Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Satya Prabhakar
to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
not care for this.
So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
Satya Prabhakar
--
______________________________________________________________
I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
Mark Schlegel
>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>and stupid.
How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
total liberal.
>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.
>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
it can be business as usual for us liberals"
Mark
John Switzer
>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.
>
>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
--
John Switzer | "What we have here is a failure to
| masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250 | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: j...@netcom.com | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Satya Prabhakar
>pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
>
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
> total liberal.
You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.
>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"
Actually, it is not since I used to enjoy his shows. I am just
making a disinterested observation.
Satya Prabhakar
(John Switzer) writes:
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
Have a good day,
Lost Boy
>pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
>
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
> total liberal.
Having read this, I'm begining to think that conservative wing of the
Republican party is moving further to the right. This would make sense, since
the majority of the Republican Party is *not* antiabortion and yet the
Republicans took a radically antiabortion stance.
>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"
Rush Limbaugh is going to prevent Bill Clinton, soon to be President of the
United States, from doing anything? If all sort of people from Jello Biafra
to Pat Buchannan couldn't prevent George Bush from starting the first war
in twenty years, how can Rush Limbaugh prevent Bill Clinton from implementing
the policies he was elected to implement?
>
>Mark
Lost Boy
***********************************************************
* Rush Limbaugh? Isn't he some sort of used car salesman? *
* -Karen Uru *
***********************************************************
Mark Schlegel
>>schl...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>
>> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
>> it can be business as usual for us liberals"
>Rush Limbaugh is going to prevent Bill Clinton, soon to be President of the
>United States, from doing anything? If all sort of people from Jello Biafra
>to Pat Buchannan couldn't prevent George Bush from starting the first war
>in twenty years, how can Rush Limbaugh prevent Bill Clinton from implementing
>the policies he was elected to implement?
I don't understand this post, I never said that "business as usual" means
that Clinton will be stopped from enacting his policies. What I did
mean is that it will be harder for him to do it under the guise of a centrist.
(business as usual as I intended means they almost anything they want without
public scrutiny)
Mark
>Lost Boy
Robert F. Alexander
> (John Switzer) writes:
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>
>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
>
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
>
>Have a good day,
>Satya Prabhakar
>--
Net without making a fool out of myself!!"
___________________________________________________________
>I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
--
r...@turing.ORG ( KD4QBD ) / BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697 Hm / WCHV WWWVV
(804) 977-5566 Wk / Oldies AlbumRock
John Switzer
> (John Switzer) writes:
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>
>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
>
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
Because I'm not so hypocritical that I would cloak my venomous sentiments in
touchy-feely verbiage. And, Satya-boy, if you're such a model of
courtesy and civility, then pray tell, why do you delight in insulting
others with such terms as "ranting" and "Johny boy"?
>Have a good day,
>Satya Prabhakar
Once again an example of liberal-style hypocrisy - if you really
wanted others to have a good day, you wouldn't post. And I'm interested
in why you are unwilling to take my bet? Could it be you know you are
wrong with your prediction? If so, then why did you post in the first
place, other than to unnecessarily vent your spleen in public?
Steve Novak
>> = (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
> total liberal.
Yeah, sure, Markie. I guess Limbaugh and Buchanan are more your type of
moderate, hmm?
Why do I get the feeling that Limbaugh deprogramming groups will be
operating in the near future? Man, try thinking for yourself before it's
too late.
>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"
I really don't think people consider him a threat, except for the number
of no-lives panting after his every insult. Why you think business as
usual will change for ANYbody because of Rush the Fool - now _there's_
wishful thinking. You really consider a TV talk show host to be the
nation's savior, don't you?
Poor boy. I gotta admit the Republicans haven't given you much to cheer
about.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak | |"Wacker the K"|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ste...@advtech.USWest.Com
Mark Schlegel
>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
>> total liberal.
>Yeah, sure, Markie. I guess Limbaugh and Buchanan are more your type of
>moderate, hmm?
Nope, I don't like Buchanan at all for president. Please use my real name.
What was your name again? Stevie?
>Why do I get the feeling that Limbaugh deprogramming groups will be
>operating in the near future? Man, try thinking for yourself before it's
>too late.
So what's your point then? Do you have anything of substance to say?
