Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation

[iNow]

It boggles my mind when I realize that otherwise reasonably intelligent people still listen to this bloviating blow hard.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/17/limbaugh-volcano/

Yesterday, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh talked about the volcanic eruption that’s affecting air travel over much of Europe, saying it was “God speaking” in response to the passage of health care.

 

 

I stand firmly behind the principle of free speech, and I welcome this jackass continuing to poke about like the buffoon he is. He's taken a cue right out of Pat Robertson's playbook with this one, and look at what has happened with public perception of that asshat.

 

 

Keep it up, Rush. Your efforts at continued marginalization are proving very effective. Don't change a thing. You're right on track leading our nation and our planet toward a brighter and better future.

[Pangloss]

I read a similar comment somewhere the other day, along the lines of "before President Obama was elected we didn't have all these earthquakes either", I guess in reference to Haiti, China, Chile, etc.

 

ABC News ran a piece on Friday interviewing a geologist (OMG an actual scientist!) saying that the actual number of earthquakes this year is actually quite in line with the normal average number. Just some bad luck in some of their locations, unfortunately.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW I might as well go ahead and post this one here, since it's directly related to Rush Limbaugh. He's apparently involved in a bit of a verbal scuffle with former President Clinton this weekend regarding some statements that were made by each on Friday.

 

Apparently Clinton made a speech on Friday (morning?) on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that in these tense political times Americans should refrain from provoking each other to the level of violence. I thought his comments were very non-specific, and while he did mention the tea party, he was very clear that he felt the reasoning applied to ALL ideological groups and political parties.

 

Limbaugh pounced, declaring that if there is any more violence it will be Clinton's fault. That's pretty nasty stuff, and way over the line, IMO.

 

This ABC News piece has a run-down and Clinton's response to Limbaugh's comments:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rush-limbaugh-comment-doesnt-make-any-sense.html

[ParanoiA]

I can assure you this is shtick. I'm surprised we didn't hear any of his usual repetitive giggles where he pretends it's really hilarious and is an inside joke that only the intelligent listeners will get. I wouldn't make a big deal of it because he's going to laugh at the media if they run with it.

 

Remember, this is the same dude that showcases "the media tweak of the day" on his show...well, daily.

[iNow]

Um... Yeah.

 

 

See, now me? I prefer transparency, honest discourse, and integrity over "inside jokes" reminiscent of the shit Pat Robertson discusses, but I suppose YMMV.

 

 

Pat Robertson... Laughing at how that silly media took what he said to be representative of what he actually thinks. Silly people, listening to words instead of their guts. Hahaha... Joke's on you, media. You bunch of Moe-Rons.

 

Ah... That Rush Limbaugh and his zany sense of humor. Golly, he's a hoot.

As an aside, if Obama said the same thing, he'd be lined up and shot by this same person. Hypocrisy, much?

[Pangloss]

I can assure you this is shtick. I'm surprised we didn't hear any of his usual repetitive giggles where he pretends it's really hilarious and is an inside joke that only the intelligent listeners will get. I wouldn't make a big deal of it because he's going to laugh at the media if they run with it.

 

Remember, this is the same dude that showcases "the media tweak of the day" on his show...well, daily.

 

I suppose it's possible, but he also has a whole thing about directly challenging the idea of common ground. He believes in the fight, in not backing down or compromising in any way. Clinton's statement directly challenges one of Rush Limbaugh's most fundamental principles, which is that if conservatives only fight long and hard enough the liberals will give in because they are weak, stupid, and not well motivated.

 

It's why he never backs down in any way, shape or form. Not ever. The only thing I've ever heard him back down on was admitting his addiction to oxy, which he probably had to do to avoid jail time. One of the most revealing things I remember hearing on his show was that when a caller would say anything grudgingly admiring or even slightly admitting of a liberal position, he would refuse to join them on it.

 

Always deny, always obfuscate, always control the damage, always reverse the blame, and always, always ridicule. It is the partisan's creed.

