Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

Cardboard Box A posted:

We talked about ~Dark Enlightenment~ in the Should Barack Obama appoint Eric Schmidt CEO of America? discussion

Ron Paul 2016

Oh so that's the 'Morning Star' I've heard so much about.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 13:34

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Seriously, Paul's going to be like what, 80 in 2016? I'd think even full on Paultards would be getting worried about his age by then. They could always transition to Rand Paul, but Rand follows the Republican line a bit more closely than his father does.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:39

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

cafel posted:

So does his blimp help get us part way into space or what?

Without pesky FDA rules people could volunteer to have their brains dissected and merged with computers, bringing on the singularity.

Really curious how P2P law would work without a central authority managing the protocol.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

McDowell posted:

Really curious how P2P law would work without a central authority managing the protocol.

The pseudo-anarchy era of Iceland, complete with the battleaxes.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 02:54

Mercury_Storm: Jun 12, 2003; *chomp chomp chomp*

radical meme posted:

Sometimes I have to touch the poop even more than usual so I check out conservative news media and these caught my eye today.

Just in case anyone was confused about the journalistic integrity of Breitbart News, this story points out how Breitbart charged a Texas Tea Party group $7,000, to come and cover their event.

Haha, well I guess we know where all those TPC site donations were going to now!

# ? Apr 4, 2014 03:00

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

fade5 posted:

Seriously, Paul's going to be like what, 80 in 2016? I'd think even full on Paultards would be getting worried about his age by then. They could always transition to Rand Paul, but Rand follows the Republican line a bit more closely than his father does.

Post-Paul Consciousness Algorithm 2020

# ? Apr 4, 2014 04:24

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Install Windows posted:

The pseudo-anarchy era of Iceland, complete with the battleaxes.

I was thinking more like islamic courts in Pakistan and the like.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 04:52

pig slut lisa: Mar 5, 2012; irl is good

radical meme posted:

Sometimes I have to touch the poop even more than usual so I check out conservative news media and these caught my eye today.

Just in case anyone was confused about the journalistic integrity of Breitbart News, this story points out how Breitbart charged a Texas Tea Party group $7,000, to come and cover their event.

Good to see Ken Crow is still going strong despite all the mean ol' trolls from Something Sure Is Awful! :unsmith:

# ? Apr 4, 2014 05:30

J. P. Beagley: Apr 11, 2008

radical meme posted:

*Centralization and bureaucracy are the antithesis of personalization, and only discourage choice and innovation.

*States should have maximum flexibility to design the programs that serve their citizens.

I never quite understood how the Right reconciles its hatred for government - "centralization and bureaucracy" - with its fetishizing of state's rights. (Let me guess: they don't.)

State control is state control is state control whether it's a state the size of Delaware, Virginia, California, or a nation-state. In all cases you have top-down administration of a system crafted out of decisions made by the "will of the people" made manifest by elections.

My guess is they'd claim that States are more "responsive" to the will of the people, and because they are "smaller" and more "local," they won't infringe on the rights of the people as easily as the Federal government does?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 05:32

Unzip and Attack: Mar 3, 2008; USPOL May

StandardVC10 posted:

Post-Paul Consciousness Algorithm 2020

I don't know why but this made me laugh harder than any D&D post I've ever read.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 06:27

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Naga Warlord posted:

I never quite understood how the Right reconciles its hatred for government - "centralization and bureaucracy" - with its fetishizing of state's rights. (Let me guess: they don't.)

State control is state control is state control whether it's a state the size of Delaware, Virginia, California, or a nation-state. In all cases you have top-down administration of a system crafted out of decisions made by the "will of the people" made manifest by elections.

My guess is they'd claim that States are more "responsive" to the will of the people, and because they are "smaller" and more "local," they won't infringe on the rights of the people as easily as the Federal government does?

