El Rushbo has no love for the Guvernator

[Hamel]

Buttcyst wants you to say no to Ahnold

Here me now and believe me later, my friends: all these conservative orgasms over Arnold Schwarzenegger are - like the "Gorbasms" liberals experienced over Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev - fake. I know that (R) next to Schwarzenegger's name excites the White House, but his own words prove he's not a conservative. I call this "The Hollywood Syndrome," and it happens every time some actor-type says anything even remotely conservative. I'm not trying to cold shower anybody here, but don't look to anyone in Hollywood to validate your political ideas.



The American Prowler's George Neumayr detailed Arnold's politics in his article "Here's Arnold!" Quote: "[H]e spoke in generalities and banalities about his plans for the state. To the extent that he said anything, he sounded not like a fiscal conservative but a moderate Democrat. He said that he wanted businesses to come back to California so that the state government could collect enough tax revenues to provide social programs. This is the sort of obtuse comment middle-of-the-road Democrats always make, forgetting that businesses are leaving the state because they are tired of paying high taxes for those big government social programs."

More: "He has told the press he is 'very liberal' about social programs, supports abortion and homosexual adoption, and advocates 'sensible gun controls.' His entree into politics last year was a proposition Democrats endorsed because it raised state spending for what amounted to state babysitting - before-school and after-school programs that cost the state up to $455 million a year. He has complained openly about the party's conservatism.... Talk magazine described him as 'impatient' with the religious right....
[H]e expressed disgust with the Republicans who impeached Clinton. 'That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for,' he said. 'We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure. I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period. (Hamel: Le Lol!) '"

Does this sound like "the Next Reagan," as some people are calling Arnold? Hardly. This guy may be the next actor elected governor of California, but that's where the similarity between him and Ronaldus Magnus end.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't see anything wrong with what any of Ah-nuld said, as long as the way he intends to increase revenues is by cutting taxes to lure businesses back into the state, which is what that statement could very well mean.

[Montcalm]

Whats is opinion about LF and the slut who want to be governor?

[Vympel]

Since when does Rush Limbaugh mean jack shit to anyone? He's a hyperventilating, pathetic demagogue without a mite of common sense. I'm sure Ah-nuld is all torn up about it

[Darth Fanboy]

Since when does Rush Limbaugh mean jack shit to anyone? He's a hyperventilating, pathetic demagogue without a mite of common sense. I'm sure Ah-nuld is all torn up about it

The Man who exalts Ronald Regan to the point of godhood never even voted for the man, and never even voted until Bush I ran against Dukakis.

[HemlockGrey]

These days, all you need is a bestselling book and a syndicated column to be a professional political critic, and possibly your own radio show. Do you know what that means? Do you know what Limbaugh's big qualifications are, then? He can write, talks, and would be capable of walking upright if he lost about six thousand pounds. I could do all things at age four; why aren't I doing the lecture circuit?

[Alex Moon]

These days, all you need is a bestselling book and a syndicated column to be a professional political critic, and possibly your own radio show. Do you know what that means? Do you know what Limbaugh's big qualifications are, then? He can write, talks, and would be capable of walking upright if he lost about six thousand pounds. I could do all things at age four; why aren't I doing the lecture circuit?

Because you don't write bestselling books, and haven't worked your way to the top of the radio business. Of course, I'm sure that's all so easy that you will accomplish it by dinner

[AdmiralKanos]

These days, all you need is a bestselling book and a syndicated column to be a professional political critic, and possibly your own radio show. Do you know what that means? Do you know what Limbaugh's big qualifications are, then? He can write, talks, and would be capable of walking upright if he lost about six thousand pounds. I could do all things at age four; why aren't I doing the lecture circuit?

Because you don't write bestselling books, and haven't worked your way to the top of the radio business. Of course, I'm sure that's all so easy that you will accomplish it by dinner

There is a difference between ambition and intelligence. The free-market system in which we live tends to reward the former, not the latter. That's why Hollywood is full of idiots who can barely tie their own shoes but rake in millions (see Keanu Reeves) while quantum physicists and molecular biologists eke out a subsistence living. Limbaugh is an idiot, but he's an ambitious idiot.

