The leader of the free world making a crack about a conservative radio talk show host seems a bit of an over-reaction to me. Apparently President Obama thinks that Rush Limbaugh speaks for Republicans. Maybe he does, but my advice is not to elevate the entertainer's status, especially at a time when the country is taking a new direction. The voters have spoken. Limbaugh's side lost. That should settle it, at least for now. So why not pull together?
We already know that Limbaugh wants the country to go down in flames under Obama so he can tell his listeners that Democratic policies have failed America. This is what Limbaugh said immediately after Obama was sworn in as our 44th president: "I hope he fails."
Well, I hope he succeeds, just as I hoped George W. Bush would have succeeded. We are all much better off in a prosperous country than in one that is failing. But Limbaugh doesn't see it that way, and tha't's too bad. The Republican Party is bigger than the United States in Limbaugh's view. That's why I think Obama should ignore Limbaugh.
Columnist Clarence Page wrote about the Obama/Limbaugh dustup today on our op/ed page. You can read Page's column by clicking here.
This is from Page's column: "Obama reportedly told Republican leaders like House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 'You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.'"
I know the contributors to Opinion Talk have strong opinins about Limbaugh. Some love him and quote him daily, and others think he speaks for only a few Americans. Where do you stand on the Obama/Limbaugh controversy? This post should generate a lot of comments.
Its funny how between 2000 and 2008, when the Lib's "side lost", it was ok for every Democrat in congress and the Lib media to fight Bush, tooth and nail, in everything that he attempted to do, just ensure his failure. To say that Pelosi, Reid, and all the other Libs/Media who were openly against Bush didn't actually want him to fail would be a complete lie. But back then, it was seen as "patriotic" to speak out, no matter what the consequences were. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, apparently Freedom of Speech only goes so far.
Lol, that was a funny comment from the President.
What was Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell response; "Dah... where else do we get direction, our constituents?"
Obama should just ignore Limbaugh and do the job he has been elected to do. Rush would tear him apart in a verbal debate cause he gets paid to talk and at times with a razor sharp tongue. I have listened to him but never base my votes or opinions on something said by anyone else. Rush just needs to let it go and show respect for our Commander in Chief whether he like him or not.
"Rush just needs to let it go and show respect for our Commander in Chief whether he like him or not." Apparently you never watched Olberman's daily diatribe of attacks and ridiculous countdowns during his show on MSNBC for the last several years(wouldn't blame you since no one really watches that channel anyway)?? But, again, I never heard the liberal Media make any big stink out of his remarks when they "didn't show respect for our Commander in Chief". Since when did political commentator's opinions really matter to the media anyways?? Apparently only when they don't fall in line with the almighty Obama, I guess.
As usual, the liberal left has taken the comment of a conservative out of context. Limbaugh was referring to Obama's Marxist/socialist tendencies. He wants those to fail. And, it is quite ridiculous to argue that Obama is not a Marxist. He was quite honest about his Marxist tendencies, except that he called it "neighborliness".
Here is what patriotic Americans want: they want America to succeed. If Obama's success ensures American success, then fine. If Obama's failure ensures American success, then fine.
I just wish all of the people who think that capitalism is not the best system would go live in a socialist/Marxist/communist country just to see if they like it.
President Bush kept us safe for 7-1/2 years, after the criminal negligence of the 8 years before him gave us 9/11. It's very frightening to watch the left attempt to do away with those things that kept us safe, just because they want to spite Bush.
The left believes that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. Such adolescent drivel should never be spoken out loud, especially by those in the halls of power. We've given them trillions over the years in petrodollars. I think that's pretty nice, don't you? Yet, they still want to kill us.
The President just pointed out that an inflexible and extremist ideology like Limbaugh's will not help our country at this time. Many of those 43% of Republicans who view Obama favorably
agree with the President. The votes in the House and Senate on the stimulus bill will show just how many Republicans are willing to compromise.
I hope Obama doesn't stoop to Rush's level.