Basically the states will somehow be more benevolent and more adequately representing the will of the people, much like corporations in a market devoid of regulatory process. Because reasons.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 07:15

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Cardboard Box A posted:

We talked about ~Dark Enlightenment~ in the Should Barack Obama appoint Eric Schmidt CEO of America? discussion

Ron Paul 2016

So when do we reach the Toblerone Triangle?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 07:22

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

They're pro-states rights in particular circumstances that result in more right-wing laws.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 07:24

mr. mephistopheles: Dec 2, 2009

Conservatives love everything about authoritarianism except the abstract concept. They especially like it when they know the people in authority are always going to be people likely to agree with them, such as living in a red state. The federal government is evil because sometimes Democrats are in charge. You may recall very little criticism of the NSA coming from conservatives during the Bush years. Back then it was all about protecting us.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 08:01

GENUINE CAT HERDER: Jan 2, 2004; Wedge Regret

Darkman Fanpage posted:

So when do we reach the Toblerone Triangle?

I had almost the same thought when I saw that. At this point I'm pretty sure that making horrible, unreadable, and completely nonsensical graphics to promote your position is basically a requirement of Libertarianism. Or that that and the ideology are just symptoms of mental illness.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 08:11

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Naga Warlord posted:

I never quite understood how the Right reconciles its hatred for government - "centralization and bureaucracy" - with its fetishizing of state's rights. (Let me guess: they don't.)

State control is state control is state control whether it's a state the size of Delaware, Virginia, California, or a nation-state. In all cases you have top-down administration of a system crafted out of decisions made by the "will of the people" made manifest by elections.

My guess is they'd claim that States are more "responsive" to the will of the people, and because they are "smaller" and more "local," they won't infringe on the rights of the people as easily as the Federal government does?

It's because federalism / states' rights throws a wrench in the workings of government and makes it more difficult for the government to do things. Essentially they're trying to sabotage it. That's part of it at least.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 08:20

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

radical meme posted:

Yes, states rights ya'll; because during the 200 years before the ACA, they did such a great job with the patchwork insurance puzzle of health care.

It was pretty profitable and people got rich off it. Why do you hate capitalism? Insurance companies should be allowed to drop who they want, when they want, for any reason at all.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 08:27

Centripetal Horse: Nov 22, 2009; Fuck money, get GBS

This could have bought you a half a tank of gas, lmfao -
Love, gromdul

icantfindaname posted:

It's because federalism / states' rights throws a wrench in the workings of government and makes it more difficult for the government to do things. Essentially they're trying to sabotage it. That's part of it at least.

I think you're giving too much credit to the man on the street, most of them are not thinking anywhere near that deep. Conservative voters, at least the states' rights heralds, have provincial views and provincial thought processes. Their friends think like they do, so the town must think like they do, so the state, despite being just another arbitrary line on a map, must think like they do. Therefore, if they can just get the power back to the state, they will be living in a utopia of sensible, like-minded citizens. Also, all evil liberal policies come from the Federal government, not from "real" Americans, so giving power to the states means the entire country* will go back to good old conservative values.

* Except California, those heathen hippies are beyond help.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 09:06

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

joeburz posted:

Basically the states will somehow be more benevolent and more adequately representing the will of the people, much like corporations in a market devoid of regulatory process. Because reasons.

In fairness they actually would be if people gave a poo poo about state elections (or anything but "the big man in the white house" every 4 years).

# ? Apr 4, 2014 12:48

robotsinmyhead: Nov 29, 2005; Dude, they oughta call you Piledriver!; Clever Betty

The States' Rights thing has always boggled me. They claim that the US Gov't is too big and doesn't support the will of the common man, espousing the virtues of a State Gov't. The inevitability of this is to go down a rabbit hole where the State Gov't is too big and doesn't support the will of the common man!

Then down to Counties or City-State governments, and before long, your daily commuter vehicle has 12 license plates and half-a-dozen disagreeing safety regulation stickers on it.

I broached this idea to a libertarian friend of mine and tried to coax out an answer: Imagine a domestic US airline flying from NYC to Los Angeles and having to know/comply to the various airspace restrictions of 15 states, then landing at your destination and having to deal with their security protocols (which could differ wildly from those of NYC)

No answer was offered.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 13:33

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

What was travelling through Europe like before the European Union and the Schengen Area?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 14:25

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

VideoTapir posted:

What was travelling through Europe like before the European Union and the Schengen Area?