Usually I assume that people that say things like you have above are just
reacting at the emotional level and have to use an ad hominem statement.
Apparently what you are saying is that everyone that disagrees with you is
simply not thinking. Maybe it's you that needs the de-programming.
>I really don't think people consider him a threat, except for the number
>You really consider a TV talk show host to be the
>nation's savior, don't you?
>Poor boy. I gotta admit the Republicans haven't given you much to cheer
>about.
Does anyone else taste the bile? Steve, lighten up a little, he's a talk
show host just having a good time with his opinions. And yes the Republicans
have given me a lot to cheer about (Kemp in 96!), they helped improve the
high tech trade balance with Japan, won the cold war, have been in office
during the start talks and treaties, have secured the ex-soviet states as
allies (not yet but almost).....and I could go on.
Mark
Kevin Podsiadlik
In article <1992Dec14....@news2.cis.umn.edu> pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to be popular,
>>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>>and stupid.
Transition periods are always awkward. Clinton won't take office for
five and a half weeks, and it's hard to attack somebody who isn't
doing anything...yet. By mid-February -- my prediction -- Rush will
be back in full flood.
>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
>> total liberal.
>
>You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
>is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
>that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.
If you really knew about Rush, you'd know that showing people up for
what they really are is Rush's *specialty*. Having the Dems in power
figures to give Rush *more* ammo for his show, rather than less,
especially if things take a turn for the worse in any respect.
Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
If the media ever gains a right-wing bias, Rush will do a quick
fade, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
--
Kevin J. Podsiadlik |
Vaporware Engineer 2nd class | "But, Master, what if we behave badly?"
E-mail: ham...@ais.org | "You go to Detroit."
CompuServe: 71460,3602 |
christopher stone
>In article <1992Dec14.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
You are absolutely right here in that Rush does not need a majority
in order to support his show; if even 10% of America tunes into
radio / late night on a regular basis, and he captures 10% of that,
he's doing well *ratings-wise*. Politics-wise is another matter, of
course.
Chris
Kelley Miller
In a previous article, ham...@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) says:
>Why this was cross-posted to talk.abortion, I'll never know.
>
>In article <1992Dec14....@news2.cis.umn.edu> pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>> (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>>pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to be popular,
>>>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>>>and stupid.
>
>Transition periods are always awkward. Clinton won't take office for
>five and a half weeks, and it's hard to attack somebody who isn't
>doing anything...yet. By mid-February -- my prediction -- Rush will
>be back in full flood.
>
Indeed...hopefully, he will be swept away by that flood, and into the sewer,
where, citing the sewage which comes out of his mouth, he came from in the
first place...
>>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
>>> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
>>> total liberal.
>>
>>You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
>>is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
>>that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.
>
>If you really knew about Rush, you'd know that showing people up for
>what they really are is Rush's *specialty*.
I heartily agree. Each time Limbaugh opens his mouth, he shows himself up
for the idiot he really is...
>Having the Dems in power
>figures to give Rush *more* ammo for his show, rather than less,
>especially if things take a turn for the worse in any respect.
>
But when things get better, all the little Limbots will realize that he
is just passing the equivelent of verbal farts, because he won't have the
illusion of "truth" to cover the stench...
>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.
>
>If the media ever gains a right-wing bias, Rush will do a quick
>fade, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
>
Whether or not the media loses its slant, if (IF) Clinton proves to be a great
president, Limbaugh is done. People won't long tollerate deliberate slander
directed at a sucessful president. He can't survive without slamming the
Democrats. Only the most indoctrinated Limbot will support him, and I'm not
at all sure they qualify as "people" anymore...
--
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist /\/\ HATE IS NOT A *
* Kelley L. Miller / / \ FAMILY VALUE *
* ae...@yfn.ysu.edu / /____\ *
* GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out /______\ *
Robert F. Alexander
>In a previous article, ham...@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec14....@news2.cis.umn.edu> pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>Transition periods are always awkward. Clinton won't take office for
>>five and a half weeks, and it's hard to attack somebody who isn't
>>doing anything...yet. By mid-February -- my prediction -- Rush will
>>be back in full flood.
>>
>
>Indeed...hopefully, he will be swept away by that flood, and into the sewer,
>where, citing the sewage which comes out of his mouth, he came from in the
>first place...