[ParanoiA]

See, now me? I prefer transparency, honest discourse, and integrity over "inside jokes" reminiscent of the shit Pat Robertson discusses, but I suppose YMMV.

 

Oh come on, is that what The Daily Show is? Stephen Colbert? Lighten up, he's trying to be tongue and cheek with his audience and tweak sensitive media and I really think you're just feeding the troll, so to speak.

 

Pat Robertson... Laughing at how that silly media took what he said to be representative of what he actually thinks. Silly people, listening to words instead of their guts. Hahaha... Joke's on you, media. You bunch of Moe-Rons.

 

The key difference is that Pat Robertson is a christian figure and Rush is a political one. He's no Glen Beck, he doesn't talk about god and religion except in terms of rights when the issue is current, and of course taking up for the christian right as a political group. It would be out of character for Rush to actually get that religious, in that way, and that loony. I know you want to believe that, but I just think he's trying to get a rise out of the public.

 

Ah... That Rush Limbaugh and his zany sense of humor. Golly' date=' he's a hoot.

As an aside, if Obama said the same thing, he'd be lined up and shot by this same person. Hypocrisy, much?[/quote']

 

Hey I got no dog in this fight. I'm just telling you as someone who's listened on and off for years. I know how he operates. But you're free to leave it. I don't care.

 

 

I suppose it's possible' date=' but he also has a whole thing about directly challenging the idea of common ground. He believes in the fight, in not backing down or compromising in any way. Clinton's statement directly challenges one of Rush Limbaugh's most fundamental principles, which is that if conservatives only fight long and hard enough the liberals will give in because they are weak, stupid, and not well motivated.

 

It's why he never backs down in any way, shape or form. Not ever. The only thing I've ever heard him back down on was admitting his addiction to oxy, which he probably had to do to avoid jail time. One of the most revealing things I remember hearing on his show was that when a caller would say anything grudgingly admiring or even slightly admitting of a liberal position, he would refuse to join them on it.

 

Always deny, always obfuscate, always control the damage, always reverse the blame, and always, always ridicule. It is the partisan's creed.[/quote']

 

Just in case it isn't clear, my post was referring specifically to the OP and not the Clinton exchange. This is the first I've heard of it. But yeah, you're right about all of that above.

 

I've always felt he latched on to a canned excuse for drug addiction as evidenced on Shatner's Raw Nerve; this appeal to how he never felt comfortable being open with people. It's just so rehearsed.

Edited April 18, 2010 by ParanoiA

[padren]

Well ParanoiA, I do hope he's satirically mocking the Christian Right that does look for signs from God in natural disasters as evidence of His Wrath against the godless heathens and their socialist President.

 

Of course, if most of his audience got the joke that mocks their religious beliefs and Heavenly Lord, they might be a little testy, but since he doesn't claim to be a satirist not to be taken seriously (like Jon Stewart does) they probably never will.

 

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are satire shows and are known as satire shows on the Comedy Channel, and it's very clear when they are joking. If Rush is making a joke it would be nice for him to actually own it, but since it's part of his shtick as you say, to troll the public I an see why he wouldn't.

 

I think it may be more respectable though if he actually meant it.

[Pangloss]

Just in case it isn't clear, my post was referring specifically to the OP and not the Clinton exchange.

 

Wups, sorry about that.

[toastywombel]

Oh come on, is that what The Daily Show is? Stephen Colbert? Lighten up, he's trying to be tongue and cheek with his audience and tweak sensitive media and I really think you're just feeding the troll, so to speak.

 

The difference between the Daily Show or Colbert Report cracking ridiculous jokes and Rush Limbaugh doing it is this.

 

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are comedy shows, featured on a network called Comedy Central. Jon Stewart has mentioned countless times, that his show is a comedy show, one including an interview with Bill O'Reilly.

 

However, on Rush Limbaugh's website, under the about me, says this,

 

The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy.

 

There is a "consensus" among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.