I dunno, but I definitely enjoy the convenience of being able to go throughout continental Europe without having to go through passport control.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 14:27

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

if it wasn't for State's rights gay marriage and weed wouldn't be legal anywhere.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 15:02

ChristsDickWorship: Dec 7, 2004; Annihilate your demons

robotsinmyhead posted:

The States' Rights thing has always boggled me. They claim that the US Gov't is too big and doesn't support the will of the common man, espousing the virtues of a State Gov't. The inevitability of this is to go down a rabbit hole where the State Gov't is too big and doesn't support the will of the common man!

In my experience most of the people who would say "states' rights" to define their political beliefs would agree that the American Civil War is more accurately called the War of Northern Aggression, whether they're southern rednecks or internet libertarians. Their take is the US government got so powerful they tyrannized a bunch of states who were trying to live simple, traditional lifestyles. Many of them, like Ron Paul or certain NRA officials, will argue that the USA would have done away with slavery peacefully like the European countries did, but the federal government used it as a ruse to take over the south and loot their tobacco/cotton economies to fund industrial expansion in the north.

Whether you're particularly racist or not, if that's how you view the Civil War it feeds directly into several conservative narratives including states' rights protecting traditional values, keeping the size of the federal government in check and all the 2nd Amendment gun-grabber nonsense.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:13

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

wixard posted:

In my experience most of the people who would say "states' rights" to define their political beliefs would agree that the American Civil War is more accurately called the War of Northern Aggression, whether they're southern rednecks or internet libertarians. Their take is the US government got so powerful they tyrannized a bunch of states who were trying to live simple, traditional lifestyles. Many of them, like Ron Paul or certain NRA officials, will argue that the USA would have done away with slavery peacefully like the European countries did, but the federal government used it as a ruse to take over the south and loot their tobacco/cotton economies to fund industrial expansion in the north.

Whether you're particularly racist or not, if that's how you view the Civil War it feeds directly into several conservative narratives including states' rights protecting traditional values, keeping the size of the federal government in check and all the 2nd Amendment gun-grabber nonsense.

That opinion is always amusing considering that the South was using the Federal government to force slavery on states that may not have wanted it.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:18

mr. mephistopheles: Dec 2, 2009

Miltank posted:

if it wasn't for State's rights gay marriage and weed wouldn't be legal anywhere.

Weed isn't legal anywhere.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:35

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Weed isn't legal anywhere.

If you've got a trap just spring it.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 16:48

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Weed isn't legal anywhere.

It may not be legal but that hasn't stopped a store opening literally one block from my work from opening up a beautiful recreational dispensary.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:12

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

computer parts posted:

In fairness they actually would be if people gave a poo poo about state elections (or anything but "the big man in the white house" every 4 years).

In case you haven't noticed "the will of the people" is code in the southern political environment for "heavy-handed discrimination endorsed by the state".

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:22

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

joeburz posted:

In case you haven't noticed "the will of the people" is code in the southern political environment for "heavy-handed discrimination endorsed by the state".

Yeah but that's only because conservatives are the only ones to care about the state governance.

I'm sure that if more liberal people controlled the state government but there was some conservative federal issue the conservatives would support the latter over the former (and indeed they literally did during the Fugitive Slave Act era).

States rights have only been considered a conservative issue because conservatives are the only ones making use of the powers of the state (at least until those weed bills passed anyway).

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:32

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

Herman Cain on Fox Business just claimed on Fox News that Martin Luther King Jr. would have not been for "Wealth Distrubution" and "Class Welfare"

:ironicat:

quote:

[W]e are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism.... There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God's children.

May 1965 speech to the Negro American Labor Council. Quoted in Thomas F. Jackson, From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice. (2009) p. 230.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:38

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Harman Cain is ignorant on most things so why not history as well?