>
>>>is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
>>>that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.
>>
>>If you really knew about Rush, you'd know that showing people up for
>>what they really are is Rush's *specialty*.
>
>I heartily agree. Each time Limbaugh opens his mouth, he shows himself up
>for the idiot he really is...
You seem to be doing a fine job of that yourself
>>Having the Dems in power
>>figures to give Rush *more* ammo for his show, rather than less,
>>especially if things take a turn for the worse in any respect.
>>
>
>But when things get better,
That is one great BIG assumption....
>all the little Limbots will realize that he
>is just passing the equivelent of verbal farts, because he won't have the
>illusion of "truth" to cover the stench...
So what are you...A Clintonbot...A Gorebot....a Dembot
or just a stupid shit with too much time on your hands?
I don't think he needs any illusions. He makes alot more
sense than you do, and does it with considerable more class
than you do, And I know he is making alot more money at it
than you are.
>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.
>
That won't ever happen. You sound scared. What's wrong?
Don't you think Slick Willie can survive on his own merits?
Are you so unsure of your new leader to think that a talk
show host can give him any problems. HaHaHaHa...you ain't
seen nothin like the microscope that his slickness is gonna
be under for the next four years. I love it!!
.
>>If the media ever gains a right-wing bias, Rush will do a quick
>>fade, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
>>
>
>Whether or not the media loses its slant, if (IF) Clinton proves to be a great
>president, Limbaugh is done. People won't long tollerate deliberate slander
>directed at a sucessful president.
Another BIG assumption. Shit he hasn't even taken office and
you are already making him a successful president. We shall
see.
He can't survive without slamming the
>Democrats. Only the most indoctrinated Limbot will support him, and I'm not
>at all sure they qualify as "people" anymore...
>
And only the most indoctrinated Democrat will believe that
Bill Clinton is a success. Make your benchmarks now. Have a
look back in four years. We shall continue this
conversation. I know Rush will be here.>
>
>--
>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist /\/\ HATE IS NOT A *
>* Kelley L. Miller / / \ FAMILY VALUE *
>* ae...@yfn.ysu.edu / /____\ *
>* GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out /______\ *
^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
HOW TRUE !!!!
steg...@cubldr.colorado.edu
>>Only the most indoctrinated Limbot will support him, and I'm not
>>at all sure they qualify as "people" anymore...
Robert Alexander writes:
> And only the most indoctrinated Democrat will believe that
> Bill Clinton is a success. Make your benchmarks now. Have a
> look back in four years. We shall continue this
> conversation. I know Rush will be here.>
(Much deleted, and for good reasons... see previous post)
I will be most happy to make my benchmarks now, Mr. Alexander.
I agree with your assessment, Kelley. And now, to slap this young Republican
around a little bit...
Mr. Alexander, you sound more scared than anybody I've seen post to this thread
so far. What are you afraid of? The fact that America has spoken at the polls
on Nov. 3 and it didn't quite go your way this time? I know how humiliating it
is to have your candidate lose... it happened to me all throughout the 80's.
But come, now, face the music... BUSH LOST!!! Now is the time to take stock of
your unrealistic political views and realize how political cycles come and go
regarding the presidency. You seem to have been politically active for a very
short time, Mr. Alexander. Take some advice from people who have been voting
for a few decades. Learn to take a loss with dignity.
Now, as for Rush Limbaugh and all that he stands for... Really now. All you
people getting so uptight or elated over a talk-show entertainer?? I hardly
have the time to get concerned over someone so far on the fringes of anything
resembling actual political discourse in this country. At least Morton Downey
Jr. in his time had the balls to confront his political foes face to face on
TV. Rush? He couldn't possibly do that. He doesn't have the tenacity (or the
ability) to face up to an opponent, either in his studio or over the airwaves.
All his call-ins seem suspiciously censored out in order to filter in only the
callers who agree with him. No, Rush only does best when he is totally
insulated in his studio with just his own opinions vomiting from his own oral
cavity. At least he'd be interesting if he would have the balls to get on a
serious Sunday morning political talk show and actually have to face an
opponent by getting into a political discourse. No, not Rush.
I just had to respond to this thread when I discovered that Mr. Alexander was
the last to post to it. I just couldn't let that unsubstantiated rhetoric go
unchecked.
