Rush Limbaugh, the Human Tsunami

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jan 7, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    I don't know if this deserves a thread of its own, but what the heck. From the January 4 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200501060003
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    what a horse's ass.

    i like how he uses the NYT reference when it fits his agenda. and what's this thing about the number of homeless in the 80s? is he just making **** up?
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    So where's Rush's condemnation of the waste inherent in the Operation Iraqi Freedom? Are not members of the leadership in Iraq becoming rich off our largess there 'cause it makes us feel good'? Is Halliburton not making a handsome profit off our adventure there?

    Does he really want to complain about waste of taxpayer money, or does he want to belittle liberals with any piece of information he can find?

    This is why I don't listen to Rush anymore. He's just full of one sided rhetoric and a part of the corporate/conservative media echo chamber.

    And what does he care if the numbers are 50,000 dead vs. 150,000 dead? Those numbers are so big he can't even comprehend them. I don't think I properly comprehend them. And all he can say is that this reminds him of 9/11, which was indeed tragic but still nothing compared to these losses.

    People in the US are going to look pretty petty complaining about our 3,000 dead in the face of something that perhaps killed 50 to 100 times that number. Think 1 to 2 9/11s in every state in a single day. Rush's statements indicate to me that he has no clue what the scale of this disaster is.

    I wonder if he's considered what the implications of a wave moving one mile inland in the US would be. Sure there would be inland resorts still open. Does that mean there isn't tragedy on the coast? Doesn't he get that coastal regions tend to be heavily populated compared to inland locales?
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    He's just a troll with a big mouth. Somebody should shut it for him.
     
  5. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    Surely, the horses are envious.

    All Rush is saying here is, we're in danger of becoming far too compassionate. I mean, that is the really big problem in the world today, isn't it? Well, isn't it?
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    My very first thought.

    My very second.

    mactastic, it's not really about the issues he's talking about. It never is. It's about taking every news story that comes down the pike and twisting it so that it's liberals' fault somehow. So now we're creating problems for tsunami victims. Jesus H. Christ....

    zim's comment bears repeating: what a horse's ass!
     
  7. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #7
    My favorite idiotic line: "the damage was only along the beach and a mile inward."

    Yeah for 250 MILES, in Sumatra alone. Entire FREIGHTERS were carried 1/2 mile inland. Entire archipelagos were swamped. The damage was felt 3,000 miles away in Africa. Millions of people were directly affected, for thousands of miles. It's not like a dinky little building collapse in New York, or some minor fire in the Pentagon. This is big, Rush, even bigger than your stinking mouth. Yet the world is spending about 1/100 the budget for the Iraqistan war on it.

    What a dumbass. You know he wouldn't be talking this way if a tsunami this size hit the U.S. coast. He's a complete moron.
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    Too bad he wasn't vacationing in South Asia at the time.
     
  9. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Right, it's a big event, and he has to say something. And that something can't possibly be a statement of basic human compassion without a political agenda attached to it because he's made a career out of being a partisan political pugilist. He doesn't know another way. If he'd simply congratulated people for their outpouring of active caring in the fact of massive human tragedy, surely his angry white male fan base would think he'd gone all soft.

    Limbaugh is living in a prison of his own creation. In a way, it's kind of interesting to see him rattling around in it.
     
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #10
    and who says drugs are harmless?

    that guy is fried:
     

    Attached Files:

    • egg.jpg
      egg.jpg
      File size:
      8 KB
      Views:
      127
  11. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #11
    His audience at this point are either complete idiots or as morally baseless and greedy as he is himself.

    At least it's distracting the propaganda machine for a while.
     
  12. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #12
    That describes the Angry White Male IMO.

    The AWM doesn't have an opinion of their own unless it it is spoon fed to them. That is what Rove and the GOP count on IMO.
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    Michael Savage was telling people not to send money, because they all want to kill us.

    Then he wondered aloud (which is the equivalent of absolute proof in the realm of hate radio) how much of the donated money will be used to kill Americans.
     
  14. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Did you hear this yourself, or read about it somewhere?

    Edit: It was on MMA and I missed it.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050006

    Listen to the audio if by some chance you swallowed to much Phenobarbital and don't have a stomach pump handy.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    I heard Savage myself. FM was all commercials, no CD in the player, iPod out of juice, so I switched to AM while driving to work 2 days ago.

    I've loaded a CD since then.
     
  16. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
  17. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
  18. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    But there's more! This from Neil Boortz:

    http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12292004.html
     
  19. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #19
  20. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Do I have a choice (please, give me a choice!).

    The Boortz claim that environmentalists blame the earthquake and tsunami on global warming is a complete fabrication. I traced that one down to Reuters piece saying that if sea levels rose in the future, coastal areas would become more vulnerable to tsunamis. Well, duh!