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:39

Spaceman Future!: Feb 9, 2007

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Weed isn't legal anywhere.

Sure it is, and it happens to be totally open and legal in a purple state. So beyond being unrealistically expensive to force Federal laws on due to the fact that state and city police literally can not cooperate with Federal laws against recreational users it would also be political suicide for either party to try to attack it in Colorado. Its De Facto legal, unless you're going to lean on technicalities about unenforceable laws in which case there are some places it is illegal to drive a black car on sundays or spit or loan your vacuum cleaner to your neighbor, you can go ahead and tuck Colorado weed in with those if you want to make your technical point that isn't really rooted in reality.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:42

skaboomizzy: Nov 12, 2003; There is nothing I want to be. There is nothing I want to do.
I don't even have an image of what I want to be. I have nothing. All that exists is zero.

I know this is meant to be the right-wing media thread, but Ronan Farrow on MSNBC is totally unwatchable. He makes Al Sharpton look like an experienced, polished professional journalist.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:16

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Spaceman Future! posted:

Sure it is, and it happens to be totally open and legal in a purple state. So beyond being unrealistically expensive to force Federal laws on due to the fact that state and city police literally can not cooperate with Federal laws against recreational users it would also be political suicide for either party to try to attack it in Colorado. Its De Facto legal, unless you're going to lean on technicalities about unenforceable laws in which case there are some places it is illegal to drive a black car on sundays or spit or loan your vacuum cleaner to your neighbor, you can go ahead and tuck Colorado weed in with those if you want to make your technical point that isn't really rooted in reality.

That's not legal, any more than it would be legal for southern states to re-introduce Jim Crow.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:29

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

skaboomizzy posted:

I know this is meant to be the right-wing media thread, but Ronan Farrow on MSNBC is totally unwatchable. He makes Al Sharpton look like an experienced, polished professional journalist.

But he's soooooo dreamy! :swoon:

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:31

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

I'll try to keep this as short as possible: Limbaugh actually had an interesting caller on yesterday which provided a great look into the Republican id
TL;DR:
:v:

Hey Rush, we need to find a meaningful message that connects with voters instead of scaring off people by being negative 100% of the time
:bahgawd:

The problem isn't our message, it's liberals and Obama

quote:

RUSH: Here's Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. It's great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Awesome. I appreciate it, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: First of all, I just want to let you know that I truly appreciate your perspective and all the ideas you share every time. I'm gonna do my best to try to articulate the point I was making to the screener. With regard to the Koch brothers article and just the message there that they're trying to communicate, I just think the Republican Party is struggling to connect with the average person.

...

CALLER: No, I just think when it comes to trying to win the presidency -- you know, you have somebody that's in there like we have now that's not really being honest about what their objectives are, but they've been elected now twice to the White House and they've implemented all kinds of damaging things that are gonna cause pain throughout the country. So I'm just talking about on a basis of trying to win the presidency, that the messaging has to be not one where we're always telling people, you know, you're gonna go it alone and that's gonna be the best avenue. I don't think we need to need to talk about that at all. I think we need to talk about --

RUSH: Hold it, hold it, give me a chance to get in here, 'cause you're saying some provocative things. Why do you assume that self-reliance equals going it alone?

CALLER: Well, that's what these people are hearing, and that's what they're being told on top of that from the other side. They're telling them, "You've got nothing, you know, they want to take it away from you. It's all you." And that scares the average person, I think, away from voting for the conservative candidate. And that's why we've just been meandering around here.

RUSH: There is not one conservative candidate who ever says he wants to take things away from people.

...

RUSH: That's why I asked you -- see, I think politics, if done right, is a one-on-one, it's a one on one relationship. You keep talking about appealing to the masses. I don't think that's the way to do it. But that's why I asked you, if you had a son who you feared was gonna spend his whole life depending on you and you didn't want him to do that and you wanted him to improve his own life, what would you tell him? What would you make him do? How would you get the message across to him?

