Do you believe Rush Limbaugh created the divisiveness?

[swing_voter]

Do you believe Rush Limbaugh created the divisiveness?


Back in the 80's, Rush was an unemployed talk show host. His ratings were bad and he got fired. Things were so bad he couldn't even make his mortgage payment. Having a lot of time on his hands, he watched a lot of World Wide Wrestling which was having a huge increase in popularity at the time.

He puzzled out why wrestling was so popular. You had good guys and villains, you had background stories and drama.

He came to an epiphany. He would combine a talk radio political show with World Wide Wrestling. He'd make some politicians heroes and others villains. The political struggle would make excellent drama.

And the Rush Limbaugh Show was born.

Rush spewed hatred about the democrats. He openly mocked them on the radio. Meanwhile, he elevated republicans, many of them flawed.

His show became about the struggle. A struggle which didn't exist until that time.

The Tea Party came out of this and Rush was their biggest proponent.

He savagely attacked democratic presidents like Clinton and Obama. Obama was especially hated by the Rush fans because of racism.

Do you think Limbaugh contributed the the hatred and divisiveness that fills American politics today?

 

[akyron]

Do you believe Rush Limbaugh created the divisiveness?


Back in the 80's, Rush was an unemployed talk show host. His ratings were bad and he got fired. Things were so bad he couldn't even make his mortgage payment. Having a lot of time on his hands, he watched a lot of World Wide Wrestling which was having a huge increase in popularity at the time.

He puzzled out why wrestling was so popular. You had good guys and villains, you had background stories and drama.

He came to an epiphany. He would combine a talk radio political show with World Wide Wrestling. He'd make some politicians heroes and others villains. The political struggle would make excellent drama.

And the Rush Limbaugh Show was born.

Rush spewed hatred about the democrats. He openly mocked them on the radio. Meanwhile, he elevated republicans, many of them flawed.

His show became about the struggle. A struggle which didn't exist until that time.

The Tea Party came out of this and Rush was their biggest proponent.

He savagely attacked democratic presidents like Clinton and Obama. Obama was especially hated by the Rush fans because of racism.

Do you think Limbaugh contributed the the hatred and divisiveness that fills American politics today?

It is good to see the self styled proponents of free speech expose themselves as open fascists.

The Left’s War on Free Speech

"I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.

...Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech. What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans."

 

[Drawdown]

IDK. My dad said when Rush first started coming on he was a colorful almost comedic anti-DC in general broadcast with some interesting facts/takes, but then he somehow experienced a metamorphosis into a GOP mouthpiece.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Of course.

 

[Nap]

I view him more as a response to a larger issue rather than the creator. The creator of the divisiveness we see in politics is the drive for centralized power at the federal level. When you have 2 competing ideologies battling to enforce their will over the other then it is inevitable that hostility will grow between the two.

 

[PirateMk1]

Do you believe Rush Limbaugh created the divisiveness?


Back in the 80's, Rush was an unemployed talk show host. His ratings were bad and he got fired. Things were so bad he couldn't even make his mortgage payment. Having a lot of time on his hands, he watched a lot of World Wide Wrestling which was having a huge increase in popularity at the time.

He puzzled out why wrestling was so popular. You had good guys and villains, you had background stories and drama.

He came to an epiphany. He would combine a talk radio political show with World Wide Wrestling. He'd make some politicians heroes and others villains. The political struggle would make excellent drama.

And the Rush Limbaugh Show was born.

Rush spewed hatred about the democrats. He openly mocked them on the radio. Meanwhile, he elevated republicans, many of them flawed.

His show became about the struggle. A struggle which didn't exist until that time.

The Tea Party came out of this and Rush was their biggest proponent.

He savagely attacked democratic presidents like Clinton and Obama. Obama was especially hated by the Rush fans because of racism.

Do you think Limbaugh contributed the the hatred and divisiveness that fills American politics today?

Do you have any citations for any of your statements or is it all made up?