I think it’s pretty evident from Rush’s transcripts (see below) that what Rush desires is for Obama’s socialist policies to fail, not the country. Some how we have misunderstood - "I hope he fails" - and construed those words to mean, "I hope our country fails."
"I want everybody to prosper in this country. I want everybody to have success. I want everybody that wants one to have the job they want, not the only job they can get -- and that's a 20-year history of this program. ... Ignorance is our most expensive commodity. My hope for Obama's policy failures is based solely on the fact that they won't work, they won't create permanent, good jobs...."
"I got a request the Friday before the inauguration from a newspaper asking me for 400 words on what my hopes for Obama were. I went through this lengthy monologue by saying, 'Folks, I do not want what Obama is doing to work. I don't want more socialism in America, I don't want more liberalism. Liberalism is what's gotten us to the problems we have now. Why would I want more of it? I do not want him to succeed ....' I went through all of this that I'm saying to you now, and then I ended it by saying, 'I don't need 400 words, I only need four: I hope he fails.' Well, this whole monologue was ignored, those four words made the news story. Your Ken and Barbie anchor and anchorette out there probably just read that, because the AP, nobody reported this in proper context, never do, and that's how all of this got started." ( RL 1/26/09 radio program, transcript in part).
But, lets not miss the bigger issue. This whole thing is not really about - "he said, what he meant." It’s really about free speech. The question is: Does a private citizen - albeit one that has a nation-wide audience - have the right to speak out on issues that concern him - in opposition to an administration in power? What is next? It’s only one short step to seeing Obama’s brown-shirted, jack-booted thugs showing up at Rush’s front door (or any other person that dares speak out against socialism and fascism).
Free speech is endangered. Ask any conservative that tries to take his/her opinions on a college campus these days; whereas, liberalism / Marxism is welcomed with open arms; conservatism brings about campus riots, violent protests, etc.
So far, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to speak out. Many are still brave enough to use that free speech. But for how long? It’s all slipping away.
Soon, probably very soon, regulatory efforts and legislation that affect free speech will be set in place, watchdog organizations will spring up with the sole function of watching out for perceived disloyalty to the liberal / Marxist / fascist cause.
Libs and moderates may be rejoicing NOW; but remember if free speech goes for the conservative, there is a good chance that it will go for you as well. A government that is big enough to give you everything you ever wanted is also big enough to take away everything you have - including your 1st and 2nd amendment rights.
Could it be said that conservative talk radio is now "Radio Free America"?
It always ends up the same way. Promises, promises by both parties and as soon as they are elected the tune changes. It has happened to every president that I have know since the 50's. Nothing has changed. But if I understand what Obama said was that he wants both democrates and republicans to approve of his plans. His way. He has a lot to learn as every president has had to learn.
" just wish all of the people who think that capitalism is not the best system would go live in a socialist/Marxist/communist country just to see if they like it."
Roxanna; Go to your encyclopedia and look up the difference between Capitalsm and Plutocracy. Capitalism was good yesterady. Plutocracy is not good today or ever.....and the jobs that are being lost are living testimony...
Why did I respond to your post? I guess I am a school marm at heart.
Do Governor Schwarzenegger and our state legislators need help to wipe their behinds? What kind of human beings are running this state who stay in their cozy offices while outside, in the cold, over 300 disabled citizens chant, "No more cuts! We're people too!" This was the scene January 8, 2009 at the capital
I have lived all my life with cerebral palsy. I need daily help with getting up, taking showers, dressing, eating, and yes; I need help in the bathroom.
The cuts that the Governor and the legislature are proposing will take funds away from services that I need to live independently. I’m not some “poor-me” freeloader. I contribute to this community. With the cuts Sacramento is proposing, I could be forced to live in an institution. Life in an institution is hell. I’ve been there.
The state needs to trim the budget. That isn’t the issue. The issue is the morality of abandoning people who struggle to live the sort of life most people take for granted. Is the image of people with disabilities marching outside the state capital the image California wants seen around the world?