 

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

 

Now compare that to the Daily Show website's About Me,

 

Tired of having your news spoon fed to you by big network suits the and the smaller, chattier suits on cable news? Join Jon Stewart and the Best F#@king News Team Ever as they bring you the news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/about

 

The the Daily Show, has admitted to being a comedy show, and is arguably admitting to being a comedy show by the tone in the above. On top of that, they directly say that this news show, "is unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity, or even accuracy."

 

However Rush in his about me is implying that his show is the "most correct" and that he is also known as the "truth detector". This obviously is intended to communicate the the message that Rush's show is an accurate description of reality, and really the best description of reality offered by any show.

 

Both Stewart and Rush are selling snake poison, but at least Stewart labels his product as snake poison, while Rush labels his poison as vitamin tonic. If I recall correctly Stewart used that exact metaphor in the same interview with O'Reilly, comparing himself at the time to Fox, not Rush. Anyway, point made.

Edited April 18, 2010 by toastywombel

[ParanoiA]

I don't know what to say. "Doctor of Democracy" - "America's Truth Detector" - 'All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie" and then topped with "and an all around good guy" - if you guys don't see the comedic tone of all that then nothing I say is going to shed any light on it. These are all the same slogans you hear on the show daily, usually stated by an announcer where the comedic value is a bit more obvious. (Do you not hear the proverbial boxing announcer in that intro? )

 

I am genuinely surprised though. He always says that people don't "get" him and what he's doing, but I always thought that was just the usual marginalization of the opponent "they don't understand us" logic. But you guys are making me believe that maybe it's true.

 

All of this cartoonish hubris is manufactured and again, is all about poking at "the elitists". It's conservative fun and it's liberating to listeners to hear a proud, boastful conservative that "outsmarts" the "elitists". If you're not familiar with it, I guess it all looks like serious commentary.

 

It may help to remember that Rush comes from years of rock radio working as a DJ before he got into commentary and considers himself a radio personality first, and political figure second. It's part of his speech about "they don't understand what I/we do here" and why liberals can't get a successful counter show on AM radio without government subsidy.

 

Rush is very similar to John Stewart actually, in that he mixes humor with his commentary. John is far more dedicated to comedy though, and Rush a bit more to his political philosophy, but he uses comedy, satire, shtick, heavy on the pretenses and tongue-in-cheek jabs at anything left. It's part of the unashamed, proud, intelligent conservative radio personality bit.

 

He loves being his audience's super hero for their beliefs.

[iNow]

Hahaha... Let's poke fun at those silly elitist liberals by saying how people died in a volcano due to the passage of healthcare legislation... Hahaha... Natural disasters... they are tied to the progressive agenda... Hahaha... That's ace material, right there. Hahaha... That'll learn 'em good.

 

 

 

 

You're right, ParanoiA. I don't get him.

[jackson33]

NEWS FLASH....iNow, noted political authority on Science Forums says;

 

"Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation"

 

Out of CONTEXT, sure it is, iNow made a statement expecting to please his admirers...on the forum.

 

For the one or two that truly don't know the context or in fact even went to the article, lets place the message in CONTEXT;

 

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. [/Quote]

 

The words, in 'quotes' were spoke by Mr. Obama and to my knowledge, no one predicted the Earth would open up, the World would end or the birds would stop chirping, and you will have to admit OBAMA, made that comment, surely intended to be humorous, at what became a very poor time in World History.

 

As for Limbaugh himself, very few of us loyal listeners, take everything he says literally, in fact he makes errors in many comments on a daily basis, when not quoting directly from others. But the general message, he has advocated for 20+ years is one that was simply not being made by anyone in those days, being American is something special...He has lived a life on air and TV, problems and all, that we all go through, probably even more so in some ways, yet managed to keep that message on track...

[iNow]

NEWS FLASH....iNow, noted political authority on Science Forums says;

 

"Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation"

 

Out of CONTEXT, sure it is, iNow made a statement expecting to please his admirers...on the forum.

Actually, it was taken from the link I shared... You know, the one which had a word-for-word transcript and ALSO a video of him saying these things.