 

[JasperL]

It is good to see the self styled proponents of free speech expose themselves as open fascists.

I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic, and you should learn from the children in your anecdote. Free speech includes the right to criticize other speech. There's no hint anywhere of anyone saying Rush should have been silenced by the state, much less the stations that carried him.

What's kind of sad and hilarious is you've in fact got it 180 degrees wrong. In response to a thread asking a question about speech, was that speech divisive, you declare it fascism to ask and discuss the answer. It's almost bizarrely wrong.

 

[joko104]

4 out of 6 voting so far believe there was no such thing as political and social divisiveness until Rush Limbaugh invented it!!! :lamo

Yes, the educational system has totally failed and democracy is doomed with this stunning level of stupidity driven by partisan hatred that drives weak personality people into living in a full insanity within their delusional fantasyland.

 

[JasperL]

IDK. My dad said when Rush first started coming on he was a colorful almost comedic anti-DC in general broadcast with some interesting facts/takes, but then he somehow experienced a metamorphosis into a GOP mouthpiece.

That was my experience with him. I listened to him through my conversion from loyal Republican to anti-Republican, and it was disheartening to hear him defend things he previously would have condemned. I think it was after 2008 he did a mea culpa and said he's quit "carrying water" for the GOP. It didn't take apparently.

 

[MrWonka]

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

That's one hell of a deluded ramblings. Going to go ahead and just assumed you made this entire story up because it's the kind of stupid **** I see on Facebook from right wingers as if it's supposed to be some kind of wise fable.

It sounds to me like your oldest was picking on your youngest and you knew it. A good parent would have stopped the oldest child and made it clear that he shouldn't antagonize his little sister just because he thinks he can because he's bigger than her. Make it clear that if he can't say something nice to his sister then he shouldn't say anything at all.

Free speech is intended for the purposes of forwarding rational discussion and allowing all legitimate ideas to be heard. Flaming, trolling and general ad hominem attacks are considered fallacious reasoning in formal logic because they are known to be counter productive and used often to derail rational discussion. While it may be legal for you to intentionally derail rational discussion with vile garbage you do not get to avoid being called out for your bull**** under the guise of Free Speech.

Trolling your political opponents may be legal, but it still demonstrates bad character, particularly when you are targeting historically marginalized people that are frequently persecuted and treated like ****. Verbal Abuse and Bullying have no part in a rational discussion and this was Rush Limbaugh's calling card.

 

[Helix]

Limbaugh had a big hand in spreading propaganda, but I think Murdoch is probably more responsible.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

4 out of 6 voting so far believe there was no such thing as political and social divisiveness until Rush Limbaugh invented it!!! :lamo

Yes, the educational system has totally failed and democracy is doomed with this stunning level of stupidity driven by partisan hatred that drives weak personality people into living in a full insanity within their delusional fantasyland.

The left: Rush Limbaugh invented divisiveness!

Andrew Jackson: shoots a reporter for calling his wife a negress....

Which one came first?

 

[MrWonka]

The creator of the divisiveness we see in politics is the drive for centralized power at the federal level.

Nonsensical Garbage. In a Democracy no side or individual can reliably expect to wield that power. The movement of control to the Federal government is driving by necessity. This world is getting smaller and smaller by the day. Technology has brought us closer and closer and allowed the actions of people on completely different sides of the country and the world to radically impact your life. This inevitably requires decisions to be made at higher levels.

200 years ago the idea of shipping goods from one state to another was next to impossible without a common waterway between them. Today a fisherman can catch shrimp in Thailand and they can be sold in a Kansas super market within 24 hours. You can't have 50 different states with 50 different trade deals and 50 different customs procedures between themselves and Thailand.

 

[MrWonka]

The left: Rush Limbaugh invented divisiveness!

Andrew Jackson: shoots a reporter for calling his wife a negress....

Which one came first?

Well they were both heroes of the right wing from Florida so it sounds to me like the problem is Right Wingers in general.

 

[MrWonka]

Limbaugh had a big hand in spreading propaganda, but I think Murdoch is probably more responsible.