Glen Stegner
Univ of Colorado at Boulder
steg...@cubldr.colorado.edu
The_Doge
>In article <schlegel.724352440@cwis> schl...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>>and stupid.
>>
>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
>> total liberal.
>
>Having read this, I'm begining to think that conservative wing of the
>Republican party is moving further to the right. This would make sense, since
>the majority of the Republican Party is *not* antiabortion and yet the
>Republicans took a radically antiabortion stance.
>
abortions that was placed in the Republican platform is demonstrably out of
synch with majority opinion. But the post from the Limbaugh lover is
enlightening since it shows how mutable the definition of "moderate" (or
"liberal" for that matter) can be.
To folks on the far right of the political spectrum, most of the\
country must look "liberal" while George Bush is probably regarded as a
"moderate". And some of them seem to use the terms "moderate" and
"conservative" interchangably, labeling anyone who diverges from their agenda
with the (to them) negative term "liberal". What do you want to bet this guy
thinks Lloyd Bentsen is a "liberal"?
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
I doubt it. Limbaugh has been shrewd enough to come up with a
format and approach to his talk show that appeals both to those who agree
with his opinions (and parrot both them and his catch phrases endlessly) *and*
those who find his politics ludricous but his style entertaining. It's
hardly an original apporach (anybody remember Joe Pyne, the Limbaugh of the
1960s? Sic transit gloria mundi, y'all..) but it works.
Sure, he'll get boring after a while and fade from popular attention.
So what? That's show biz. But it'll probably be a mater of years, not days.
>> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
>> it can be business as usual for us liberals"
>
>Rush Limbaugh is going to prevent Bill Clinton, soon to be President of the
>United States, from doing anything? If all sort of people from Jello Biafra
>to Pat Buchannan couldn't prevent George Bush from starting the first war
>in twenty years, how can Rush Limbaugh prevent Bill Clinton from implementing
>the policies he was elected to implement?
>
Probably just rhetorical hyperbole. Either that, or another example
of how groupies tend to attribute near-supernatural power to the objects of
their worship. I could never get into that mindset myself, but then I don't
believe in supernatural beings in general.
With the exception of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, of course! >:-)>
>***********************************************************
>* Rush Limbaugh? Isn't he some sort of used car salesman? *
>* -Karen Uru *
>***********************************************************
Who the heck is Karen Uru??
The_Doge
ObQuote: "Power is trouble and trouble isn't funny!"
-- The Firesign Theatre
(speaking of supernatural beings....) >:-)>
Steve Novak
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Yeah, sure, Markie. I guess Limbaugh and Buchanan are more your type of
>>moderate, hmm?
> Nope, I don't like Buchanan at all for president. Please use my real name.
> What was your name again? Stevie?
You can call me whatever you want. It's a free forum.
>>Why do I get the feeling that Limbaugh deprogramming groups will be
>>operating in the near future? Man, try thinking for yourself before it's
>>too late.
> So what's your point then? Do you have anything of substance to say?
I just said pretty plainly that you Limbaugh worshippers seem programmed
like robots. Sorry if I was too subtle for you.
> Usually I assume that people that say things like you have above are just
> reacting at the emotional level and have to use an ad hominem statement.
I'm just having fun with you, Markie. Don't get all upset. Maybe
you were just reacting at "the emotional level".
> Apparently what you are saying is that everyone that disagrees with you is
> simply not thinking. Maybe it's you that needs the de-programming.
Gosh, Mark, do you always make things up about people when you're unable
to answer them? I think it's fairly clear that I was referring to
Limbaugh echoes like yourself, not everyone that disagrees with me. Why
are you so befuddled?
>>I really don't think people consider him a threat, except for the number
>>You really consider a TV talk show host to be the
>>nation's savior, don't you?
>>Poor boy. I gotta admit the Republicans haven't given you much to cheer
>>about.
> Does anyone else taste the bile? Steve, lighten up a little, he's a talk
> show host just having a good time with his opinions.
Now Mark, I've never been upset with Limbaugh. I actually get a kick out
of his loyal lemmings. In fact, I don't even believe those are truly his
opinions. He just knows what type of people will make him rich.
