Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

IMO one of the biggest douche bags in the world but that's just me.......my opinion doesn't even include consideration of his show or political opinions.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/ ... of_america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VictorG wrote:IMO one of the biggest douche bags in the world but that's just me.......my opinion doesn't even include consideration of his show or political opinions.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/ ... of_america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True story. I live about 45 minutes from Rush's home town and know a couple of people that went to high school with him. They say his personality hasn't changed much. Apparently if he didn't like you he would threaten to "have your ass kicked". Not by him, of course.

houndawg wrote:

VictorG wrote:IMO one of the biggest douche bags in the world but that's just me.......my opinion doesn't even include consideration of his show or political opinions.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/ ... of_america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True story. I live about 45 minutes from Rush's home town and know a couple of people that went to high school with him. They say his personality hasn't changed much. Apparently if he didn't like you he would threaten to "have your ass kicked". Not by him, of course.

That sack of shit was a pussy and still is a PUSSY

I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

20 Million loyal American listeners (apparently)
And there are some who claim 30 million

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

He doesn't. People give him waaaaaaaaaay too much credit. If he had any real influence then McCain never would've won the republican nomination in 2008.

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

I do when I'm on the road at that time of day and in fact I heard him say that thing about Cobert being the next host of that show. My thought, though, was that I don't see the big difference assuming Cobert is a partisan. I don't know anything about Cobert because I've never watched his show.

But Letterman is as partisan as partisan gets. I don't see how Rush could see the network as doing anything new if it IS hiring a left-leaning partisan because it's HAD a very obvious left-leaning partisan in that spot for decades.

As far as the Rush popularity question goes: He's good at what he does. He revolutionized radio. Talk radio is what it is today largely because of Rush Limbaugh. To my knowledge he's been the most listened to radio talk show host every year for over 20 years now. I think it's close to 25 plus or minus a couple.

Many years ago I saw the details of a poll of the Rush Limbaugh audience. It is, on average, substantially more affluent and educated than the general public. Another thing that struck me is that something on the order of 40 percent of his audience said they don't agree with him most of the time. That's kind of interesting.

Me, I do agree with him most of the time. Not all of the time. But a substantial majority of the time. And I certainly agree with his general philosophical orientation.

And he's useful. He does good research. So I listen to him and get leads on things. Then if I want to talk about them I use his leads to do my own research. I find other sources because I know that there has been this big effort to create a situation where people say "WELL it came from Rush Limbaugh so it CAN'T be credible."

But many times it is credible. So I just locate another source for the information he made me aware of to get around the largely successful effort to discredit him. Happens all the time. He's a good source. And he pretty much references everything he says when it comes to describing things. It's just that you can't say he was the original source because the successful effort to demonize him means that if you cite him as the source people aren't listening.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

I do when I'm on the road at that time of day and in fact I heard him say that thing about Cobert being the next host of that show. My thought, though, was that I don't see the big difference assuming Cobert is a partisan. I don't know anything about Cobert because I've never watched his show.

But Letterman is as partisan as partisan gets. I don't see how Rush could see the network as doing anything new if it IS hiring a left-leaning partisan because it's HAD a very obvious left-leaning partisan in that spot for decades.

Yawn...

CBS traded an old bitter partisan hack who started mailing it in years ago for a young bitter partisan hack who will at least give it a try.

It's kinda like trading in houndawg for lube boy.

JohnStOnge wrote:As far as the Rush popularity question goes: He's good at what he does. He revolutionized radio. Talk radio is what it is today largely because of Rush Limbaugh. To my knowledge he's been the most listened to radio talk show host every year for over 20 years now. I think it's close to 25 plus or minus a couple.

Many years ago I saw the details of a poll of the Rush Limbaugh audience. It is, on average, substantially more affluent and educated than the general public. Another thing that struck me is that something on the order of 40 percent of his audience said they don't agree with him most of the time. That's kind of interesting.

Me, I do agree with him most of the time. Not all of the time. But a substantial majority of the time. And I certainly agree with his general philosophical orientation.