    These people seem to be hard-wired to lie.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    Boortz cites from a Reuters article, and that makes him a liar? I've seen headlines linked to the same accusations allegedly from environmentalists--didn't bother to follow up--so I know that the allegations are out there. Seems to me that Reuters, not Boortz, deserves the scorn...

    What El Rushbo seems to be talking about is two-fold: First, the credibility of the gross numbers. And, as he said, he's curious, not denying. What's wrong with that? I don't personally see the exactitude as being important, but it's still a legitimate question--albeit one which probably never could be answered.

    Secondly, think back to 9/11's aftermath and the donations to the Red Cross. The money was sent specifically for the benefit of the families of 9/11 victims. Over a billion bucks reportedly came in. The Red Cross decided to divert somewhere near half that amount to other Red Cross programs. The public furor put a stop to that notion. The same sort of problem exists at present with the outpouring of pledges and actual money, now. "Will the money get used for the intended purpose?"

    Does anybody know the URL for the blog that's done by some USAID folks in Sri Lanka? It's pretty scornful of the UN's doings. "The UN's expertise is in holding meetings..." or words to that effect, plus accusations of the UN claiming credit for relief efforts done by non-UN folks already on the ground.

    'Rat
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    You're playing apologist for hatemongers.

    Boortz is not just citing from a Reuters article, he's making leaps of logic that aren't being suggested by anyone but him and other fanatics.

    Why is he making such leaps? So he can use this horrible tragedy to further bash "liberals.*" Then he sums it up by jumping on the "they're Muslims and will use the money to kill us" dogpile. He's a racist pig and deserves no forum to make such statements in an enlightened society.

    Rush is using his old tricks of insinuation with no proof as his proof. He's not being "curious," because I know his MO. He's framing his accusations as a question to deflect responsibility for making such a hideous charge.

    It's not a valid argument to say that, after doing no research of your own, that since you're not sure of something that no one else can be either. He sounds eeriliy like a holocaust doubter. "I've never seen concrete proof... isn't someone out to make a buck?"

    *liberals in the stereotyped form of environmentalists, the media, and people who care about other human beings
     
  23. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #23
    Man, if Rush Limbaugh said the world was round, I'm sure you guys would find some way to tear him apart, and prove him wrong...

    Do you truly believe that 100% of the donations to the Red Cross, UN, and other relief organizations helping this cause is going to help people in tsunami stricken areas (not considering funds already being used for other relief efforts)? If you do, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas I'm willing to sell you... Somebody's going to point out this gross hypocrisy, that these "charity" organizations have their problems, and that money seems to 'disappear' when large amounts are involved. These people just happen to be the wonderful, Conservative Conspiracy Machine™ There will be people out there who will take advantage of these donations for personal gain, much like that "food for oil" scandal in the UN.

    I'm not saying that these relief organizations all have bad intentions, but there has been history of fraud during disaster relief like this. I will donate my money to helping countries rebuild, or save lives, but I will not give my money to pad the wallet of Kofi Annan.

    Maybe if some people are critical of these organizations, and keep a close watch on their actions and motives, it would help keep them in line, to do what they're supposed to do: Help people in a time of need. I'm sure if you asked Rush if he'd help people in those areas in need, he would say yes, but if you asked him to donate to corrupt organizations with intentions other than helping those in need, he would quickly say no.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Which, as you should know, was under the direct control and supervision of the Security Council, not Kofi Annan.

    How do you propose to do that? Have you any evidence whatsoever for your scurrilous insinuation about Annan? What has this got to do with him?

    Of course he'd say yes. But of course both you and he would be excused putting your hands in your pockets because these are all apparently "corrupt organizations". How convenient, and how cheap. :mad:
     
  25. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #25
    G4Scott, your post got me to thinking...

    So if these "charity" organizations are so corrupt(ible), how should we go about changing that?

    Many Conservatives (like Stu), would prefer to scale-back Government-run Social Services, so that he would have more dollars to spend (voluntarily) on private organizations that he feels would do the job more efficiently. These are often charitible organizations. Are they as corruptible? More than Government? Less?

    Is the point that all people are corruptible where large amounts of money and power are involved? If not, who makes the distinction?

    If one is concerned about fraud, then that is your perogative. It is reasonable to assume that there are unscrupulous men around, both here and abroad who will have sticky fingers and/or sometimes that is just the cost of doing business in parts of the world not like our own. I am not sure that means throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    What I do know is some have managed to take an unexpected tradgedy and a difficult, chaotic effort at aid, and make it Partisan. I mean, Oil for Food and the UN are "bad", but Halliburton is "OK"? Or whatever...

    What have things come to when the Red Cross is now suspect? You know, with all this politikin', does anyone even think that some of us who disagree with some policy (like US aid in the wake of the tsunami), might not be trying to take shots at Bush, but just feel we should've given more regardless of our Politics?

    meh.
     

Share This Page