My whole point was to point out your idiocy in blindly calling Clinton a
"total liberal". I don't think you know what a liberal is. Apparently,
everyone to the left of your hero.
I think that's pretty humorous. Please don't confuse my having fun with
you as "tasting bile".
>And yes the Republicans
> have given me a lot to cheer about (Kemp in 96!), they helped improve the
> high tech trade balance with Japan,...
Huh? I'll concede that "they" made Japanese cars so expensive that some
people were forced to buy American. I don't see what else you could be
referring to...god, I hope not that pathetic trip where Bush and 5 vastly
overpaid CEO slugs from U.S. automakers attempted to twist Japanese
automakers' arms, only to get laughed out of the country and ridiculed
around the world.
Also, your Republican heroes took us from creditor nation status to the
largest trade deficit in the world. Is this what you're referring to?
>...won the cold war,
What bullshit. The Soviets dropped out of the cold war and communism
because the country was bankrupt.
>...have been in office during the start talks and treaties, have secured
>ex-soviet states as allies (not yet but almost)....
Reagan and Bush have done their best to klutz up the Soviet breakup. They
offered no help when Gorby first stated a desire for democracy in the
USSR, and they stuck way too long with Gorby after Yeltsin was plainly the
one in power, which undercut Yeltsin and gave confidence to the old
hard-liners now threatening the country.
> ....and I could go on.
Please do. I'm enjoying it.
Mark Schlegel
>At least Morton Downey
>Jr. in his time had the balls to confront his political foes face to face on
>TV. Rush? He couldn't possibly do that. He doesn't have the tenacity (or the
>ability) to face up to an opponent, either in his studio or over the airwaves.
Hmm, too bad - this could have been a good argument if your facts weren't
wrong. Rush has faced up to opponents, I've seen him on Pozner and Donahue
(which shows on CNBC on cable) and P & Donahue are both RABID Rush opponents.
He has also been on another interview show on CNBC several times (I don't
recall the name of it). He's been on the ABC network Donahue show, where
they attacked him very viciously. He has also been on MacLaughlin (with
host MacLaughlin), but I don't think John MacLaughlin would classify as a
liberal enemy -- he may have had some enemies in the audience.
>All his call-ins seem suspiciously censored out in order to filter in only the
>callers who agree with him. No, Rush only does best when he is totally
>insulated in his studio with just his own opinions vomiting from his own oral
>cavity. At least he'd be interesting if he would have the balls to get on a
>serious Sunday morning political talk show and actually have to face an
>opponent by getting into a political discourse. No, not Rush.
This is wrong too, there is a disagreeing caller once in a while -- they are
are the best callers in my opinion (more fun than the fan kind).
>I just had to respond to this thread when I discovered that Mr. Alexander was
>the last to post to it. I just couldn't let that unsubstantiated rhetoric go
>unchecked.
Well, you need to get your facts straight too. Rush has been on shows on TV
with people that oppose his ideas and he has had critical callers on the
radio show.
Mark
Steve Shapiro
In article <1992Dec14....@news2.cis.umn.edu>, pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"? That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press. He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a
>> total liberal.
>
>You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
>is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
>that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.
Huh?
Here we go again. Symbolism over substance.
It DOES matter what someone appears to be as it affects the perceptions about
the person.
However, when the APPEARANCE DOES NOT correspond to the FACTS, it makes it even
MORE important that it be pointed out and that people be informed.
For example, take the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' analogy. There is a flock of
sheep in the meadow. However, one of the 'sheep' is actually a wolf wearing a
sheep costume. Every night another sheep is killed and the remains found the
next day. One sheep points to the 'sheep' who he believes is at fault. He
states that this 'sheep' never eats the grass, but only wanders around with the
rest of the sheep. Well, the rest of the sheep respond 'hey, he appears to be
just like us. Forget about his behavior and actions'. Meanwhile, more and more
sheep die.
So, what do we do? Sit by like sheep and let ourselves be picked off, one by
one? Or do we stand up and keep pointing out the lies and deceptions until the
REALITY is realized by all?
Also, just because he APPEARS to be a moderate to YOU (or some others), does
NOT mean that he appears to be a moderate to ME (and some others). Appearances
may be deceiving. So go beyond the appearance and look at the substance. If you
do, you will find that by his own actions he is decidedly liberal.