And he's useful. He does good research. So I listen to him and get leads on things. Then if I want to talk about them I use his leads to do my own research. I find other sources because I know that there has been this big effort to create a situation where people say "WELL it came from Rush Limbaugh so it CAN'T be credible."

But many times it is credible. So I just locate another source for the information he made me aware of to get around the largely successful effort to discredit him. Happens all the time. He's a good source. And he pretty much references everything he says when it comes to describing things. It's just that you can't say he was the original source because the successful effort to demonize him means that if you cite him as the source people aren't listening.

Oh Johnny! I was right about you!

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

So the 2012 Democrat meme that Rush Limbaugh runs the GOP wasnt correct?

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

So the 2012 Democrat meme that Rush Limbaugh runs the GOP wasnt correct?

Good memory!

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

So the 2012 Democrat meme that Rush Limbaugh runs the GOP wasnt correct?

Too moderate.

Baldy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I do when I'm on the road at that time of day and in fact I heard him say that thing about Cobert being the next host of that show. My thought, though, was that I don't see the big difference assuming Cobert is a partisan. I don't know anything about Cobert because I've never watched his show.

But Letterman is as partisan as partisan gets. I don't see how Rush could see the network as doing anything new if it IS hiring a left-leaning partisan because it's HAD a very obvious left-leaning partisan in that spot for decades.

Yawn...

CBS traded an old bitter partisan hack who started mailing it in years ago for a young bitter partisan hack who will at least give it a try.

It's kinda like trading in houndawg for lube boy.

You calling anyone bitter, let alone Colbert, is almost too good to be true.

I always thought Limbaugh was entertaining. He is definitely very good at what he does. I also think that he is full of shit much of the time. If you listen to him with a critical mind his program has some value. If you are a dittohead who listens because you want to be told what you want to hear, or you want to be told what to think, then you are an idiot.

Baldy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I do when I'm on the road at that time of day and in fact I heard him say that thing about Cobert being the next host of that show. My thought, though, was that I don't see the big difference assuming Cobert is a partisan. I don't know anything about Cobert because I've never watched his show.

But Letterman is as partisan as partisan gets. I don't see how Rush could see the network as doing anything new if it IS hiring a left-leaning partisan because it's HAD a very obvious left-leaning partisan in that spot for decades.

Yawn...

CBS traded an old bitter partisan hack who started mailing it in years ago for a young bitter partisan hack who will at least give it a try.

It's kinda like trading in houndawg for lube boy.

Colbert says that he won't do The Late Show in the same character that he did the Colbert Report. I think that is good because I didn't like that character. I though he sucked at interviews, too much interrupting of guests.

I think most late night hosts are left leaning. I don't care as long as they are fair to guests and bash the Dems when called for. Colbert will have to do that if he wants his show to succeed.

BlueHen86 wrote:I always thought Limbaugh was entertaining. He is definitely very good at what he does. I also think that he is full of shit much of the time. If you listen to him with a critical mind his program has some value. If you are a dittohead who listens because you want to be told what you want to hear, or you want to be told what to think, then you are an idiot.

His morning commentary is worth listening to sometimes, but his show just seems like a string of strawman arguments against "dimmercrats" and "lib'rals".

Limbaugh is very good at what he does, that is, being a blowhard entertainer. I'm not sure if he really believes all the things he says but, hey, that's entertainment. I think he believes in his paycheck and will say anything to keep the ratings up and the money flowing.

He also blurred the line between entertainment and politics, leading to imitators (on both sides of the fence) who have done the same, and we've all suffered as a result.

Oh Johnny! I was right about you!

You can post laugh faces all you want, but what I said is accurate. He spends a lot of time referring to other things. Editorials. News stories. Reports. He finds stuff.

Then you get home and get on your computer and look the stuff up that he referenced. And you use that when you're talking to people instead of saying "Rush Limbaugh said…"

He is a very useful resource in that regard. He and/or his staff does the research then you verify and use it.

I do the same kind of stuff with Fox News because I know it has been similarly demonized. I find out about something because I heard about it on Fox news then find some other source so I don't have to worry about the Fox News being demonized thing.