Joe Hemphill
You know, it's interesting to hear more of the same... For the last 8 years, I've laid low in expressing political opinions because of the constant blasting from the Rushie types. Of course the revocation of Habeus Corpus, the out and out misuse of the Justice Department, the warrantless wiretapping... these probably are insignificant to you. And yet, you talk about brown shirts and jack boots? And how's that left over Republican economy working for you? Did you get any healthier under an administration that ignored science, and only issued regulations based on what they thought the commander in chief wanted to see? Go to war but forget to treat the wounded? Does ideology actually work better than a pragmatic approach? Does the pre Obama bailout without accountability actually sound better than Obama's approach?
He's been in office 7 whole days, and you actually think that any choice he makes will be worse than Bush's intent to make Ken Lay his energy czar?
MOI think that poor 'Rush' is back at the pills, there is no other way to explain his remarks.
AND.......he does not speak for all Republicans.
In regard to so called Limbaugh and Obama fight, I have to say I think this whole thing (comments of readers) is just little kids trying to win stupid arguments with one another. Anyone who pays attention to Rush Limbaugh is just stuck in kindergarten. It does, of course, show us what our children have been being taught in today’s schools. These children have learned only to copy what they heard someone say. Do any of them actually know what socialism and Marxism are? Rush Limbaugh doesn’t either. I happened to live for a time (thank goodness a short one) in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Rush Limbaugh’s hangout, and my son had a few classes with him. When I asked him about Rush, he replied “He still hasn’t learned anything.” The one thing I remember the most sadly about Cape Girardeau is that it was and is the most racist community I’ve ever had to be in. So my answer to this problem of Rush Limbaugh is, don’t listen to his hogwash, and do try to learn the meanings of words you throw around.
Let's see Bush tried to end environmental protection. He proposed a Social Security fix using the stock market that would have left every Social Security recipient in poverty.
He launched a war based on lies.
He gave as much of the country as he could to the rich.
In his 8 years, Bush cannot point to one positive achievement. He almost wrecked the country.
We are fortunate to have someone with some integrity in the White House now.
Limbaugh is a master liar. But this time he will drive away more GOP voters than he wins. The country is in deep water because of Republican policies and almost everyone knows it.
What does plutocracy have to do with anything? If BO and his minions get their way, the ruling class will be rich and we'll all be poor. These idiots apparently have forgotten that it was capitalism and the free market that got them their money. Then once in power, they have robbed us blind and squandered our money. They're criminals, every single one of them.
Let me see if I've got this straight... Obama's people are all Republican, and have secretly been in power the last 8 years? The Free Market got us all a lot of money this last year? The ruling class in this country hasn't always been rich? I'm a minion?
So, again... how's the economy been working for you during the last eight years? Did the personal decisions so many people made to buy huge cars, and ignore the environment, work out when gas shot past $4.00? All supported by Bush administration denial of California's attempt to get higher mpg/ lower emissions standards. Did it occur to any Republicans that having nothing but yes men in the Justice Department might be counterproductive when it came to... justice? Do we always have to be pro secret prisons and making people disappear? Does it occur to anybody that having a policy that includes secret prisons, should you be snatched off the street, no one would know or have the ability to do anything about it. Very Orwellian! Has anyone's health premiums gone down lately? Have there been fewer denials and cancellations of health care insurance under the Republican administration? Did Congress, at the urging of the president, enact a law prohibiting the US government from negotiating the best price for drugs sold to Medicare/Medicaid recipients? Did Congress, at the urging of the president, enact a confusing program whereby those same Medicare/Medicaid patients, needed to sign up for a particular plan, or stop receiving benefits? Did Walter Reed Army Hospital have substandard rooms and facilities for disabled returning veterans, and did sole source US contractors actually build showers that electrocuted soldiers in Iraq? Did this happen under a Democratic Commander in Chief during the last 8 years? Did the vice president actually shoot someone in the face?
Boy Howdy! News at 11! Sure glad I've been safe for the last 7-1/2 years.