Clinton is not some nobody off the street with no track record. As Governor of
Arkansas for 12 years, he has a SUBSTANTIAL record that can be pointed to and
looked at. As such, we can extrapolate that based on his BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS
as governor, we will know how he will act as President. Based on this
information, his substance is that of a liberal, not a moderate. If he appears
to you as a moderate, then you haven't been paying attention.
>Actually, it is not since I used to enjoy his shows. I am just
>making a disinterested observation.
I don't believe this for a minute. EVERYBODY who listens to his show has an
interest one way or the other. To be willing to take the time and make the
effort to gain access to this newsgroup and post messages means that this type
of person is EVEN MORE interested than the casual listener.
If you truly believe you are disinterested, then I submit that you are
deceiving yourself.
Regards,
Steve.
/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve....@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81 *
*******************************************************************/
Steve Shapiro
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
>
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
Here we go again, symbolism over substance!
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
Substantiate your assertion.
How confident are you as to your assertion?
Are you serious or just blowing air?
Where I come from, the addage goes: 'Put up or shut up'.
Satya Prabhakar
>
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
>
>Here we go again, symbolism over substance!
>Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
>Substantiate your assertion.
>How confident are you as to your assertion?
>Are you serious or just blowing air?
>Where I come from, the addage goes: 'Put up or shut up'.
Steve,
I don't participate in these discussion to bet and make money.
I expressed an opinion that Mr. Limbaugh will fade and I didn't
attack any poster. John Switzer took my opinion quite personally
and branded me and others of the same opinion as "idiots" and
challenged us to bet $100. My response to him was the above.
I have learned from experience that it is futile to engage
those who take these discussions personally. So, I have chosen
not to respond to John Switzer because we have enormous
impedance mismatch. The issue about betting on one's opinion
is childish and inane. Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
discourse without taking out our wallets.
Satya Prabhakar
--
______________________________________________________________
My daughter has a pimple on her chin. She is unhappy.
I have a pimple on my chine. I am happy.
It is called perspective. -Anon
Steve Shapiro
In article <1992Dec16....@news2.cis.umn.edu>, pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
>discourse without taking out our wallets.
And where I come from we are willing to substantiate our assertions with
action.
It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
substantiate them.
It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to substantiate
them.
Satya Prabhakar
>
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>
>>Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
>>discourse without taking out our wallets.
>
>And where I come from we are willing to substantiate our assertions with
>action.
>It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
>substantiate them.
>It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
>credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to substantiate
>them.
Actually, I didn't expect much from you at all ;-)
Satya Prabhakar
p.s. This is becoming irrelevant to the general populace and I shall
cease and desist from continuing this thread hereafter.
--
______________________________________________________________
Tell me what you pay attention to and I will tell you who you are!
-Ortega Y' Gasset
hulsey
ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>In a previous article, ham...@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) says:
>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
>
>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.
I think Rush is a little too intelligent to resort to blatant lies.
Blatant lies will give people *legitimate* reasons to petition radio
and TV stations to drop his program. When he just gives opinions,
it's free speech and no one has the right to tell radio and TV stations
which programs to run. If a station wants to run the program, fine.
Blatant lies, however, cross the line. I don't think Rush would do that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun...@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey) TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
.sig in search of new, witty quote.
Steve Shapiro
In article <1992Dec17....@news2.cis.umn.edu>, pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>>It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
>>substantiate them.
>>It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
>>credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to
>>substantiate them.
>Actually, I didn't expect much from you at all ;-)
So it goes. So I guess you weren't too disappointed.
Robert M Connelly
I don't know how old Mr Stegner is even though he says he ha
been "voting for a few decades". I have been voting for 45 years
and my man won in '52, '56, '68, '72, '80, '84 and '88. But I do
know that while Slick Willie won the Presidency with ONLY 43 votes
out every 100 cast meaning he is a minority President. He however
is the real loser since tne majority of people do not want what he
and his socialist buddies want. His and algor's antics in Little
Rock the past 3 weeks has been a disgrace being nothing but smoke
and mirrors. The concept that Hillary "knows more about a lot of
things than `we' (whoever `we' are) do" is only one of the more
astoundingly silly things Slick has said since February. Those of
us who agree with Dr Limbaugh in whole or in part will be laughing
up our sleeves at all you liberals when we will be posting here
and elsewhere "We told you so" when Rush AND we conservatives are
still around in 4 years. Socialism doesn't work - it is impossible
that it work no matter WHO tries it. The to date announced cabinet
appointments are astounding in the choices of incompetents and
lacking in expertise and knowledge to do the jobs to which they haVE
been appointed.
