Rush and Pat Robertson

[The Dad Fisherman]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

[Sea Dangles]

I like the old Rush like 2112, the new stuff sucked.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by detbuch

!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

he da Raz berry man

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

he da Raz berry man

And he's pretty damned good at it! I was a fan of Archie Bunker, and every time TDF sticks it to ya, I see his avatar speaking. Even though he jabbed me, I had to love it--sort of like "thanks, I needed that!" But he should've let Spence and me duke it out. I was curious about "potential truth" and what was "really bothering" me. Could save on "potential" shrink payments. But, then, I see his point--it can be annoying to see two idiots yakking at each other. Then again, it could be good for the ratings. The numbers for the thread kind of support that.

[Jim in CT]

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been. It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been.

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?

The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

Buckman didn't smear Rush with inaccurate epithets.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.


You say that most of his work is making fun of people and claiming that he is always right (actually only 99 point something % right), that's not true (there you go again.) The making fun is collateral to what he does and is meant to get under your skin, which he seems to do quite well.

Then you say his work is making money for his sponsors. Which is it? Making fun or making money for sponsors? Oh . . . right, one of the main reasons we work is to make money. So, you can, say, play baseball for the Red Sox, or take appealing family photos, or make furniture, and thereby be called an athlete, or a photographer, or a carpenter, or, by your description, we can all simply be called cash cows.

And, so, you don't like Rush making fun of people. That's understandable, although his fun has some humorously logical basis. But doing the same thing to him, especially in a baseless smearing way (porn merchant), certainly makes you no better than him.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?
The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.
A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

There you go again. I didn't accuse RIROCKHOUND of anything. I was implying that a third party had employed the "tactic" for the purpose of disseminating "negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit" Rush.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
-spence

Calling Rush a porn merchant, fathead, etc. that followed in this thread is actually there. I didn't take any of it out of context. There is no further context beyond this thread, as there are many hours of context, vis a vis Rush that is left out of cherry-picked quotes attributed to him.

[scottw]

If Rush is a "PORN MERCHANT" as Spence Olbermann claims, he is simple collecting the porn produced by the left on a daily basis and repackaging it, marking it up substantially and successfully marketing it in an often humorous form....wish I'd thought of it first...if the left had a sense of humor they might listen more

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.


-spence

Damn Spence, I'm touched