Murdoch basically just recognized the popularity of people like Limbaugh on talk radio and decided to take it to the inevitable next level. Rush was patient zero for this disease.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nonsensical Garbage. In a Democracy no side or individual can reliably expect to wield that power. The movement of control to the Federal government is driving by necessity. This world is getting smaller and smaller by the day. Technology has brought us closer and closer and allowed the actions of people on completely different sides of the country and the world to radically impact your life. This inevitably requires decisions to be made at higher levels.

200 years ago the idea of shipping goods from one state to another was next to impossible without a common waterway between them. Today a fisherman can catch shrimp in Thailand and they can be sold in a Kansas super market within 24 hours. You can't have 50 different states with 50 different trade deals and 50 different customs procedures between themselves and Thailand.

Blah blah blah.

No, massive centralized bureaucracy is Not necessary.

It’s only necessary in the sense that some people perceive it is and have a philosophy of government control. Most liberal regulatory causes are not necessary for society.

It is for instance, not necessary the federal government regulate land use through the BLM and forest service, it is not necessary that the government artificially subsidize milk and corn production, it is not necessary the government regulate the registration of cargo ships between American ports, it is not necessary the government screen airline passengers. There is next to no issue that truly requires a technocrat bureaucracy to regulate.

 

[eman623]

Limbaugh didn't create the divisiveness, but he espoused the theory that your side can get everything it wants while the other side gets nothing that it wants, which is not how representative democracy works.

 

[joko104]

Well they were both heroes of the right wing from Florida so it sounds to me like the problem is Right Wingers in general.

Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party.

 

[MrWonka]

Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party.

Still pushing this lie as if the Democratic Party of the old south has any relation the modern one huh? Explain to me why Democrats are trying to get him removed from the $20 while Republicans are desperate to keep him there?

Jackson was a Conservative, Lincoln was a Liberal. The names of their political parties in those days are meaningless in a modern context and you know it. Quit wasting our time.

 

[MrWonka]

Blah blah blah.

No, massive centralized bureaucracy is Not necessary.

It’s only necessary in the sense that some people perceive it is and have a philosophy of government control. Most liberal regulatory causes are not necessary for society.

It is for instance, not necessary the federal government regulate land use through the BLM and forest service, it is not necessary that the government artificially subsidize milk and corn production, it is not necessary the government regulate the registration of cargo ships between American ports, it is not necessary the government screen airline passengers. There is next to no issue that truly requires a technocrat bureaucracy to regulate.

Yeah, see you keep repeating that it's not necessary, but you can't explain how it's not. You don't just get to say something and expect it to be accepted without justification.

When goods and people are travelling from one state to another with no customs, no border security and no means of insuring that the laws of the incoming state are being enforced then the laws of that state are useless and pointless. A higher authority must arbitrate these disputes and insure a common law is enforced across them all. You must have an authority with jurisdiction over both.

 

[akyron]

That's one hell of a deluded ramblings.

I accept your credentials as a professional in this area.

Going to go ahead and just assumed you made this entire story up because it's the kind of stupid **** I see on Facebook from right wingers as if it's supposed to be some kind of wise fable.

It sounds to me like your oldest was picking on your youngest and you knew it. A good parent would have stopped the oldest child and made it clear that he shouldn't antagonize his little sister just because he thinks he can because he's bigger than her. Make it clear that if he can't say something nice to his sister then he shouldn't say anything at all.

Free speech is intended for the purposes of forwarding rational discussion and allowing all legitimate ideas to be heard. Flaming, trolling and general ad hominem attacks are considered fallacious reasoning in formal logic because they are known to be counter productive and used often to derail rational discussion. While it may be legal for you to intentionally derail rational discussion with vile garbage you do not get to avoid being called out for your bull**** under the guise of Free Speech.

Trolling your political opponents may be legal, but it still demonstrates bad character, particularly when you are targeting historically marginalized people that are frequently persecuted and treated like ****. Verbal Abuse and Bullying have no part in a rational discussion and this was Rush Limbaugh's calling card.

