Rush Limbaugh Dead at 70

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well demonstrated today that many of the shallower posters here do not have one ounce of the integrity of DJT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that Trump has any integrity himself.  Which goes to show how utterly bereft of any class, humanity, dignity, or basic decency these dregs of humanity are here.

 

And they wonder why we got tired of their *****.

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, wnyguy said:

Yeah pretty much.

 

The War in Iraq will end up costing the US 5 trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and possibly a million Iraqi lives. It is by far one of the biggest blunders in American history.

[Big Blitz]

25 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I hope you're sitting down ... I actually agree with about 80% of what you just said.

I listened to plenty of Rush back in his prime -- early 1990s. And then when on long drives I'd flip to his show occasionally just to see what he and his audience were currently occupied with. 

 

In his early national radio days he was a necessary check on a dull mainstream media, all marching to the beat of the same drummer. He worked best in the early Clinton years, before the Repubs took the House in 1994. In those days he was a cutting critic of the standard liberal (to use his word) company line, the cynical use of various social phenomena (the original homelessness crisis, which certainly hasn't abated through subsequent Democratic rule) to make anti-Republican talking points. He was a radio phenomenon, keeping a show going 3 hours a day, 5 days a week WITH NO GUESTS, interspersing some higher forms of argument with lower forms of satire. He was effective too - maybe a little too effective for his own good.

 

Why do I say that? Well, after 1994 the show went on a downward slide. First it was the Newt Gingrich influence. Then it was all-in on Bush 43, and, of course, ultimately a fawning mutual, umm, self-play admiration society with Donald Trump, someone who had views that certainly didn't fit with the conservative man of principle Rush started out as. He was an outsider at the start, an insider at the end. He was pretty clear about what he was doing too - I remember him talking about taking golf lessons (mid-1990s?), which I don't think was about fresh air and fitness as much as it was about trying to fit in in that country club scene his new Republican admirers moved in. And that didn't really work with him as an entertainer, even though it satisfied a lot of people listening for affirmation of their own views.

I remember an interview with Rush about Howard Stern (the other and very different king of radio in the late 1990s) in which he expressed admiration for how Stern, like him, managed to completely dominate and fill 3 or 4 hours of radio and hold listeners. Very few in history could do that. It's talent of an unusual sort - a talent the new world probably doesn't really have much use for. Like Rush, Stern got stale and became co-opted by the mainstream he used to pillory. I have no use for the kind and gentle Howard Stern sucking up to Hollywood, and I had no use for the latter period Rush ingratiating himself into the corridors of power. 

 

He was a talented, intelligent, influential, and flawed man. Obituaries of people like that often mention an inability to change with the times. My obituary of him is the opposite: the takeover of the Republican Party by Trump should have put Rush in the same position as, say, Bill Kristol and the Never Trumpers. Instead the attention and flattery of the President caused him to abandon his principles. RIP, Rush.

 

Appreciate the honesty and the post.  

 

However why does this ideological purity test always and only apply to Republicans?

 

 

Did Bernie voters not show up and vote for 40 year swamp creature Biden?  We don't apply this to any Democrat.  And I don't care but Rush or any conservative isn't not allowed to support Trump because he may be deeply flawed character wise.  The base decided his character flaws were nowhere near as bad as any Republican giving lip service to conservatism and waving the white flag every time the media or Democrat come after them.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

This thread is a fine example of the current state of affairs; A controversial and ideologically polarized, political commentator dies, and the opposition party rejoices dancing on his grave. America... 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Tenhigh]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Liberals don't need some loud mouth moron on the radio telling them what to think. 

 

 

 

True, they forgo the radio and elect their loud mouth morons directly to congress. 

 

 

 

 

😀😀

I kid, I kid.  Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[BringBackFergy]

As for any human being, RIP. 

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well demonstrated today that many of the shallower posters here do not have one ounce of the integrity of DJT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimate political correctness, Wacko Trumpist style.

