T1B

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

Why might that be?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/22/markets ... tm?cnn=yes

What was the unemployement rate again?

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that wall street is one big fukking ponzi scheme. The fukkers running it know that there's money to be made running it up and money to be made running it down. I've pretty much given up looking at my 401K. Just hope to hell there's a decent amount left in it in 20 years.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:Why might that be?

Maybe you should try actually listening to his show, dipshit.

I find it mildly humorous to watch some of you rant on and on about Rush yet when pressed about how often you actualy listen to the guy's show, you...well, you eject.

Who the fuck listens to Rush Limbaugh anymore?

Cuda wrote:Who the fuck listens to Rush Limbaugh anymore?

Who ever did in the first place?


BTW -- Post WW2, only Ford and Clinton had lower approval ratings after 7 months than Obama, FWIW.

His approval rating is lower than the percentage of the popular vote he garnered... interesting.

Dinsdale wrote:

Cuda wrote:Who the fuck listens to Rush Limbaugh anymore?

Who ever did in the first place?

Apparently, Q does.

Dinsdale wrote:

Cuda wrote:Who the fuck listens to Rush Limbaugh anymore?

Who ever did in the first place?

More than likely more than who watch cable news. Probably as many if not more than each of the national broadcast news programs. And possibly approaching the total of all three nightly news broadcasts.

NEW YORK – September 22, 2009 – “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” was the most-watched evening news broadcast of the 2008-09 season, according to Nielsen Media Research data. For the season, “NBC Nightly News” averaged 8.609 million total viewers, a +10% advantage (+791,000) over ABC “World News’” 7.818 million, and +42% more (+2.556 million) than “CBS Evening News’” 6.053 million total viewers.

Average nightly = 22 million give or take?

Rush's daily audience? Tought to know. Arbitron says it's too difficult to measure given the varying times that the show is broadcast and that some broadcasters don't air the entire program. This guy at the WaPo cites estimates from varying people/publishers - 20 million (Time magazine, ABC News), 19 million (Fox News), 14 million (CNN), or "14.2 million to about 25 million" (The Washington Post). Further in his article he cites Arbitron estimates from about 30 different markets pegging Rush's audience at 14 million. So, somewhere between 14 million and 20 million sound good?

Kinda dumb to try to minimize the number of people listening to Rush.

Additionally, remember a few years back when we learned that Rush's audience tended to be more educated than viewers/listeners of mainstream news media? I mean, Rush's listeners, according to Pew crushed NPR, CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, etc.

If you idiots read the link from Rush's show that I posted, you will understand that Rush was blaming Obama from the drop in the stock market (before Obama took office mind you), and that this is what he was referring to as the "Obama Recession."

Fat Guy T1B posters pretend not to get their material from wrote:The Dow Jones Industrial Average down over 790 points since Obama won.

He hasn't even passed anything yet. The truth about this is, the markets work six to nine months ahead. Everybody in the market is trying to figure out where we're going to be six to nine months ahead. They're selling and they're getting out. That 4,000-point drop, that was also due to Obama.

Additionally, El Rushbo seems to downplay the impact of jobless numbers as a factor ('sup smackaholic?)

Fat Guy T1B posters pretend not to get their material from wrote: The market's down today because of the jobless numbers. That's how the Drive-Bys see it. Uhhhhh, we have the largest market plunge after an election in history. Thank you, man-child Barack Obama.

mvscal: I feel sorry for the 10 year old version of you. Could you imagine going back in time and telling that poor kid, with hopes and dreams about his future, that as an adult he would be reduced to a bitter, trolling, wanna be cyber bully? It would crush him.

JMak wrote:Maybe you should try actually listening to his show, dipshit.

I find it mildly humorous to watch some of you rant on and on about Rush yet when pressed about how often you actualy listen to the guy's show, you...well, you eject.

Why are we not surprised that Weasel would be a regular listener and supporter of Rusp Limpdick and his blathering gibberish? With the demented head space of drug addled Joseph McCarthy mixed with the fear mongering lies of Karl Rove, Limpdick truly represents the lowest level of political awareness and social discourse in this nation's history. And who was Limpdick's intellectual inspiration? WIlliam F. Buckley! That's right, the ludicrous fraud of the fatuous right.

Here's Buckley getting pounded on his own show by a true intellectual--and great American patriot--Noam Chomsky..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Limpdick is the refuge for scared weak losers who are desperate to blame someone--anyone--for the disaster of their supporting such vile criminals as Reagan and Cheney, et al. Limpdick couldn't win an actual debate against a high school student, let alone an informed adult.