For any of you that had the luxury of missing Olberman's daily comments regarding his "respect for our Commander in Chief" during the Bush years...just read the word for word summation provided by Redford. Solid job, Buddy!! You must be the ONE person who watches MSNBC!!!
It's not that the Republicans leadership wants Obama to fail. I think that it is just too much for their egos to bare to admit that their conservative ideology is wrong and brought on the superfluous US/Iraq war for oil and the economic collapse it has engendered.
It is true that Rush Limbaugh has a loud mouth and a huge media megaphone to blast out his ersatz take on everything political but it was probably a tactical error for Obama to even mention the buffoon of bombast.
Again I say Bush did not ruin this country by himself and Obama can't fix it by himself. They are at the mercy of the Senate vote so if Bush was so bad then the Democratic majority had to have something to do with it as well. I just didn't let the downturn of our country get to me because I adjusted things in my life that we can all live without and I know that all of my needs will be provided by God. The war is bad but it has kept us safe.
I think the Republican leadership is on a tightrope here. They may secretly wish for Obama to fail (depending on how seriously they take their "Country First" slogan), but they can't be perceived by the public as contributing to that failure - because if Obama fails that means bad things are going to happen to the country.
On the other hand, if Obama succeeds, it will also be bad for the GOP, because it will be shown that government can work, which is contrary to current right-wing dogma (as Jay points out).
Non-leaders like Limbaugh, of course, are free to be completely irresponsible. Although it would be a fair question to ask, "why does Rush hate America?"
Amazing how far afield this discussion has ranged. Getting back to the original comment by Mr. Boren, it would seem to me that the statement about Limbaugh was a mistake as you pointed out. It lends credence to the Conservatives who already live in a paranoid world where everyone but their own clique is suspect. But I think the worst thing about it is that it is an insult to the folks that he was trying to win over (as if that is possible). To imply that these powerful solons would listen to and follow a demagogue (and very petty and vindictive one at that) is to impugn their individuality.
Jay...seriously..."US/Iraq war for oil "??? Tell me how we are getting oil out of the deal?? Where are you going to get your new "facts" when Al Franken gets into the Senate??
Mike D....when has "Government" EVER been the answer to anything?? Welfare??? Social Security?? Airline regulation??? Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac regulation??? Wall Street oversight??? Pretty much, Government by its nature is grossly inefficient at best and more often then not, fails miserably in living up to its promises...no matter what party is running the show. All "Big Government" does is to create more people who are dependant upon it.
I love the Obama vs. Limbaugh Grudge Match Extreme Fighting Challenge. Maybe Rush will come out of his bunker and start doing some real talking where his ideas can actually be challenged. He was on CNBC this morning defending his "I want Obama to fail" statement and received criticism from the business reporters.
Let's shine some light on Limbaugh's philosophy and see how it stands up.
Bill, in a democracy government is largely a reflection of the constituency. Thus if it is full of greedy, incompetent, uncaring and unknowing people, you mostly can trace that back to the populace that placed them there. For those of you who can't stand the thought of government, how about we get rid of the armed forces, FDA (although under Bush they might as well have been absent), the Department of Agriculture, Social Security and on and on. We can go back to the days of pure capitalism when Collis Huntington and Leland Stanford robbed poor wheat farmers by charging exorbitant rates to carry their product on the Southern Pacific. And child labor was rampant. And workers could be killed or injured with no safety net and shameless wages and working conditions. Don't tell me government cannot do good. It just needs good people putting it in place.
Thank you Dave.
Roxanna, I still wonder where you get your information. Care to let us all know?
Bill, please remember that in the beginning of Bush's presidency he enjoyed 70-90% approval ratings. The majority of the country didn't start bagging on Bush until he deserved it. This does not include making fun of him because of his obvious shortcomings...that's just good comedy.
Bill and TC, trust me, no one is going to take away your freedom of speech. If they do, I'll kiss your butt and give you 10 minutes to get up a crowd. No one is taking away Rush's freedom of speech either so relax, he'll be on the air as long as people still listen. Yes, he made a controversial statement and the media covered it. So? What's your point? He loves the attention. It's his job. He's an entertainer. That's what he gets paid for. And has it ever occurred to you that HE'S part of the media too?