[Alex Moon]

These days, all you need is a bestselling book and a syndicated column to be a professional political critic, and possibly your own radio show. Do you know what that means? Do you know what Limbaugh's big qualifications are, then? He can write, talks, and would be capable of walking upright if he lost about six thousand pounds. I could do all things at age four; why aren't I doing the lecture circuit?

Because you don't write bestselling books, and haven't worked your way to the top of the radio business. Of course, I'm sure that's all so easy that you will accomplish it by dinner

There is a difference between ambition and intelligence. The free-market system in which we live tends to reward the former, not the latter.

It rewards intellegence just fine. The thing is that without ambition intelligence is useless. It doesn't matter if you're Albert Einstein if you don't have the guts to go out and use what you've got then all your brains are worthless.

That's why Hollywood is full of idiots who can barely tie their own shoes but rake in millions (see Keanu Reeves)

Keanu Reeve reads lines from a script that is written by someone else, takes directions from yet someone else, and his movies are put together by yet a third group of people.

Compare this with Rush Limbaugh, who discusses news and current events on live radio with an audience of 20 million people, and allows them to call in and debate him. He does this for three hours everyday, and he does this with only a small staff to run the broadcast, and almost no research team to help him prepare, meaning he has to do all of that on his own, including digesting and analysing four to five newspapers each morning, as well as countless news/political talk shows. He has written best-selling books, and currently writes and sells a popular monthly newsletter. Idiots don't do all of this.

while quantum physicists and molecular biologists eke out a subsistence living.

So what? They are in very specialized fields where the benefits of their work are not great enough for them to earn higher pay. That doesn't mean that intelligence is undervalued, it just means that their specific fields are not valued highly.

[Patrick Degan]

Compare this with Rush Limbaugh, who discusses news and current events on live radio with an audience of 20 million people, and allows them to call in and debate him.

Oh PLEEEZE. The only time he's ever had to debate anyone is when his call-screeners occasionally screw up and an opponent manages to actually slip through. Then he cuts the guy off at the first chance, goes to commercial, and spends the next half hour on a harangue. Most of his callers are fawning imbeciles who need the Great and Powerful Oz to do all their thinking for them. Here's a clue: "debate" is not offering up praise and feeding a softball question so the host can spin out his gospel. Nor is it where caller and host essentially agree on the question being "debated" (my experience of listening to the show for three years, BTW).

The only two times Limbaugh ever appeared on any show where he didn't control the forum (The Pat Sajak Show in 1988 and The Late Show w/David Letterman in 1993), he got his ass handed to him. He has NEVER appeared on any show or any forum where there's been the least danger of facing a challenge since.

He does this for three hours everyday, and he does this with only a small staff to run the broadcast, and almost no research team to help him prepare

When anything as inconvient as fact is not important, neither is substantive research.

meaning he has to do all of that on his own, including digesting and analysing four to five newspapers each morning, as well as countless news/political talk shows.

Most if not all of which strangely agree on all points with the daily RNC blast-fax. Some challenge.

He has written best-selling books, and currently writes and sells a popular monthly newsletter. Idiots don't do all of this.

Tasks for which there usually to be found one or more ghost-writers. Limbaugh is a brand-name and Roger Ailes and his pals are heavily invested in keeping the brand-name alive (although, curiously, I can't seem to recall when his last new book came out).

And as for his "popular monthly newsletter", the only reason it went to newsstand sales was due to very small subscription sales. Nor do the things sell out, either.

[Gandalf]

Limbaugh must be terminated.

[Companion Cube]

Frankly, the fact the Rush Limbaugh condemns him should improve Arnold's standing in the eyes of any right-thinking person.

[Iceberg]

Frankly, the fact the Rush Limbaugh condemns him should improve Arnold's standing in the eyes of any right-thinking person.

I know I think a lot better of Arnold knowing that Rush hates him.