Golly, where is those trillions going? dumb asses. Enjoy your new supreme governdebt.

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

DING DING DING

Terry is an official racist. You vapid racist bastard!

Jerkovich wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

DING DING DING

Terry is an official racist. You vapid racist bastard!

I'm a racist because I mentioned education? And Rush's and Seanie's lack of same?

What color is the sky in your world?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

How much influence do either of these guys have? You cannot even begin to quantify it anyway.

This is nothing more than the typical liberal trope which states, "Those who disagree with you suffer from some mental defect." It's always the same with you people. Those that disagree with you have no legitimate intellectual difference of opinion, rather, they're retarded or suffer from some mental condition that prevents them from seeing things as clearly as you do.

So, no, it's not just you...it's a disease that affects millions of Americans who simply declare that anyone who dares disagree with them is a retard, racist, etc. It's no surprise that you people supported eugenics, sterilization, population control, etc.

JMak wrote:This is nothing more than the typical liberal trope which states, "Those who disagree with you suffer from some mental defect." It's always the same with you people. Those that disagree with you have no legitimate intellectual difference of opinion, rather, they're retarded or suffer from some mental condition that prevents them from seeing things as clearly as you do.

Wrong. I did not say they were retarded, which would be either a statement of opinion (if used in the colloquial but incorrect sense) or an incorrect statement of fact. I merely stated that they had less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher. That, by contrast, is a correct statement of fact.

You do know that your kid's phys ed teacher has at least a bachelor's degree, don't you? Neither one of these guys does. So all I was stating was a correct statement of fact.

As to the level of their influence, Rush is constantly bragging about the size of his listening audience. And Seanie's employer is constantly bragging about being the highest rated news source (inaccurate, since even Katie Perky's Evening News ratings dwarf Fox's, but that's a topic for another thread).

JMak wrote:
How much influence do either of these guys have? You cannot even begin to quantify it anyway.

given the fact that Republican leadership routinely parrots Limbaugh talking points, coupled with the fact he was the keynote speaker at the CPAC annual meeting, I'd say he wields significant influence in the Republican party...

Hannity, eh not so much

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

So fukking what?

Go tell Bill Gates about formal education, or Thom Edison or Abe Lincoln or countless others that have achieved much without it. And on the other side of it, I have met people dumber than a box of rock (with the smart ones take out), that had post grad edumacation.

Not trying to put down formal education. I wish I had more. But to dismiss someone simply because they didn't feel like sitting in class for an extra few years after high school is typically arrogant lib bullshit.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the fact that a person who has this much influence over American public opinion, and by extension, American policy, has less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher? Nor is he the only one ('sup, Seanie).

DING DING DING

Terry is an official racist. You vapid racist bastard!

I'm a racist because I mentioned education? And Rush's and Seanie's lack of same?

What color is the sky in your world?

Same color as he one where Obama fans scream racism at anyone critical of The One.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Wrong. I did not say they were retarded, which would be either a statement of opinion (if used in the colloquial but incorrect sense) or an incorrect statement of fact. I merely stated that they had less formal education than your kid's phys ed teacher. That, by contrast, is a correct statement of fact.

I.e., they're stupid. Hence, aren't you as worried as I that stupid people ahve this much influence? That's your essential point, is it not? Of course it is.

You do know that your kid's phys ed teacher has at least a bachelor's degree, don't you? Neither one of these guys does. So all I was stating was a correct statement of fact.

No, you posted more than a factual observation. From that observation of fact you were concluding that the less educated, i.e., the stupid, have too much influence and that that degree of influence scares you.

As to the level of their influence, Rush is constantly bragging about the size of his listening audience. And Seanie's employer is constantly bragging about being the highest rated news source (inaccurate, since even Katie Perky's Evening News ratings dwarf Fox's, but that's a topic for another thread).

So by "influence" you meant the size of their audience? So are we now to re-read your prior comment to mean that we should be scared of their popularity? I'm underwhelmed.

Felix wrote:given the fact that Republican leadership routinely parrots Limbaugh talking points, coupled with the fact he was the keynote speaker at the CPAC annual meeting, I'd say he wields significant influence in the Republican party...

Hannity, eh not so much

I think that Terry would classify that as an opinion. And as such, it being partly based on an unknown reference to someone or some people allegedly parroting something, well, we can just dispense with your opinion quite easily...ppfffttt.