For all of those who think Obama is a Marxist...tell me what your definition of Marxism is and show me your proof that it applies to Obama and how he plans to apply that to this country. If you can't do this...then stop making the ridiculous statement already.
And for anyone who questions Obama's Constitutional appreciation or commitment...he's probably forgotten more about the Constitution than any of you will ever know. He's a former Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago, so I think the Constitution will be safer in the next 4 years than it has been in that last 4.
As far as the topic goes...I personally think Rush wants Obama to fail. And for Obama to fail, that means the country goes into the toilet. But I don't think that's a big deal to Rush because to him, it's more important to be right, keep the show, and still collect his $400 million through 2016.
Has Rush ever run for political office? Has Rush ever done anything to help better this country? I mean physically or financially, or does he get $35+ million a year to just complain? Please let me know.
Scott:
"Bill and TC, trust me, no one is going to take away your freedom of speech. If they do, I'll kiss your butt...." Pucker up!
I wonder if any one of us really know how much "free speech" has been diminished over the years? It’s the old story of the frog in a kettle being slowly boiled to death. If he had been throw into hot water, he would have reflexively jumped out; put him in cool water and slowly heat it and he allows himself to boil to death.
Incrementally, slowly, day by day, we are seeing "free speech" diminished. It is happening in every arena. We bloggers - in this forum - are accorded a semblance of free speech; but whether you realize it or not, that free speech is not absolute. Now, I do believe that a forum such as this ought to have standards, such as, no obscenities, threats, etc., but what about free speech about politics or religion?
Does vigorous and unabated free speech still exist for those of us who express opinions contrary to the politically correct pap pushed by our government and the news media? The only answer has to be - partially! (For which we ought to be grateful, considering what is about to transpire).
I contend that free speech in those areas has been greatly reduced. And I think that it is being done, deliberately, knowingly, and willingly with much malice and forethought.
Case in point: Right after the Inauguration of our new president, I sent a blog in response to what I believed was an "unfair" comment by Bee editor Russ Minick. That comment was: "...We NOW have a president who believes in the Constitution, science, middle class and working Americans, and the need for the United States to be a leader in the world rather than its master."
My response to his comments, and libs in general, was pretty rough, but well within, I felt, the bounds of acceptable and decent free speech. ( FYI: It contained such opinionated terms as, "calloused," (the) "statement is not only without merit but completely reprehensible," "... the most single irresponsible statement that I have heard... " "... ought to hang your head in shame," etc.). After seeing that it was not printed, and thinking, I had perhaps "messed up" the sending of that blog, I sent it again. It never appeared. I can draw only one conclusion.
Looking back over many, many decades, we sometimes don’t realize what we have lost. One day I picked up a book of sermons that was printed in the early 1880s. It contained the transcripts of sermons by the great Southern revival preacher, San Jones, who preached them in Cincinnati, Ohio the year before. I found myself thinking, "my God, if I said the same things he did in a public forum today, I would be in jail." (And it was just a sermon!). It was acceptable and free speech in the 1880s. It was only then that I realize how much free speech we have actually lost.
I hope (and pray) that I am wrong, but I think that soon, any speech in opposition to the global warming fraud, evolution, Obama’s socialist policies, any speech advocating evangelical Christianity (and theological objections to moral issues) will be declared "disloyality, or "hate-speech" or unacceptable beliefs in Obama’s messianic state.
TC,
If I or anyone for that matter believes you have an ounce of sincerity, maybe we would believe you.
Look at you past writing which degrades human life, humanity and is very UNChristian. I don't know if you were "born again" or not, I suggest you come back as someone other then yourself. The hypocracy is deafining.
It seems evident that your asking for certain standards, when you have none yourself?
Don't worry when the "hate speech" parade comes to town I know we'll see you proudly leading it.