 

But, whatever.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hahaha... Let's poke fun at those silly elitist liberals by saying how people died in a volcano due to the passage of healthcare legislation... Hahaha... Natural disasters... they are tied to the progressive agenda... Hahaha... That's ace material, right there. Hahaha... That'll learn 'em good.

 

Funnier than some of the segments I see on the Daily Show, at least.

[ParanoiA]

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied.

 

Oh I didn't even catch that first part when I listened. Yeah, that's exactly what that is. Typical Rush stuff. He's playing off Obama's quote. The Daily Show would easily run the same thing if Bush had said that warrantless wiretaps hadn't caused the earth to open up, there's no armageddon out there, the birds are still chirping - we'd probably first see footage of Bush making that speech, then they'd switch to the volcano footage while Stewart contorts his face in "confusion" of the apparent conflict of his words and reality.

 

And it would be kind of funny. But not when you take yourself too seriously, of course.

 

Out of CONTEXT, sure it is, iNow made a statement expecting to please his admirers...on the forum.

 

Don't let it bother you. It's not much different from your parents shaking their heads about your music choices. The last time I had to explain the method or motivations behind an entertainer like this was when I had to convince my mom and dad that Metallica and Iron Maiden are not "satanic occult" bands and that the media doesn't understand metal.

Edited April 18, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Actually, it was taken from the link I shared... You know, the one which had a word-for-word transcript and ALSO a video of him saying these things.[/Quote]

 

iNow; Sometime I wonder why I bother (rhetorical), of course it was your link, mentioned in my post, not clarified in your headline, that's the point....Out of context.

 

For the one or two that truly don't know the context or in fact even went to the article, lets place the message in CONTEXT; [/Quote]

 

One day, I'll start a thread over some of Obama's speeches during/after the campaign, predicting change and hope, to what actually is happening, "we will transform America", "The waters will recede" and the like....

 

Oh, I am glad to see you posting regularly here, again. At least your consistent in ideology, though predictable and respond quicker than any poster I've ever known, even to admit an error....once or twice.

[iNow]

Oh, I am glad to see you posting regularly here, again. At least your consistent in ideology, though predictable and respond quicker than any poster I've ever known, even to admit an error....once or twice.

 

Well, in those two times in my life where I actually was wrong, it was such a rare occasion that it was important to me to acknowledge it as quickly as possible so I could learn from it and move forward.

 

 

 

Listen, folks. I get the whole mocking Obama thing. I can see that. During the debate, many republican and conservative commentators mentioned how this would be armageddon, and how the healthcare bill would demolish america, and how when it passed Mothra would descend upon us and eat our babies, and the Stay Puff'd marshmallow man would come barreling down the streets of New York ripping apart buildings because the sumerian god Gozer didn't like what the US congress was doing to pass healthcare reform legislation.

 

And, after it actually passed, Obama made a joke asking where was all this armageddon people were talking about... and how the skies hadn't opened up. Basically, a comment to convey, "Hey... we won... let's move past this nonsense, shall we?" Then, finally here comes Rush playing his part in the back and forth volley which is political life in America, pointing to a run-of-the-mill volcano or earthquake and saying, "Hey, Mr. Prez... You really so sure healthcare didn't result in these deaths?" wink wink nudge nudge... my Obama hating audience will chuckle at that one.

 

It's not that I don't see this fellas. I guess my point is that it's a matter of taste. I think it was in incredibly bad taste to make a joke out of peoples deaths... to make a joke out of the destruction of peoples homes and villages to score a cheap laugh among an audience that already dislikes Obama.

 

 

I guess I'm just sensitive to the suffering of my fellow man, and I already have a distaste for Mr.Limbaugh, and those two coupled together caused me to get a little nauseous when I read that he'd said such a thing.

 

I'm sensitive to the fact that we just had massive suffering in Haiti due to earthquake, or tsunamis years ago, or Katrina, or the starvation and lack of water in Africa, or the abuse women put up with in middle eastern nations and elsewhere, and how these things are getting worse as the climate is changing...