It's the truth but you can't make people listen to the truth until you get past the successful effort on the part of the left to make many people just automatically ignore anything Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Oh Johnny! I was right about you!

You can post laugh faces all you want, but what I said is accurate. He spends a lot of time referring to other things. Editorials. News stories. Reports. He finds stuff.

Then you get home and get on your computer and look the stuff up that he referenced. And you use that when you're talking to people instead of saying "Rush Limbaugh said…"

He is a very useful resource in that regard. He and/or his staff does the research then you verify and use it.

I do the same kind of stuff with Fox News because I know it has been similarly demonized. I find out about something because I heard about it on Fox news then find some other source so I don't have to worry about the Fox News being demonized thing.

It's the truth but you can't make people listen to the truth until you get past the successful effort on the part of the left to make many people just automatically ignore anything Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says.

Rush does really really good research. He really does.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Oh Johnny! I was right about you!

You can post laugh faces all you want, but what I said is accurate. He spends a lot of time referring to other things. Editorials. News stories. Reports. He finds stuff.

Then you get home and get on your computer and look the stuff up that he referenced. And you use that when you're talking to people instead of saying "Rush Limbaugh said…"

He is a very useful resource in that regard. He and/or his staff does the research then you verify and use it.

I do the same kind of stuff with Fox News because I know it has been similarly demonized. I find out about something because I heard about it on Fox news then find some other source so I don't have to worry about the Fox News being demonized thing.

It's the truth but you can't make people listen to the truth until you get past the successful effort on the part of the left to make many people just automatically ignore anything Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says.

The only thing he researches is what pills to start popping next.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Oh Johnny! I was right about you!

You can post laugh faces all you want, but what I said is accurate. He spends a lot of time referring to other things. Editorials. News stories. Reports. He finds stuff.

Then you get home and get on your computer and look the stuff up that he referenced. And you use that when you're talking to people instead of saying "Rush Limbaugh said…"

He is a very useful resource in that regard. He and/or his staff does the research then you verify and use it.

I do the same kind of stuff with Fox News because I know it has been similarly demonized. I find out about something because I heard about it on Fox news then find some other source so I don't have to worry about the Fox News being demonized thing.

It's the truth but you can't make people listen to the truth until you get past the successful effort on the part of the left to make many people just automatically ignore anything Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says.

You listen to Rush Limbaugh, you watch FoxNews and you are not biased. Got it.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
You can post laugh faces all you want, but what I said is accurate. He spends a lot of time referring to other things. Editorials. News stories. Reports. He finds stuff.

Then you get home and get on your computer and look the stuff up that he referenced. And you use that when you're talking to people instead of saying "Rush Limbaugh said…"

He is a very useful resource in that regard. He and/or his staff does the research then you verify and use it.

I do the same kind of stuff with Fox News because I know it has been similarly demonized. I find out about something because I heard about it on Fox news then find some other source so I don't have to worry about the Fox News being demonized thing.

It's the truth but you can't make people listen to the truth until you get past the successful effort on the part of the left to make many people just automatically ignore anything Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says.

You listen to Rush Limbaugh, you watch FoxNews and you are not biased. Got it.

Merely a stepping stone to the real research he does. Thing is...Fox and Rush keep end up being right all the time. Fact.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Baldy wrote: Yawn...

CBS traded an old bitter partisan hack who started mailing it in years ago for a young bitter partisan hack who will at least give it a try.

It's kinda like trading in houndawg for lube boy.

You calling anyone bitter, let alone Colbert, is almost too good to be true.

I apologize for leaving you off the list.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I can't believe he still has influence. Who is listening to him?

I do when I'm on the road at that time of day and in fact I heard him say that thing about Cobert being the next host of that show. My thought, though, was that I don't see the big difference assuming Cobert is a partisan. I don't know anything about Cobert because I've never watched his show.

But Letterman is as partisan as partisan gets. I don't see how Rush could see the network as doing anything new if it IS hiring a left-leaning partisan because it's HAD a very obvious left-leaning partisan in that spot for decades.

He's kind of like Limbaugh but intelligent and funny.