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Appreciate the honesty and the post.  

 

However why does this ideological purity test always and only apply to Republicans?

 

 

Did Bernie voters not show up and vote for 40 year swamp creature Biden?  We don't apply this to any Democrat.  And I don't care but Rush or any conservative isn't not allowed to support Trump because he may be deeply flawed character wise.  The base decided his character flaws were nowhere near as bad as any Republican giving lip service to conservatism and waving the white flag every time the media or Democrat come after them.  

I was listening to Rush and then voting for Clinton. So I guess I'm kind of unique in that way.

He was right about the Clintons: a completely corrupt and immoral pair. I finally said I couldn't take anymore of that dynasty and voted for Bush over Gore. Didn't work out so well.

 

To answer your question: Trump isn't just a little bit out of the mainstream of what used to be Republican politics. That would have been Ted Cruz, comin' at you from the hard right. When he emerged on the national scene in 2012, Cruz was kind of as far to the right of the bell curve of Republicans as Bernie was as far to the left of the bell curve of Democrats in 2016. Instead, Trump is really not a Republican at all as we understood the modern Republican Party c. 2015. In fact, he was avowedly a Democrat before that, and an almost third-party (Ross Perot's Reform Party) candidate in 2000. Rush decried him as a non-Republican when he started his run for President. There was a brief moment in summer 2017 when Trump appeared to be falling in line with the Paul Ryan wing (the tax cut), but pretty soon that was over and he was out on his own limbs. And Rush never even mildly criticized him. That's being a cheerleader, not a thought leader.

 

As for the Democrats: I think we saw what you're talking about. His name was Michael Bloomberg. He was completely out of step with the Democratic Party of 2020, and all other Dems ganged up on him and finished him off and ran him off the national stage, some half a billion dollars later.

Edited February 18, 2021 by The Frankish Reich

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Ultimate political correctness, Wacko Trumpist style.

 

No reason to attack like this SoTier or  wacked bull ***** labels. He's pretty cool and a wonderful guy.   Esp when someone pass away paying his respects. To me he's a good guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, Buffalo Bills Fan said:

 

No reason to attack like this SoTier or  wacked bull ***** labels. He's pretty cool and a wonderful guy.   Esp when someone pass away paying his respects. To me he's a good guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claiming to support "kindness" while thinking that Limbaugh was a "cool and a wonderful guy" suggests that hypocrisy is your stock in trade.   

[Wacka]

"Uniters" gotta unite

[Gene Frenkle]

17 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What's BillsAnaon? And didn't really watch the playoff run.  Athletes are now firmly in the celebrity camp for me.  Overpaid for either playing a game or make believe.  

Oh c'mon, you know exactly what I'm talking about. No need to be coy.

 

Hopefully your timing on the stock market is better than your timing on deciding you don't like the Bills anymore.

[TH3]

19 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well demonstrated today that many of the shallower posters here do not have one ounce of the integrity of DJT.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL...Trying to compare RBG to RL? 

[B-Man]

14 minutes ago, TH3 said:

LOL...Trying to compare RBG to RL? 

 

 

LOL.....right over TH3's head.

 

 

 

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, wnyguy said:

He was the first conservative radio voice to have his program go national and draw millions of listeners. Before Rush it was pretty much liberal radio talk shows. Kinda like network news today.

 

You are completely wrong. Before the late 80's talk radio was by law split 50/50 between liberal and conservative pundits. Look up the fairness doctrine. 

[wnyguy]

14 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You are completely wrong. Before the late 80's talk radio was by law split 50/50 between liberal and conservative pundits. Look up the fairness doctrine. 

Name another national conservative radio talk show host then.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, wnyguy said:

Name another national conservative radio talk show host then.