CALLER: Well, I can tell you this much, if you think that talking to people as though they're their children, that's not gonna appeal to them. That's what I'm saying, is to win votes and for us to get somebody in there, they gotta stop making people fearful that they're just operating alone out there. This is why we have stuff like Obamacare, because people are fearful of being alone. They're fearful of losing their job. They want some type of backup. And I'm not saying that we need to provide a backup. I'm just saying we need to quit making them think that they're at it alone. That's what I'm saying. And to tell them, to talk to them that, you know, moving forward --

RUSH: You're gonna have to help me understand specifically what you mean. If you can, give me an example of a politician who says something that's making voters think they will be on their own if they vote for the guy. Can you give me an example of what you're talking about? I don't mean to put you on the spot.

CALLER: No, no. I understand what you're looking for, some type of concrete example of somebody saying something specific once that cause some type of fear or panic --

RUSH: How about if a presidential candidate on the Republican side say, "We've got too many people on food stamps. We can't afford it. It's not the best way to improve your life. We've got to cut back on Food Stamps," are you saying that would be the wrong approach to take 'cause that would scare people, "Oh, my God, I gotta feed myself?"

CALLER: Exactly. That's what I'm saying. I can't think of an instance where that was specifically said by somebody, but that form of comment, those types of things are the things that --

RUSH: All right, well, let's go from there. Hang on a minute.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. Have you heard of the term "compassionate conservatism"?

CALLER: Yes. And the word "compassionate" scares me.

RUSH: All right. Well, we're running out of options here to be persuasive the way it works for you.

CALLER: The thing that I just want to make a point about, if we've got one in five or one in six, whatever it is, on some form of government aid --

RUSH: No. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Try two and a half out of six.

CALLER: Even worse. So with these kinds of statistics, if we ever want to communicate the right message to get people to vote for the people who we know should be running the show, we gotta re-characterize things so that it's not a message where they're gonna feel vulnerable voting for this guy that's coming in. I'm not saying that anybody needs to promise anybody anything. We just need to stay away from so much of this messaging about self-reliance and the government's just in the way. We all know that to become successful, if you're a conservative, you've gotta do it on your own, you're not gonna get a handout. But when we have this many people in society now out there who are living off the government, how in the world are we ever gonna win, Rush? What are you even doing on the radio, except entertaining, if we're not trying to win? And we're not gonna win by telling people things like this. It's just not gonna happen. The problem's already happened.

RUSH: Well, now, wait a second. See, this is where I kind of have a differing opinion from yours. Why is it that people today are immune from lessons in life? Why are people today somehow, "We can't talk about taking care of yourself with this group. We can't talk about providing for yourself. We can't talk about making your life your own." Why? What is it about this group that that so scares them? My point is, you would not raise your children that way.

CALLER: Yes. You keep going back to children. These types of morals that you're talking about that would groom an individual to think this way, it's not being able to happen because --

RUSH: No, I'm talking about education. I'm trying to bring it down to the most basic level for you to explain to me how you would do this. I'm not looking at these people as kids or children. I'm just asking, in my example, I'm trying to get from you -- If you were running for office, let's forget that you've got a kid that's gone off the rails and he's dependent. You're running for office, you want to reach these people. Okay, you've said we can't make 'em feel alone. We can't humiliate 'em. We can't tell 'em we're gonna take things away from 'em but we still want 'em to vote for us. So what would you do? What would be your pitch?

CALLER: I don't think there needs to be as strong of a pitch like you're assuming to get people to vote for the person that they're confident in. I don't think Obama had a super strong pitch when he first won. He was just somewhat of a likable person. And even though these ideas that you share on a daily basis are pretty much the gospel to get yourself to a level in society that --

RUSH: I disagree with you. I think Obama did have a pitch, and it was he was gonna take care of you, and he was gonna fix everything that was wrong. And he personally was gonna guarantee you that things are gonna be okay. And he personally was gonna guarantee that the country be loved again. And he personally was gonna do all these wonderful things.