 

When I think of these things and these people, I'm not thinking, "Aha! I can use this to score a political point against president bush or sarah palin and to get people who like me to laugh." No. I'm thinking, "This situation is really sad. I feel so very fortunate that me and my family are safe and are not suffering like they are. I can only imagine if that were me down there. We need to find a way to help these people." And yes, I think that makes me better than people who are laughing at this suffering or using it to reinforce their message like Pat Robertson does.

 

Does that make me an elitist? If so, I must say that I don't think that's such a bad thing, and that I proudly walk forward with such a label applied to me, but I suppose YMMV.

[ParanoiA]

It's not that I don't see this fellas. I guess my point is that it's a matter of taste. I think it was in incredibly bad taste to make a joke out of peoples deaths... to make a joke out of the destruction of peoples homes and villages to score a cheap laugh among an audience that already dislikes Obama.

 

 

I guess I'm just sensitive to the suffering of my fellow man' date=' and I already have a distaste for Mr.Limbaugh, and those two coupled together caused me to get a little nauseous when I read that he'd said such a thing.

 

I'm sensitive to the fact that we just had massive suffering in Haiti due to earthquake, or tsunamis years ago, or Katrina, or the starvation and lack of water in Africa, or the abuse women put up with in middle eastern nations and elsewhere, and how these things are getting worse as the climate is changing...

 

When I think of these things and these people, I'm not thinking, "Aha! I can use this to score a political point against president bush or sarah palin and to get people who like me to laugh." No. I'm thinking, "This situation is really sad. I feel so very fortunate that me and my family are safe and are not suffering like they are. [i']I can only imagine if that were me down there. We need to find a way to help these people." And yes, I think that makes me better than people who are laughing at this suffering or using it to reinforce their message like Pat Robertson does.[/i]

 

Does that make me an elitist? If so, I must say that I don't think that's such a bad thing, and that I proudly walk forward with such a label applied to me, but I suppose YMMV.

 

I understand your sentiment. Now, what does it do?

 

As I said yesterday, Rush donated $400,000 dollars to help people with blood cancer, and turns his show into a fund raiser once a year for this effort. Not to mention his donations and participation in the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to children of marines or law enforcement officers that died in the line of duty. (That's where the 2.1 million dollars went from the Harry Reid letter that he auctioned off on ebay).

 

That's what he does. Now what do you do?

 

Rush makes the essential point that results count, and that merely giving a shit and caring is substance free rationale that doesn't help a single person.

 

While I give you credit for caring, what is the result of it? So, if we're measuring people...shouldn't I stick with results and actions over vocalized intents and emotions?

 

 

Of course, none of that excuses the tasteless jab. Although, I have come to expect it. Sometimes it serves a useful purpose. I fail to see any useful purpose in this case, at all.

[bascule]

Yeah, that's exactly what that is. Typical Rush stuff. He's playing off Obama's quote.

 

Obama was in turn playing off a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehner, who likened the passage of the healthcare bill to Armageddon.

 

So I guess Rush is saying that John Boehner is right, and that the passage of this bill actually has caused Armageddon.

[ParanoiA]

Obama was in turn playing off a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehner, who likened the passage of the healthcare bill to Armageddon.

 

So I guess Rush is saying that John Boehner is right, and that the passage of this bill actually has caused Armageddon.

 

Yeah I suppose so. Of course, I couldn't disagree more, that nail was driven a long time ago, minus armageddon.

[iNow]

Apparently Clinton made a speech on Friday (morning?) on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that in these tense political times Americans should refrain from provoking each other to the level of violence. I thought his comments were very non-specific, and while he did mention the tea party, he was very clear that he felt the reasoning applied to ALL ideological groups and political parties.

 

Limbaugh pounced, declaring that if there is any more violence it will be Clinton's fault. That's pretty nasty stuff, and way over the line, IMO.