--
Steve Shapiro
In article <1992Dec17.1...@dbsun.uucp>, hul...@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
writes...
>>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
>>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.
I think that too many people are focusing on the Clinton things going on.
Remember, Rush's show is about the hot news of the day. These days its Clinton.
Next week/month/year it will be someone or something else.
As someone said a while back, Rush is a businessman first and a conservative
second. I believe that as soon as the Clinton things cool down (probably after
the first 100 days), we will see/hear less from Rush about Clinton and more
about the other things going on.
Heck, we have the action in Somalia, stuff in Bosnia/etc., and a whole lot of
other things going on. Rush is not a POLITICAL comentator, he is a comentator
in which politics is one of the things he comment(ate)s on.
It is his business to 'go with the flow', keep current and on the hot topics.
If he doesn't, then he'll lose market share and have to either get back on
track or fizzle out. I think he's too smart to let himself fizzle out.
Doug Quarnstrom
>
> p.s. This is becoming irrelevant to the general populace and I shall
> cease and desist from continuing this thread hereafter.
>
This is beyond the call of duty. It would be more than adequate
for you to cease OR desist. Doing both is somewhat redundant and
may be contrued by some as a poor investment of the extra willpower.
doug
Don Wiggins
>In article <1992Dec17.1...@dbsun.uucp>, hul...@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
>writes...
>>>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.
>>>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>>>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.
>I think that too many people are focusing on the Clinton things going on.
>Remember, Rush's show is about the hot news of the day. These days its Clinton.
Besides that, the news weenies -- especially the teevee types -- really do
need to be counterbalanced. Last night John Chancellor (NBC) was gushing
over Willie/Hillary/Algor so much that I thought I was watching one of
Willie's old campaign commercials. The problem isn't that we have too much
Rush; we have too little.
|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American | Success is getting what you want. |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wig...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu | -- Brother Dave Gardner |
|===========================================================================|
steg...@cubldr.colorado.edu
>
> I don't know how old Mr Stegner is even though he says he ha
> been "voting for a few decades".
I have been voting since 1976. That's nearly 2 decades.
> I have been voting for 45 years
> and my man won in '52, '56, '68, '72, '80, '84 and '88.
What is the point? Are you more qualified to judge who should be president or
sho should not because you voted more times than me?
> But I do
> know that while Slick Willie won the Presidency with ONLY 43 votes
> out every 100 cast meaning he is a minority President.
As was Richard Nixon in 1968. The deal goes like this, Robert. When you have
a 3-way race for the presidency, whoever gets the biggest slice of the pie
wins. Period. End of sentence. The "Minority president" arguement that
conservatives keep bantering about is based on the presumption that all of
Perot's votes could have gone to Bush, therefore making Bush the president.
Wrong! Most of Perot's votes came from Clinton, and even a 50-50 split would
have still given Clinton the presidency. Anyway the electoral college speaks
for itself.
> He [Clinton] however
> is the real loser since tne majority of people do not want what he
> and his socialist buddies want.
In the words of a famous president, "There you go again!" The majority that
you talk about do not speak with one voice. Some wanted Bush, some wanted
Perot. More people wanted what Clinton has to offer than that of Bush or
Perot.
> His and algor's [Al Gore, I presume?] antics in Little
> Rock the past 3 weeks has been a disgrace being nothing but smoke
> and mirrors. The concept that Hillary "knows more about a lot of
> things than `we' (whoever `we' are) do" is only one of the more
> astoundingly silly things Slick has said since February. Those of
> us who agree with Dr Limbaugh in whole or in part will be laughing
> up our sleeves at all you liberals when we will be posting here
> and elsewhere "We told you so" when Rush AND we conservatives are
> still around in 4 years.