Your past comments;
T C Morgan | December 12, 2008 4:05 PM
"FYI: It’s news to me that the term "cockroach" is a racist term. Perhaps, it would help to understand how I use the term. Simply put, a cockroach is: "a filthy bug that crawls out from under a rock and scurries away when the light is turned on." Now, I ask you, isn’t that a perfect description of most Dems?
Urban Dictionary online lists 22 definitions of the word. Am I suppose to know them all? Kind of partial to definition number one however: "vile little crawling, flying, swimming b*&%$ds who have come from Satan." Kinda fits!"
----
T C Morgan December 13, 2008 7:31 AM
"I meant no offense to any cockroachs who are only trying to get along in their world!"
I pretty much agree with you TC, free speech is in danger, but free opinion is a booming business. Increasingly the 'news media,'looks like a fact-free zone with no shortage of opinion...kinda like the Limbaugh show...
after all these years of carefully avoiding intelligent, informed, debate on his show,
I, for one, would rather enjoy seeing his debut as a debater, but it doesn't seem very fair to pit him against the former editor of the the Harvard Law Review.
Hilarious how the left makes up a lie and then promotes it as truth and their ignorant followers are too lazy or unwilling to seek/admit the real truth and instead eat it up like a dog returning to its own vomit."Duh Bee" and all the "Useful Idiots" can read the transcripts for themselves but would rather attempt to silence the opposition rather than educate themselves of the facts.MOI aka."Bubby"...unless you are a socialist(I believe your a solid Republican despite a previous assumption that you were a RINO) I think you would agree with "El Rushbo" if you read the complete transcript...We really can't afford to let Obama succeed with his fast moving leftist agenda so I hope he fails big time.
Can I assume from your repetitive posting of my past comments and your sometimes demeaning opinions that you would deny me the right to say what I believe? I guess freedom of speech applies only to libs!
BTW, I consider those comments as relatively mild (and kinda funny!).
False civility is overblown anyways!
At the risk of being guilty of repetitive posting as well, let me, once again remind all of us of this great quote from Justice Clarence Thomas:
"The insistence on civility in the form of our debates has the perverse effect of cannibalizing our principles, the very essence of a civil society.......By yielding to a FALSE FORM OF 'CIVILITY,' we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us....Active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks; they are branded as mean-spirited, ..... racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and non judgmental - i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best......Today, as in the past, we will need a brave 'civic virtue,' not a timid civility, to keep our republic." Hon. Clarence Thomas in a speech, 2/13/2001.
I never said not to post your vile comments, on the contrary keep posting them.
Your vile comments only serve to justify your true character devoid of Christian values you supposedly think you have.
Quoting Clarence Thomas gives you no credibility even Judge Thomas does not demean human life, not even in a "kinda funny" way.
It's not about conservatives, or liberals, it's about civility. You just can't get past the partisanship to be civil.
Rich, I think TC is speaking in all sincerity in his reply to me, and he raises some good points.
I don't know what happened to your post that you say you sent in twice TC but that's a question for Russ. I would find it very hard to believe that it would have been withheld without a valid reason. I've had posts not posted, but I used language that I think they wouldn't allow. I'm sure it's in the rules that we all agreed to when we signed up. I didn't feel silenced, just turned down because I crossed the line. I've also sent in posts where I forgot to put my name and email and they didn't get posted. That's my fault. Certainly if you sent in a post, that you're sure you filled out the required info on, that didn't get posted because the Bee didn't like what you said (no bad language), then you have a legitimate case, but like I said, I would find that hard to believe. It's not their style. They invite controversy...just look at some of the topics they put up.
I think the thing with freedom of speech though is misunderstood and often misused or abused. I deplore flag burning but I think it should be protected under freedom of speech. I think it's a bad use of freedom of speech but it's someone's freedom of expression of disgust with our government. Say Obama actually does turn our country into some despicable, shameful place in the world and suddenly it's not the America we know and love anymore. Suppose then a group of people burned the flag to show their anger. It's freedom of speech and their right to protest their government. Again, I have too much respect for the flag to even consider or condone burning it. Heck, I never let it even touch the ground and always fold it properly. When I made a triangle display case out of solid cherry wood with a hand rubbed finish (I've been a woodworker most of my life) for the casket flag of my stepfather, a WWII veteran, I researched and researched how it should be made and how it should be properly displayed and whether or not I could refold it for display after the vets had folded it during the ceremony. As it turns out I could have refolded it, but I didn't. I couldn't bring myself to do it.