I don't know if you caught it, but this morning on THIS WEEK they had an interview with Clinton, and this was one of the first things they covered.

 

 

Video at the link:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rush-limbaugh-comment-doesnt-make-any-sense.html

In my EXCLUSIVE “This Week” interview, former President Bill Clinton told me Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that Clinton had “set the stage for violence in this country” and that “any acts of future violence” would be on Clinton’s shoulders, “doesn’t make any sense”.

 

Clinton marked the upcoming 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on Friday with a major speech to the Center for American Progress, in which he warned that “the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.”

 

Conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh took to the air, Friday, after the speech and said that Clinton’s remarks, which drew parallels between the anti-government sentiment in the mid-90s and present-day anti-government expressions, “just gave the kooks out there an excuse to be violent.”

 

Responding directly to Limbaugh, Clinton told me, “The only point I tried to make was that we ought to have a lot of political dissent -- a lot of political argument. Nobody is right all the time. But we also have to take responsibility for the possible consequences of what we say. “

 

One of those consequences, Clinton said, was threats against public officials. “We shouldn't demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials. We can disagree with them. We can harshly criticize them. But when we turn them into an object of demonization, you know, you -- you increase the number of threats.”

 

Clinton added, “I worry about these threats against the president and the Congress. And I worry about more careless language even against -- some of which we've seen against the Republican governor in New Jersey, Governor Christie.” A recently leaked memo from a New Jersey teachers union contained a joke suggesting that Governor Christie should die.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Of course, none of that excuses the tasteless jab.

And that's really what I was commenting on with this thread.

 

 

Although, I have come to expect it. Sometimes it serves a useful purpose. I fail to see any useful purpose in this case, at all.

I agree.

[jackson33]

Not to mention his donations and participation in the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to children of marines or law enforcement officers that died in the line of duty. (That's where the 2.1 million dollars went from the Harry Reid letter that he auctioned off on ebay). [/Quote]

 

P; It's was a little more than you remember, he also matched the ladies bid, with another 2.1 donation and reported it when both donations were submitted. 4.2M$ total...I'm not sure many know this, but the 1st hour of each day's show is broadcast to over 'Air America' at the request of the Armed Forces, who took a physical vote from the troops, years ago....

 

Rush Limbaugh himself put the letter up for auction on EBAY. Limbaugh sits on the board of the foundation and he has reportedly said on his show that he will match the winning bid -- a total of $4.2 million for the foundation. [/Quote]

 

But "Today" managed to get through its report this morning about Rush Limbaugh's auctioning off of the Harry Reid letter . . . without mentioning that Rush has publicly pledged to match the $2.1 million winning bid.[/Quote]

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/20/reid-letter-today-omits-mention-rushs-2-1-million-donation

 

Speaking of the patriarch of the Democratic Senate;

 

Harry “The Iraq war is lost” Reid: Republicans need to stop rooting for failure. [/Quote]

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/05/harry-the-iraq-war-is-lost-reid-republicans-need-to-stop-rooting-for-failure/

 

iNow; Bill Clinton, has had an ongoing feud with Limbaugh, since the 1991 Elections. In flying over St. Louis (1991), he was interviewed by a KMOX Radio talk show (not Limbaugh), complaining that he (Limbaugh) was given 3 Hours a day on air, and he (Clinton) was being quoted in 10 second sound bites. After the Oklahoma City Bombing, he (Clinton) implied, the action was prompted by 'Talk Radio' and we all suspect this meant Limbaugh. To top matters off he has shown some affection for Hillary, admitted to by her and Limbaugh has used a dozen or more 'satire' commercials, with a Bill Clinton talk and song, in a Clinton like voice.