The only time Limbaugh's ever said anything nice about an opponent was immediately after Wellstone died (after spending the previous twelve years calling him names that start with "Senator Welfare" and getting immediately worse).

Limbaugh practices name-calling politics, nothing more, and the sad thing is the number of people who uncritically absorb everything he says as the gospel truth. Rush Limbaugh is, indeed, a big fat idiot.

[Knife]

Rush Limbaugh's opinion not withstanding, Arnolds left leaning conservitism will only help him in a massivily liberal state. Now, if the left leaning Republican was running is say the Bible belt where being a conservitive means being a fundie, then his moderate stance would damage him. In California????? Well it only helps.

[Alex Moon]

I'm taking a break from this site for two weeks to catch up on stuff before school starts, so all points conceeded. Have a good day!

[MKSheppard]

Rush Limbaugh is, indeed, a big fat idiot.

At least he dresses in a suit and SHAVES every day, unlike that
unshaven scumbag called "Michael Moore"

[Pablo Sanchez]

At least he dresses in a suit and SHAVES every day, unlike that unshaven scumbag called "Michael Moore"

Yes. Being presentable is the most important part of being a political commentator.

[Knife]

At least he dresses in a suit and SHAVES every day, unlike that unshaven scumbag called "Michael Moore"

Yes. Being presentable is the most important part of being a political commentator.

No but taking potshots at someones weight, I thought he lost like 200lbs, is as material as someone elses hygine habbits. Both are ideologues who spew their agenda as if it were truth.

[Iceberg]

Rush Limbaugh is, indeed, a big fat idiot.

At least he dresses in a suit and SHAVES every day, unlike that
unshaven scumbag called "Michael Moore"

This means what now? Have you heard me say that Moore is any less than a scumbag?

[NapoleonGH]

pretty sure its clear that both limbaugh and moore are assholes and idiots who wouldnt know a logical rational thought if it was hit into their heads with a two by four.

Regardless of our respective political positions, i think we can all agree that neither of them cares in the least for the facts or a rational interpretation thereof (as opposed to most of us who rather argue about our interpretations of the facts and our ideas on how to solve them)

[Iceberg]

Limbaugh, BTW, is more dangerous because there are far more people that see than listen - so they look at Limbaugh's monkey suit, shaved face and neatly combed hair and think he must be right - just look at how he's dressed! Moore, at least, is honest enough to dress and groom himself in a way that says "obnoxious fanatic"

[theski]

Iceberg wrote:

Limbaugh, BTW, is more dangerous because there are far more people that see than listen - so they look at Limbaugh's monkey suit, shaved face and neatly combed hair and think he must be right - just look at how he's dressed! Moore, at least, is honest enough to dress and groom himself in a way that says "obnoxious fanatic"

Where to start.. 1. Limbaugh is on the RADIO... 20million listeners...Not viewers...

2. So exactly how is a Rich and successful man supposed to dress.

3. If you have problems with what he says fine.. but going to how he looks and dresses.. That is what you called "name calling politics"

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

snip

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.

[Iceberg]

Iceberg wrote:

Limbaugh, BTW, is more dangerous because there are far more people that see than listen - so they look at Limbaugh's monkey suit, shaved face and neatly combed hair and think he must be right - just look at how he's dressed! Moore, at least, is honest enough to dress and groom himself in a way that says "obnoxious fanatic"

Where to start.. 1. Limbaugh is on the RADIO... 20million listeners...Not viewers...

His visual image is readily enough available, though. People know what he looks like.

3. If you have problems with what he says fine.. but going to how he looks and dresses.. That is what you called "name calling politics"

Why? It's part of how he presents himself and as much a part of his image as what he says. The man presents himself largely on appearances - why should his appearance not be part of criticism? The problem is when your whole argument is centered around his appearance.

[Iceberg]

To clarify: I'm not saying Limbaugh wouldn't be a dangerous idealogue if he didn't dress respectably. I'm saying that he's more dangerous than he would otherwise be because he presents an appearance of respectability that delays the onset of the realization that his message is completely insane.