JMak wrote:well, we can just dispense with your opinion quite easily...

just as easily as I can with the assertion that Limbaugh's audience is more intelligent than average television audience....

he panders to the most backwards thinking, uneducated rubes in this country (old white southerners with an IQ equal to that of a squash)...anybody with half a brain can see through his incendiary rhetoric (which is why I'm not surprised you're a regular listener)....I don't have to listen to Limbaugh, because everyday it's the same thing....blame Democrats for everything wrong, and credit Republicans for everything right...that fucking gasbag has an ego that would put Paris Hilton's to shame...

that idiot relies on Matt Drudge for his primary talking points and if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, then you're an even bigger fucking tard than I'd imagined.....

I would say that someone made famous by sucking cock on the internet shouldn't be confused with someone with a large ego. Feelsdix should know this first hand.

As for Rush Limbaugh, liberals will continue to marginalize him becasue their ability to argue his points is rare.

Felix wrote: that idiot relies on Matt Drudge for his primary talking points.....

Interesting. Can you explain how it is he relies on Drudge ?

Tom In VA wrote:
Interesting. Can you explain how it is he relies on Drudge ?

sure, just read Drudge when you wake up, then listen to his show for the next couple of days and eventually one of Drudge's Star Magazine quality hard hitting exposes will show up...it's like clock work...

me, I don't listen but get the rush rundown daily from Media Matters....what takes that douche 3 hours to spit out, takes me all of about 10 minutes to read....

Felix, can you provide any direct quotes from some of Drudge's "exposes" ?

I don't listen to Rush but I check the Drudge Report frequently and for the life of me, can't find anything HE HIMSELF has written - except for the occasional "Stay tuned, I'm on this story". Most of it consists of links to news site and news services around the world.

Liddy was good.....before he became senile.

Rush is worth a listen, mostly for the song parodies. Other than that, his show is getting pretty tired.

Beck is better than Rush. Atleast he is capable of criticizing GOP hacks as well as libs.

Hannity? Wanna be a great american? Shoot that fukker. He sucks GOP cock with a vengeance.

Savage is fun to listen to just for his meltdowns.

My favorite is Howie Carr. He is sort of a local guy, although he is carried by a handful of stations outside the New England market.

I'd really like to see someone with a stronger libertarian bent nationally. Beck is starting to lean more that way, but, he has a way to go.

When it comes to meltdowns Savage doesn't have anything on Mark Levin.

smackaholic wrote:Rush is worth a listen, mostly for the song parodies.

yeah, the "Obama the Magic Negro" song was simply outstanding

nope, no racisim there

Damn, that is some disturbing shit. It's not as bad as Tom Delay remaining out of jail, but it's certainly not a public school's job to be indoctrinating kids to praise a particular politician. Christer schools are properly indicted as being insane for doing the same for their cult figure, but that's why they're private and not included in the public charter.

As far as Barry Khan winning because he's black (tan, please--an actual full blood negro would not have won) ignores the fact that a syphilitic jackalope could have beaten McBush and Brood Mare--though the fact that the lamest ticket in history received as many votes as it did is indeed a harrowing prospect.

As far as Weasel's idiotic take that "insane Republicans" is just a liberal trope, this is a plain lie. For example, when the party of Lincoln is now basically represented by Glenn Beck--a completely insane Mormon, former meth head--as well as Caribou Barbie, also insane and an outright embarrassment on virtually every level, well how can one say that the GOP even still exists? Besides in name and corporate lobbying interests, of course. Seriously, who can be cited as representing any viable profile of leadership in the republican party? Casino Greeter? Sure, another war mongering end of days Mormon?

C'mon, bring it. Who represents any future for the disgraced and rotted GOP?

The "Magic Negro" reference was not racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

Rush was lampooning the left, not speaking ill of Obama based on Obama's race.

mvscal wrote:His mindless, cult following is . . .

. . . Pretty much the mirror image of the mindless, cult following we saw for awhile of the previous occupant of the Oval Office. Only slightly less fervid.

"Rack Dubya!!!!!!!!" ring any bells?

Tom In VA wrote:The "Magic Negro" reference was not racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

Rush was lampooning the left, not speaking ill of Obama based on Obama's race.

Close, Tommy.

Paul Shanklin's musical parody was a direct result of David Ehrenstein's op-ed piece published in that bastion of left-coast conservatism, the LA Times. Rush simply ran with it. Leaving Foolix and every other far-left, race-baiting whack-job to look like, well... Foolix.

Obama the 'Magic Negro'
The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.
By David Ehrenstein

L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN writes about Hollywood and politics.

March 19, 2007

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?