 

Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ben Shaprio I can go on. The Fairness Doctrine prior to 1987 mandated that each radio and TV station give equal time to both sides of the political spectrum. That resulted in stations having to by law give as much time to liberals as they did conservatives. They basically had to present an opposing view either liberal or conservative which made things hard for syndication nationally. It isn't a coincidence that Rush's rise in popularity coincided with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.  

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Oh c'mon, you know exactly what I'm talking about. No need to be coy.

 

Hopefully your timing on the stock market is better than your timing on deciding you don't like the Bills anymore.

 

I assume you mean the new Bills site.  I don't know.  Don't spend much time there. Why do you think I do?

 

I don't time either the stock market or the Bills. I gave up on the Bills 6 years ago and am so happy i did .  Good to see you're as clueless as ever Genie boy.  

[SoCal Deek]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I assume you mean the new Bills site.  I don't know.  Don't spend much time there. Why do you think I do?

 

I don't time either the stock market or the Bills. I gave up on the Bills 6 years ago and am so happy i did .  Good to see you're as clueless as ever Genie boy.  

Here's a hint...you'd have been better off giving up on the Sabres.  They're still going nowhere, just skating in circles.

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Here's a hint...you'd have been better off giving up on the Sabres.  They're still going nowhere, just skating in circles.

 

Here's a hint.  I have up on all sports.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I assume you mean the new Bills site.  I don't know.  Don't spend much time there. Why do you think I do?

 

I don't time either the stock market or the Bills. I gave up on the Bills 6 years ago and am so happy i did .  Good to see you're as clueless as ever Genie boy.  

Stock market “timing”.   Geesh.  
 

That’s less Gene Frenkle, more... 

 

[Wacka]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ben Shaprio I can go on. The Fairness Doctrine prior to 1987 mandated that each radio and TV station give equal time to both sides of the political spectrum. That resulted in stations having to by law give as much time to liberals as they did conservatives. They basically had to present an opposing view either liberal or conservative which made things hard for syndication nationally. It isn't a coincidence that Rush's rise in popularity coincided with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.  

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Wacka
computer hiccup

[Gene Frenkle]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Stock market “timing”.   Geesh.  
 

That’s less Gene Frenkle, more... 

 

Quiet down, Lenerd. Nobody's talking to you.

[billsfan89]

2 hours ago, Wacka said:

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your initial post said that before Rush talk radio was all liberal just like the media today. When in reality it was mandated by law to be 50/50.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Quiet down, Lenerd. Nobody's talking to you.

Classic Frenks. 

[Taraka]

1. On Rush Limbaugh's passing: Harry Truman supposedly said "it's a damn shame when anyone dies." Fair enough. But Consider this timeline: 1985: Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" predicts a world where entertainment values wreck civil discourse 1987: Reagan's FCC...

2. . ...kills the Fairness Doctrine and creates the possibility of conservative talk radio 1988: Sacramento radio guy Rush Limbaugh goes national with right-wing talk Now, Limbaugh (as his later soulmate, Glenn Beck) was basically the nightmare predicted in "Amusing Ourselves...

3. ...to Death" -- a smooth entertainer with no real political ideas worth discussing, just a talent for funneling white rage into a 3-hour show. Yet in doing so, he changed U.S. politics forever and set the stage for Trump's American fascism Before "Lock her up!" there was...

4. ...Rush and his attacks on "feminazis." Before America became the world leader in denying climate change, Rush went to war with "tree-hugging" environmentalists Before Trump made "the cruelty is the point" a national catchphrase, Limbaugh ridiculed Michael J. Fox and...

5. ...anyone else he disagreed with As Republican politics devolved from the dog whistles of the Reagan era to the racist, xenophobic air horns of Trump, Rush was there for every step down Even worse, his success launched 1,000 other black suns of right-wing hate, from local...

6. ...radio to the Fox News Channel. He was the first pocket of an air bubble that allowed the masses to breathe the all-day air of white supremacy, and to expand that bubble of unreality to insane conspiracy theories like QAnon It will take decades, if it's even possible, to...