 

IMO; Bill Clinton's recent comments and those you posted, are simply acts to carry on this feud, possibly setting up a "I told you so" scenario if anything should happen. Frankly, I believe Obama himself is doing the antagonizing, many comments, that could cause many problems. As for personal safety, keep in mind, those that 'hate Limbaugh' are out there as well. He has, as do many advocates (I know O'Rielly, Hannity) have some 24 hour security, but Limbaugh has his own plane, 24/7/365 manned home security system, uses a mail opening service and probably gets threatened more often than Obama himself, not to mention a good portion of media and opposing political advocates, ready to jump on any comment he makes. He also has at least two people on staff, that could bleep anything said, if questionable from a legal stand point and now has increased the lag time for the show from 30 to 90 seconds.

[pioneer]

If you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh, he often says things in a context of a conversation with a listener. He also has a clever and spontaneous sense of humor. His opponents like to take this out of context since he is the king of the hill. A few days later, Rush will run sound bytes of a dozen mainstream media personalities, all reading the same script. He calls this the propaganda wing of the democratic party. Very predictable.

 

If one likes a clever sense of humor, but is able to think for themselves, Rush can be an interesting source of ideas. He is the self proclaimed America's anchor man, being the main person pointing out the truth behind the scenes, not reported by the mainstream media. The propaganda wing stays away from anything that might reveal inconvenient truths. Rush is not obligated to walk on eggshells, so he likes to set fires. But since Rush is creative and a funny clever personality, he is always two steps ahead of his numerous peers on the propaganda wing. Periodically, he throws them a bone to pick, which they eventually choke on. To quote Rush, "with half my brain tied behind my back, just to be fair."

[iNow]

IMO; Bill Clinton's recent comments and those you posted, are simply acts to carry on this feud, possibly setting up a "I told you so" scenario if anything should happen. Frankly, I believe Obama himself is doing the antagonizing, many comments, that could cause many problems.

 

So, your argument here is that when Bill Clinton gave his talk Friday morning to the Center for American Progress, where he discussed the volatile nature of politics in our nation and how we all need to be more cautious with our tone to help avoid potential violence... Where he warned that “the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.” ... Where he stated that he was concerned about these threats against the president and against members of congress, and how we should all be a little bit less careless about what we say...

 

You think he was doing that to merely carry on this supposed feud with Limbaugh.

 

Well, you're welcome to that opinion. I disagree.

 

Clinton's words had little if anything to do with attacking Limbaugh, and if anything Limbaugh is the one holding the grudge seeking to open old wounds by responding to that incredibly reasonable point by saying that Clinton has "set the stage for violence in this country” and that “any acts of future violence” would be on Clinton’s shoulders... by saying that Clinton “just gave the kooks out there an excuse to be violent.”

 

 

As the OP tried to draw out... This is yet another example in a very disturbing pattern. Not only is what this guy says wrong, it's illogical, not reality based, and much of it just batshit crazy. Worse yet, many of his listeners agree with him fully and praise him for his intelligence, forward thinking, and creativity.

[jackson33]

iNow; I can only relay the History between the two as I see it. If you see it differently, then assume you knew of it, then we simply see things differently. Yes, I believe Clinton, meant Limbaugh, deliberately and subjectively placing any future incident on his shoulders and was intended, the Tea Baggers secondary.

 

As the OP tried to draw out... This is yet another example in a very disturbing pattern. Not only is what this guy says wrong, it's illogical, not reality based, and much of it just batshit crazy. Worse yet, many of his listeners agree with him fully and praise him for his intelligence, forward thinking, and creativity. [/Quote]

 

Please take yourself to your own link, opening post this thread and read through a few of the 427 Comments, if your interested in seeing real hate.

 

There is nothing disturbing going on, quite frankly under the circumstances, any commotion is quite restrained. Pick your figure but up to a fifth the people wanting to work are out of work and untold number are under employed or worried about BEING unemployed. Those that are working, have a business or want to start a business are all concerned with what might possibly be happening, could lose their jobs, business or their dreams. To pretend these emotions are non existent or that people should somehow be secure in all that's known going on and what may not be known, in itself is not American. We pride ourselves with the right to openly show objection to Government and/or the people involved or their policy. Will you admit it even appears to be taking the Nation in a very distinct direction, to what the public appears to desire?