Robert, you should not take advice from George Bush concerning your speech
patterns - Learn how to finish a sentence properly, without rambling on or
foaming at the mouth. For your information, I plan on being around in four
years too, and I vote -- Democratic. And what's with the constant references
to "Slick Willie"? Can't you come up with a pseudonym of your own, instead of
parroting Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric. Be creative. Besides, I don't blame
conservatives for constantly using this term when referring to Bill Clinton;
after all, the past 2 or 3 presidents that the Republican party had
(particularly Bush) could not even finish a sentence. Bush was known, during
press conferences, to go into a mode called "Bushspeak" - incomplete sentences,
incoherent phrases, and constant pauses. After so many incoherent speakers for
presidents, it's no wonder that Republicans are so suspect of a president who
can FINISH A SENTENCE and COMPLETE A THOUGHT.
> Socialism doesn't work - it is impossible
> that it work no matter WHO tries it. The to date announced cabinet
> appointments are astounding in the choices of incompetents and
> lacking in expertise and knowledge to do the jobs to which they haVE
> been appointed.
If you're so obsessed with the word "socialism", consider what Ronald Reagan
did with the economy in the early 80's - he practiced "Socialism for the
Wealthy" - he REDISTRIBUTED WEALTH - yes, that so-hated phrase of conservatives
- REDISTRIBUTED WEALTH AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND UP TOWARD THE ALREADY
WEALTHY!! If Clinton can reverse some of that trend, just SOME OF IT, I
commend him wholeheartedly. It's about time the middle class took their
country back.
Let me tell you about another one of those ludicrous republican stances - the
idea that Republicans hate big government. Let me tell you something that may
wake you up a little - REPUBLICANS LOVE BIG GOVERMENT. THEY LOVE BIG
GOVERNMENT. They practiced it better than the Democrats. When the government
wants to tell my wife that they have complete control over her body and want to
ban all abortions even in cases of incest or harm to the mother, I say GET THE
GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS, too!!
As for Clinton's appointments, and his Economic Summit in Little
Rock, I must admit, I'm enjoying myself. I'm one happy Democrat!
Glen Stegner
steg...@cubldr.colorado.edu
Joseph Dougherty
In article <1992Dec14.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> pra...@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.
Satya,
I don't understand *how* you can justify this remark. First,
politics isn't the *only* issue in the US, and Limbaugh certainly isn't
short of other cultural issues to discuss. The news is filled with stuff
that he continually comments upon. For example, he made some comments
this past week (on Friday, I believe) about the verdicts in a couple
of court cases...actions that would outrage anyone...and people on the
phone responded. That's a case of his "enemy," the stupidity of certain
legal decisions.
Another example: he made a long comment about the appointments
rumored for the Clinton cabinet. True, this may be political, but his
criticisms were founded in the socialist and cultural disparities
within the actions of those people.
As for him taking on a "fundamentalist Christian" tone, all I
can say is when did this happen? Limbaugh rarely discusses religion on his
program, and generally does so only when a caller mentions it, and even
then only in the most perfunctory manner. Trust me, I've been listening
to his program daily for over three years, mostly at work. If he were to
take this direction you claim, I'd be listening to music tapes instead.
>
>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
1. His book not only went #1 on the NYT Best Seller list in two weeks,
but it returned to the top spot after being knocked down by Madonna. No
non-fiction book has ever done this before.
2. His television program, a syndicated program locked in at no set time
slot in any major market, follows only "The Tonight Show" and "Nightline"
in late-night popularity. This is since September, when it debuted, at
the height of the campaign, and has increased since the election last month.
3. The early book numbers on his audience this year showed a weekly listening
audience of 13 to 13.5 million. Three to 3.5 million are listening atany one
time. The late year figures show an increase to 14-14.5 million weekly. Thus
his audience continues to grow, despite what you believe. This isn't made up,
look at the radio audience ratings books. Only Paul Harvey has a larger
audience, and his programs are very brief. Usually, they're played in the
middle of some other format (i.e., here in Jacksonville, they play his little
news and "Rest of the Story" bits a couple of times per day on a local FM
country station). So, it's not a decent comparison. Compare his ratings
to Larry King. That's the real contrast.
I know you'd like to see him go away, since you seem to be so
against him idealologically.
In your dreams...
Cheers and happy holidays,
Joe Dougherty
jdo...@unf6.cis.unf.edu