There was a link to read. You failed to both read or comprehend.

This is a micro-metaphor on the legal decision to prevent small town free speech embraced by the fascist left in recent years.

VICTORY: In Proposed Settlement, IRS Admits Wrongdoing, Apologizes for Targeting Tea Party and Conservative Groups





The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech

"Division" is merely the outrage of some who have had their foot lifted off the throats of Americans in recent years.
Their illegitimate outrage is the same as the rapist or murderer or thief that is outraged they were prevented from completing their crime.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, see you keep repeating that it's not necessary, but you can't explain how it's not. You don't just get to say something and expect it to be accepted without justification.

When goods and people are travelling from one state to another with no customs, no border security and no means of insuring that the laws of the incoming state are being enforced then the laws of that state are useless and pointless. A higher authority must arbitrate these disputes and insure a common law is enforced across them all. You must have an authority with jurisdiction over both.

No you dont.

You don’t need to regulate such internal commerce in the first place. So the need for federal authority is local overreach.

 

[Phys251]

Do you believe Rush Limbaugh created the divisiveness?


Back in the 80's, Rush was an unemployed talk show host. His ratings were bad and he got fired. Things were so bad he couldn't even make his mortgage payment. Having a lot of time on his hands, he watched a lot of World Wide Wrestling which was having a huge increase in popularity at the time.

He puzzled out why wrestling was so popular. You had good guys and villains, you had background stories and drama.

He came to an epiphany. He would combine a talk radio political show with World Wide Wrestling. He'd make some politicians heroes and others villains. The political struggle would make excellent drama.

And the Rush Limbaugh Show was born.

Rush spewed hatred about the democrats. He openly mocked them on the radio. Meanwhile, he elevated republicans, many of them flawed.

His show became about the struggle. A struggle which didn't exist until that time.

The Tea Party came out of this and Rush was their biggest proponent.

He savagely attacked democratic presidents like Clinton and Obama. Obama was especially hated by the Rush fans because of racism.

Do you think Limbaugh contributed the the hatred and divisiveness that fills American politics today?

He didn't create the problem, but he sure did contribute the problem. America is worse off because of him.

 

[MrWonka]

Their illegitimate outrage is the same as the rapist or murderer or thief that is outraged they were prevented from completing their crime.

Or President who is trying to abuse the power of his office to undermine our democracy and rig our elections?

Your projecting.

Furthermore, the notion that somehow being allowed to spend billions of dollars to support candidates desired by the filthy rich and corporations somehow lifted the boot of the neck of the throats of American's is disgustingly laughable. If you have the kind of money laying around that would allow you to benefit from Citizen's United then you're not the one being persecuted.

Money is not speech. Money is volume. Money allows you to turn your speech up so loud that it drowns out everyone else's. The wealthy are using it to shout down the masses of poor and middle class voices who wouldn't need to be arguing for things like Medicare for all, eliminating student loan debt, and raising the minimum wage if they had the kind of money that would allow them to benefit from Citizen's United.

 

[Moonglow]

IDK. My dad said when Rush first started coming on he was a colorful almost comedic anti-DC in general broadcast with some interesting facts/takes, but then he somehow experienced a metamorphosis into a GOP mouthpiece.

I tried to listen to him during dinner breaks at work as I sat in my car munching and it was in 1990-1991 that I listened because he was halfway decent yet by '91 he had started his dream team war in Iraq fantasy and I stopped there...Since then he has been a fantasy driven pundit paid off by big names in the RNC to fall into line with the decade of "extreme" broadcasting and TV media exploits to try and attract viewers that had left because the internet was taking them away. Rush's biggest moment of douchebaggery was when he was a so called proponent of taking up the crusade for the drug war claiming that all illegal drug takers belonged in prison. Then he got busted for fake scripts for opioid painkillers and carrying someone else's bottle of script for Viagra, yet the slimy bastard saw no jail time.