7. ...undo the damage to American's beliefs in fact-based news reporting, in the science around life-or-death issues like climate, COVID-19 and vaccines, in a politics that isn't a holy jihad, that was originally sparked by Rush Limbaugh. On the day of...

8. ...his death, I'm hard-pressed to think of someone in my lifetime with a more powerful negative impact on American society. His passing is a moment to reflect -- on all the work that lies ahead, for good people to reverse his legacy - 30 -

 

@willbunch

 

 

[Wacka]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Your initial post said that before Rush talk radio was all liberal just like the media today. When in reality it was mandated by law to be 50/50.

 All the name you mentioned   started or got popular after Rush went nationwide. Before Rush, political talk radio, what little there was,  was >95%  left leaning.  Are you  young?  or were you an adult during the 80s?

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, Wacka said:

 All the name you mentioned   started or got popular after Rush went nationwide. Before Rush, political talk radio, what little there was,  was >95%  left leaning.  Are you  young?  or were you an adult during the 80s?

 

The fairness doctrine which was in effect until 1987 literally mandated an opposing viewpoint for every viewpoint expressed. So the idea that 95% of political talk radio was left leaning literally would have been against the law.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The fairness doctrine which was in effect until 1987 literally mandated an opposing viewpoint for every viewpoint expressed. So the idea that 95% of political talk radio was left leaning literally would have been against the law.

There was little enforcement mechanism and radio companies were reluctant to broadcast conservative points of view.  It was mostly liberal and frankly boring to listen to.  

Edited February 19, 2021 by Doc Brown

[reddogblitz]

This the highlight of Rush's TV show.

 

 

[Melon]

My husband knew him

[Gene Frenkle]

21 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Classic Frenks. 

Yer not so bad, Lenerd.

[Tiberius]

10 hours ago, Melania Trump said:

My husband knew him

Knew? You mean Rush is still dead? Has CNN confirmed this? 

[Sundancer]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:43 PM, billsfan89 said:

 

The fairness doctrine which was in effect until 1987 literally mandated an opposing viewpoint for every viewpoint expressed. So the idea that 95% of political talk radio was left leaning literally would have been against the law.

You’re maybe mixing the fairness doctrine (stations were supposed to present opposing viewpoints, no enforcement and not in equal proportions of time) with the equal time rule (candidates were to be given equal time). 
 

There was never a 50-50 split. Never. 

[SoTier]

17 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

You’re maybe mixing the fairness doctrine (stations were supposed to present opposing viewpoints, no enforcement and not in equal proportions of time) with the equal time rule (candidates were to be given equal time). 
 

There was never a 50-50 split. Never. 

 

You are correct.

 

Fairness Doctrine

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

 

Equal Time Rule

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives a given amount of time to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it, at the same price if applicable.

This rule originated in §18 of the Radio Act of 1927; it was later superseded by the Communications Act of 1934. A related provision, in §315(b), requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser".

The equal-time rule was created because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view and excluding other candidates.

There are four exceptions to the equal-time rule. If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered "news events," and as a result, they are not subject to the rule. Consequently, these debates may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates. Talk shows and other regular news programming from syndicators, such as Entertainment Tonight, are also declared exempt from the rule by the FCC on a case-by-case basis.

The equal-time rule was temporarily suspended by Congress in 1960 to permit the Kennedy-Nixon debates to take place.

[Tiberius]

It’s like no one even cares he died 

 

By, See ya 

[US Egg]

12 hours ago, Tiberius said:

It’s like no one even cares he died 

So has law enforcement.

 

Hope you enjoyed it.

[Chef Jim]

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

By, See ya 

 

Is this kind of like By George? 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Odd thread to bring back 

[B-Man]

19 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Odd thread to bring back 

 

Not really.

 

Posters filled with ugly thoughts, like Tiberius, do it far too often.