins, not just at playtime, like your Viagra. MDB (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought so too, but he actually doesn't say that. What he said was: 1000 dollars a year for birth control? I had one of my aids (i don't do this sort of thing you know) go to the store and price out condoms. That cost would have covered enough condoms for 5 sexual encounters per day per year. (give or take a word - by the way, including the 'i don't do this sort of thing, he actually said that on air. he's above research). ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

To quote Comic Book Guy "For some of us, this this means significantly less sex. For others, significantly more." -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the things I meant with my comment above. I suggest instead of re-telling RL's words simply to cquote the transcript of that segment and point out the fallacies. The one I've seen is no longer than a paragraph.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

5 minutes of dead air

They didn't even play muzak over it? Doesn't that violate some FCC code? At my old college station, you were allowed 5 seconds of dead air max. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Dead air is usually only a problem when it comes to rebroadcast (e.g., dead signal, failing to play an ad, etc) because of the contracts content providers have with content distributors. From a "let's be professional" standpoint, it's pretty bad for radio personalities...even in non-broadcast entities, like call centers, they have training programs which specifically address it (as it can create bad experiences). Furthermore, some stations go "off the air" during graveyard hours, which is the equivalent of dead air. Otherwise, every time a smaller rural station had a technical issue they'd have to pay a fine. I think the only difference would be that if a station was unable to rebroadcast an EAS broadcast, they would probably be found in violation. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When I was in college, a friend of mine who was a broadcasting major demonstrated to a group of us why "dead air" is so bad. (I think it was done for him by a professor.) He just asked us all to be completely quiet for fifteen seconds. Fifteen seconds doesn't sound long... until you just set there in dead silence. I can understand why a radio station would be so paranoid about it. MDB (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of the "deer in headlights" equivalent for radio. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's also something of a "oh, did they die?" sensation for the listeners. a perfect time to wander to another station!--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, WKRP in Cincinnati had an episode where the titular station went to dead air. The program director, generally the most responsible person there, was in an absolute panic. (I think it's the "phone cops" episode. Not quite as good as the legendary "Turkey Drop" episode, but one of the better ones.) MDB (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New developments

NOt sure where this goes, if it even goes here. But I think it's pretty much a direct backlash. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/20/fcc-decision-strikes-critical-blow-to-right-wing-radio-dominance/Godot What do cats dream about? 20:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Equally relevant. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trip to the Dominican Republic

The same information and source link appear in two locations: Under Sandra Fluke/Backtalk and again under Other Notable Controversies. Should these perhaps be consolidated into one section? I'd suggest putting it all under "Other Notable Controversies," since the Viagra incident happened years before—though a snide comment on how it affects on his authority to comment on family values or sexual behavior might be apropos... Heywood (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Тy^{passive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs} 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia...uh...why?

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 the}_down-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 the}_down-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)

Non-gendered pronouns

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. Ty^JFBAA 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)