CALLER: I think he made feel comfortable, I think he did that, yes, absolutely. But what I'm saying is from our side of things, the things that conservatives believe in, I just don't think that we need to be out there hammering and browbeating people as bad as what's been done by telling them that, you know, the only way to make it is on your own. Totally eliminate the government from your life and then next year you're gonna be a self-made millionaire.

RUSH: Who's telling people that?

CALLER: I just think that the overwhelming theme --

RUSH: No, no. Give me a name. Give me the name of somebody who's running around for office saying, "You're on your own. The only way you're gonna amount to anything is to get off of government." Who's telling people that? You must think the party's got somebody saying that. Who is it?

CALLER: It's not the conservatives that are doing that. It's the seeds that are planted from the Democrats that are making people believe that the only way to live a comfortable life is to have to some support there from the government, and all I'm saying is when you read the letter like Mr. Koch wrote and they talk about the individual and places the emphasis on the individual to achieve some level of success, that makes people feel vulnerable, Rush. It makes people feel as though they're on their own, themselves, it's all themselves. They've got to make it or break it themselves, and I think that that type of message is not gonna win.

RUSH: Well, A, I read the Koch piece. The word "individual" isn't even in it. You heard a buzz phrase or something that's caused you to have a knee-jerk type reaction to what he said.

CALLER: No, it's just the fact that -- oh, I just get so tired of these things that you see and you hear every day and the problem is the conservatives are just not communicating. They're not communicating with the average individual in society. And it's because we think that the stuff like Mr. Koch wrote is gonna relate to the average person, that they're gonna find some type of comfort in the fact that the best way to get to his level is to do it how he did it and that the government is just nothing more than an obstacle. And the government is an obstacle. We know this.

RUSH: The problem that we have, based on what you're saying, if I'm hearing you right, for us to win, we're gonna have to acknowledge that people are, for whatever reasons, deeply flawed and cannot ever agree with our message. So we're gonna have to change our message and adapt it to the way people are to make them think we get them and care about them and understand them.

CALLER: The problem is, from every aspect --

RUSH: And if we do that, we water down our message.

CALLER: No. It's not about -- well, you can look at it that way and we can go to the grave never winning another election, but what's it gonna do to the country in the meantime?

...

RUSH: Okay, the answer is "no." As far as you're concerned there's not a Republican you know of that wants the presidency that has a chance for it right now?

CALLER: Rand Paul? I mean, I don't know.

RUSH: Rand Paul. A-ha. Rand Paul. See, if you stick with this stuff long enough you'll finally peel the layers back from the onion. So you like Rand Paul?

CALLER: Well, I mean, there's not a whole lot of inventory out there --

RUSH: I understand. Don't be defensive. Don't misunderstand my tone. I'm trying to draw things out.

CALLER: When I pick on this article here from the Koch brothers, I mean, that's just one area of things going on in society that is preventing --

RUSH: I know what you're saying about that. I know exactly what you're saying about it. And I will admit to you, it troubles me. Here is somebody who is an excellent role model, and you're saying he doesn't qualify 'cause he doesn't know what he's doing. It's a sad reality if a guy like Charles Koch doesn't qualify as a role model. It's just sad. Okay, maybe he's got $50 billion and nobody else is gonna have to $50 billion, but that's not his message. His message isn't, "You too can have $50 billion." He's talking about a wholesome life.

CALLER: Wholesome --

RUSH: He's talking about a rewarding life that is filled with improvement and getting a better standard of living and all of that.

CALLER: Rush? Rush, the areas of society that would have reinforced his values and beliefs such as the education system, that's no longer there. So kids, children these days are not getting that education.

RUSH: Well, no. Okay, there are those of us that are trying to deal with that, which is one of the reasons why I've indulged my patience and hung in here with you. I'm trying to do it in my own little way with the books that I'm writing here on the truth about American history. I do it every day on this radio program.

I can tell you that this radio audience is filled with converts, people that used to be dependent liberal Democrats who now listen to this program. You think that might not be possible because of the way they're being approached because I make them afraid or feel vulnerable or whatever. But nobody that I know of anywhere is demanding that people be left alone.