We all have differences in our opinions and we keep putting them up, freedom of speech. Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater, freedom of speech, but it will also come with a price because you can cause injury. Calling people names, freedom of speech. Using terms like "nappy headed hoes" when talking about a women's basketball team, freedom of speech, and you can expect to lose your job.
Yes, I agree that the politically correct thing has gotten out of control. One has to be careful not to offend, and it lives on all sides. Christians get offended as well as gays, blacks, Jews, fat people, short people, Polish people, bald people, blonds, redheads and everyone else. Something offends everyone. We should choose to not offend people because there's a golden rule of how to be good humans, not because we might get sued. But we still have our freedom of speech, and if anyone thinks legislating people to be nice is too much, then yes I agree, but you can blame that on all of those who complain when they're offended, and those who offend by abusing their freedom of speech.
I've rambled on too long. One might think I'm abusing my freedom of speech right now.
"Just Rich" aka."The Cockroach Advocate",when he's not choking his chicken(your words,not mine) lecturing on civility...what a typical liberal hypocrite."Liberalism" aka. "Socialism" is like "Pornography"...you know it when you see/hear it, it's disgusting, and destructive to both the individual and society.
"Badge of Honor Brian" where did you come from in this discussion?
Your from the same ilk not repecting people's given names, hense your own nick name you've earned.
Readers' quality of endurance is far more often abused than writers' freedom of speech. As for Yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, (unless I am mistaking) the law of the land takes a dim view of it, weighing constitutionality against the predictable dire consequences. Now to Mr. Morgan's sincerity....for his sake, I hope that he does not believe all that laid on thick Christian- ultra-Conservatism wrapped around his rather un-Christian sarcasm; but that he is soliciting contradiction which in return....you get the picture.
"....all those lonely people! Where do they all come from?"
I have kept up with that Limbaughh/Obama thing away from the blog. To goad LImbaugh into saying the most outrageously offensive and ridiculous things( like I hope that Obama's presidency fails) is not weakness, it's passive aggressive strategy. And it is easy. Limbaugh schlepps so much negative weight, close to the notorious, that his unguarded tongue tends to indict him and not the ( so far) practically blank page (scandal-wise) Obama. Since Limbaugh is not stupid, he is just too damn sure of himself.
Even right here on the blog....when I get sick of some blogger's insulting and/or mean mouth, I don't lower myself to refute in kind. I just let them get into it deeper with crap about me which nobody believes anyhow, but reflects upon the attacker most unfavorably. And that about defines my slant on the President vs. notorious radio talk show host.
"Dizzy"...maybe you should call for a vote..."nobody" is a broad generalization. Unless a person listens to Rush Limbaugh on some sort of a regular basis they can not appreciate his genius.He is correct 98.9 percent of the time(an independent audit) and entertaining on top of it but he is a threat to liberalism and its mindless followers so I can understand the reluctance by those who wish to "Suspend Disbelief".I listened to NPR for three weeks before I gave up...I doubt that Rush' critics have given him that consideration.
Don’t know how RL could have an "unguarded tongue," and "not be stupid" at the same time! Love him or hate him, ya gotta admit that he is well-spoken. And funny! (And he frequently points out - libs have no sense of humor!).
And don’t mistake confidence and strength of conviction for ego. Lord knows, we sure could use some more conviction in our society. We have too many wishy-washy politicians that can’t seem to make their minds on anything.
He reminds me of that great jurist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In an interview last year with Lesley Stahl (60 Minutes?) he ended one of his pronouncements with the words, "Anyway, that’s my view, And it happens to be correct." Now that’s strength of conviction!