And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")

But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 1015.story

Terry in Crapchester wrote: . . . Pretty much the mirror image of the mindless, cult following we saw for awhile of the previous occupant of the Oval Office. Only slightly less fervid.

"Rack Dubya!!!!!!!!" ring any bells?

Actually, no it doesn't. I remember a lot of support and understanding for his decisions as they related to the pursuit of terrorists. Other than that, everyone pretty much agreed the socialist agenda he pushed through on his way out, his overall idiotic public demeanor, pretzel eating skills, Segue riding skills and general affinity for putting tripping over his words were causes for harsh criticism.

mvscal wrote: [
No, there wasn't

of course not, republican talking heads are just offering honest, well thought out reasoned opinions of Obama based solely on his policies

I think Obama is a racist with a deep seated hatred of white people

if that isn't reasoned discourse, then I don't know what is
nope, another fine example of getting down to the nuts and bolts of what's troubling America...

"Obama is doing everything he can to ruin this country, because that's what he wants"-El Rushbo on another of his reasoned and responsible analyses of Obama's speech to the UN

and insofar as the video goes...what's the source? Did Obama have some direct hand in this...is this another of his plans to bring about a coup in the United States so that he can be declared President for Life (that comes from Limbaugh btw)...is it some sort of sinister plot to convert all the children into mindless drones that will eat their parents brains and take over the world?

reasonable and responsible discourse about the issues, that's what folks like Beck, Sean "never met a liberal I wouldn't bash" Hannity, and Limbaugh are bringing to the table...fair and reasoned discourse

but if these are going to be the voices of the Republican party, they're doing the democrats a huge favor, so I say they need keep up the fair and reasoned discourse

LTS TRN 2 wrote:. Christer schools are properly indicted as being insane for doing the same for their cult figure, but that's why they're private and not included in the public charter.

This is why I keep my kids as far away from the Ilk likeyou that think this way. You're mentally disturbed and delusional.

My kids are way far ahead in their learning then 90% of the govment cheese schools, and they don't get spoon feed horse crap.

Foolix wrote:"Obama is doing everything he can to ruin this country, because that's what he wants"-El Rushbo on another of his reasoned and responsible analyses of Obama's speech to the UN

It's reasonable to question his motives because only a certified imbecile would attempt to take a country out of deep debt by ... taking it MUCH more deeply into debt.

Just because a hord of mind-numbed zombies like you hoover every possible drop of jizz out of his pork sword doesn't mean that objective thinkers like ME don't question just what in hell's handbasket he thinks he's trying to accomplish.

He's fucked, Foolix, as are you.

poptart wrote: It's reasonable to question his motives because only a certified imbecile would attempt to take a country out of deep debt by ... taking it MUCH more deeply into debt.

the first thing he did was try and and stimulate an economy that was near the breaking point....you seem to be implying here that his first order of business was to cut the country's deficit, which of course he couldn't even attempt, due to the calamitous condition of the economy when he assumed the Presidency....do you ever wonder why nobody from the right talks about the success of the Bush tax cuts? Because those tax cuts, along with the money we were hemorrhaging in Afghanistan and Iraq pushed our economy to the breaking point....

Just because a hord of mind-numbed zombies like you hoover every possible drop of jizz out of his pork sword doesn't mean that objective thinkers like ME don't question just what in hell's handbasket he thinks he's trying to accomplish.

He's trying to save the economy from falling in on itself....now seriously, if you think doling out additional tax cuts is what he should be doing I'd like to hear just how you think that's going to work in the short term....and save the Bush/Regan trickle down economic theory for somebody that possesses more than three firing neurons...and if the best you can do is to simply regurgitate your previous insults, don't bother replying....

Felix wrote: He's trying to save the economy from falling in on itself.....

By expanding government? Thats a proven remedy


you're a fuckin' jerkoff.

He's trying to save the economy from falling in on itself....now seriously

You say that, and then add "now seriously" to the end?

lol

The fact that a "serious" adult can be duped into thinking that this @sshole is actually trying to SAVE us is high comedy.

His ACTIONS don't tell me that he's trying to save us.

He's dry fucking us, you pinhead.





If we were going to borrow (or/and print) 900 billion dollars to "stimulate" the economy (something they NEVER should have done -- but I'll play along), then the gov. should have taken that money and split it up among all U.S. adult citizens.
Cut us all a check in the neighborhood of $4,000.

Single adult - $4,000
Married couple - $8,000

There ya go -- stimulate the economy with that.

Money goes IMMEDIATELY to work within the U.S. economy.

How much of the "stimulus" has even been spent?