That is not what "self-reliance" and "individuality" mean. It doesn't mean alone. It doesn't mean with no help. It doesn't mean with no assistance. What it means is, "Be yourself, find out what you love, find out what you really want to do, and go do it. And don't depend on people who don't have your best interests at heart," i.e., Democrats and the government.

If we've gotten to the point where we are literally destroying people's futures by creating this dependency and then we can't wean them off of it because that's gonna make them vulnerable, then it's not just that we're gonna go to the grave never winning an election; we're gonna go to the grave with the country never recovering. That, for me, isn't an option. Tough love. You may think that's too direct and so forth.

But I'm telling you, the question I asked you about how you would take care of somebody in your immediate orb that you feared was ruining their life is relevant here. If you love people, if you love the country, if you believe that everybody in the country contributes to making it great -- if you love everybody and you want the best for them and if you know how they can achieve the best for them -- you can't be afraid to tell them.

And if it's gonna be baby steps because we're worried about people feeling vulnerable and thinking everybody's being thrown to the wolves? Nobody's advocating that. But it sounds to me like what you're really saying is, "Republicans aren't cool, and nobody likes 'em, and they do like the Democrats, and it's no more complicated than that. If somebody came along that was likable on our side, then they would listen to whatever the person said.

"They wouldn't feel vulnerable 'cause they would trust the guy, 'cause they would like the guy. We just don't have anybody likable." Anyway, I gotta take a break. I'm way long here. I've gotta go. Yeah, I'm too long. I wish I could continue, but I've gotta go. Look, Ian, thanks for the call.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I don't know. After that last call, I don't know whether to blame the Republican establishment, the media, or the culture, but we just had a conservative on the air who does not think conservatism will work as a message. He does not think that liberty and self-sufficiency can win. Now, also, he's 33, so he has never been alive during a successful conservative presidential campaign.

He does not know, he did not live with any awareness of the Reagan years, which is why I didn't ask him. When I found he was 33, it wouldn't have mattered. But I think Ian is a great example of what we're up against on our own side. He just can't deal with hurting people. He can't deal. He's a conservative but he thinks the message is harmful. He thinks it's intimidating.

But it's a classic example of what happens when you have people coming of age who do not have any life experience relating to victory, to winning. Lord knows you would not want this guy as a football team coach, for example. Nothing against him, but he basically thinks people need to be coddled. That's why I kept asking him about how he would raise his own kid, 'cause I think that's often a very telling point.

...

RUSH: It kind of begs the question, what has happened to mental toughness? What's become of it? Look at the growing number of people that want to ban football, for example. Or ban anything that might hurt somebody. Too violent or too brutal or what have you. There's a segment of our adult population that's still children, still kids. And you look at their parents, Baby Boomers, some of it's not surprising. And then you got the low-information voters. You gotta give the Democrats credit. I mean, the Democrats have made the low-information voters think they care about 'em. And the worst thing you can do is invest in the Democrat Party, the worst thing, in terms of life potential.

The worst thing you can do is to turn over your life to a political party that simply is going to use you. And the evidence is clear. Look at all of these groups that have been voting Democrat for 50 years. Take a look at the towns that have been nothing but Democrat, towns and cities, for 30 years, and just take a look at them. The evidence is right there. We got the strong, silent type, and they have been replaced by this pajama-clad kid that the Regime used to sell Obamacare. The pajama kid! The nerd in his pajamas.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 18:32

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

quote:

But I think Ian is a great example of what we're up against on our own side. He just can't deal with hurting people. He can't deal.

Rush, what your side really needs is a grassroots effort. A group of fresh conservatives with hearts full and eyes open going door to door hurting people until you win a presidential election.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 19:03

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Yeah I guess a 33 year old has no life experience when your party is ruled by undead liches.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 19:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 13:34

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

And I don't know what strong silent type Rush is jacking off to but that's not what comes to mind when I think of the party and specific man who lost multiple elections based on completely unforced errors involving their fear of birth control.

# ? Apr 4, 2014 19:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »