NationStates Jolt Archive

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?

The wisdom of Rush Limbaugh...

....is an oxymoronic phrase.

That's like finding a failing Calculus student, and as a motivation for success, taking his textbook and calculator. Or maybe taking bits of his left lobe would be a better metaphor. Either way, you get my meaning.

"Wisdom" and "Rush Limbaugh" have no business in the same sentence.

Taxing somebody based purely on their socio-economic level? Idiotic. Just as idiotic as special taxes for being rich.

The sad part is, I know a number of people who will be more than happy to parrot this idea as a good one.

I'm not really a Limbaugh fan, by the way. Probably to the left of most of the people on this forum. I just have a weakness for this particular brand of skewed logic.

What does everybody think?
That poverty is not a choice, and therefore making the choice even less attractive does nothing to solve the problem, and is counterproductive to boot.

Taxing somebody based purely on their socio-economic level? Idiotic. Just as idiotic as special taxes for being rich.

Exactly. Although Rush is a brillaint man, and I listen to him talk, I'm not really sure where hes going with this one.

Exactly. Although Rush is a brillaint man,

By what standard of intelligence or definition of the word 'brilliant'?! :eek:

Exactly. Although Rush is a brillaint man, and I listen to him talk, I'm not really sure where hes going with this one.
Oh, do come on. How much more obvious need it be, TAI? It's all about penalizing the disenfranchised.

Exactly. Although Rush is a brillaint man, and I listen to him talk, I'm not really sure where hes going with this one.
what qualifies him as brilliant? he uses constant strawmen to denigrate the opposition. "oh look some democrat somewhere said something stupid, arent democrats stupid??" "oh look some woman somewhere sometime said something inflamatory, arent feminazis vile?"

i cant listen to him for more than 5 minutes without getting grumpy

....is an oxymoronic phrase.


I'd have said simply moronic. But you're also right.

By what standard of intelligence or definition of the word 'brilliant'?! :eek:

The same way Condi is brilliant. In Geo-politics.

Well, I must say what the fuck. That is all.

what qualifies him as brilliant? he uses constant strawmen to denigrate the opposition. "oh look some democrat somewhere said something stupid, arent democrats stupid??" "oh look some woman somewhere sometime said something inflamatory, arent feminazis vile?"

i cant listen to him for more than 5 minutes without getting grumpy

I love listening to him tell it like it is. My favorites are when democrats call in to complain about something, (Bush, the weather, their bowl movements) he just rips them to shreds.

Reminded me of the Cheney-Edwards debates.....*Tears up*

The same way Condi is brilliant. In Geo-politics.
Does not compute.

Although Rush is a brillaint man, ....Carefull!!

The use of the words "brilliant" and "Rush Limbaugh" in the same sentence has the potential to tear a hole in the universe...

I'm pretty sure the removal of tariffs on goods and lower sales taxes would do more to address the issue of poverty than raising them; if we were to eliminate tariffs on low-value manufactured goods, it could easily boost the purchasing power of a poor person by 25% or more. We need to attack the indirect taxes that levy such a heavy cost on the poor rather than penalize them further.

This must be combined with an effort to address the multitude of other problems in poor areas, and is by no means a conclusive list.

The same way Condi is brilliant. In Geo-politics.

If I was Condoleeza Rice, I would have just had this Yoda-esque stagger as a wave of offense slammed into my mind, and would seek you out with a shotgun. You just compared her intelligence to that of Rush Limbaugh.

The Bush Secret Police (an extension of the NSA recently secretly authorized by Bush using a Constitutional amendment created in a closed session of Congress that made the President a King, outlawed abortion, and banned same-sex marriage) are coming after you....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

"Wisdom" and "Rush Limbaugh" have no business in the same sentence.

Sure they do. Haven't you ever heard of an "oxymoron"?
:p

If I was Condoleeza Rice, I would have just had this Yoda-esque stagger as a wave of offense slammed into my mind, and would seek you out with a shotgun. You just compared her intelligence to that of Rush Limbaugh.

The Bush Secret Police (an extension of the NSA recently secretly authorized by Bush using a Constitutional amendment created in a closed session of Congress that made the President a King, outlawed abortion, and banned same-sex marriage) are coming after you....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Just because you dont agree with someones view, does not make that person any less smarter. For instance, I dont nessisarily like Clinton's views on some stuff, yet I wouldnt say hes not brilliant.

As far as I can disentangle Rush's garbled thought process, it goes something like this:
If you make something harder to do, less people will do it.
Taxing an activity makes it harder to do.
Therefore taxing poverty will reduce the amount of poor people.
Two fairly uncontroversial premises. And the conclusion seems to follow, too. Straightforward modus ponens. What are all you guys complaining about?

Just because you dont agree with someones view, does not make that person any less smarter. For instance, I dont nessisarily like Clinton's views on some stuff, yet I wouldnt say hes not brilliant.
Seriously though, you'll have to point me to something brilliant either Rush Limbaugh or Condi Rice have done before I believe you that this is not just blatant partisan favouritism.

I love listening to him tell it like it is. My favorites are when democrats call in to complain about something, (Bush, the weather, their bowl movements) he just rips them to shreds.

Reminded me of the Cheney-Edwards debates.....*Tears up*
rush deals in way too much truthiness to ever be considered telling it like it is.

less smarter

"I speak *snips* Spanish to my maid"

Am I the only one who sees the tragedy of finding one's self in the service of someone who'd actually use the phrase "less smarter" in conversation?

Just because you dont agree with someones view, does not make that person any less smarter. For instance, I dont nessisarily like Clinton's views on some stuff, yet I wouldnt say hes not brilliant.

If a person has nothing to say except for twisted logical fallacies, irrational appeals to xenophobic negative emotion, religious exclamations, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, blatantly made-up bs "facts", and obvious hypocrisy, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to come up with intelligent remarks.

Straightforward modus ponens. What are all you guys complaining about?
That people don't go and say to themselves:

Hmmm, I wonder whether being poor is a good lifestyle choice...well, on one hand, I won't get decent healthcare, I'll be treated like shit by my employers, I'll have to live in a horrible neighbourhood and my kids will never get a proper education. I'll also be likely to die earlier.
Sounds like a great idea! I'll do it - I'll be poor...wait a minute. They will tax me?
*Gets out calculator*
Nope. Not worth it. I'll rather stay rich.

As far as I can disentangle Rush's garbled thought process, it goes something like this:
If you make something harder to do, less people will do it.
Taxing an activity makes it harder to do.
Therefore taxing poverty will reduce the amount of poor people.
Two fairly uncontroversial premises. And the conclusion seems to follow, too. Straightforward modus ponens. What are all you guys complaining about?

It's called oversimplification to the point of logical fallacy. The assertions, while simplistic, are generally correct. His grossly fallacious combination and misapplication of these principles, on the other hand, is not. He totally misapplied overly simplistic, highly limited concepts, and unsurprisingly ended up with something that doesn't make sense.

Taxing somebody based purely on their socio-economic level? Idiotic. Just as idiotic as special taxes for being rich.
Which was exactly his point.
Look, people, how goddamn obvious does a man have to be? He was being (get ready for it) sarcastic!
He talks about this in one of his books from the '90s, which I'm too lazy to find for you, and it was a joke on the same lines as his bit about playing the record backward hearing Satan in it (I can't remember Satan's message, but it was something like: "Oh, you've finally caught me, you clever people. How did you find a record player that goes backwards?") And, yes, an idiot thought he was being serious about that one too, he played some fundie like a fiddle for a week or so.
This is his classic stuff, back when he was great (he's lost it in recent years) and funny as Hell.

On the contrary, Rush is brilliant. He's managed to convince a large portion of the country that it's great he's rich.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?

It's hard to take this seriously. And when I checked the rushonline site, I didn't see this listed under "poverty". Can somebody give us the link?

As far as I can disentangle Rush's garbled thought process, it goes something like this:
If you make something harder to do, less people will do it.
Taxing an activity makes it harder to do.
Therefore taxing poverty will reduce the amount of poor people.
Two fairly uncontroversial premises. And the conclusion seems to follow, too. Straightforward modus ponens. What are all you guys complaining about?
Ah! Wait a minute! I think I see a flaw!
Taxing poverty doesn't make it harder to be poor, it makes it easier! Oh dear, it seems there is no future for Mr. Limbaugh's revolutionary new policy! And there was I hoping that we could eradicate poverty by 2020!

By the way, here's the link:
http://www.rushonline.com/topics/r25.htm

He was being (get ready for it) sarcastic!
Although the argument for one thing is rather different from the other. Which would still make it an oversimplified strawman argument.

If a person has nothing to say except for twisted logical fallacies, irrational appeals to xenophobic negative emotion, religious exclamations, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, blatantly made-up bs "facts", and obvious hypocrisy, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to come up with intelligent remarks.
If a person is completely unable to see a joke when it is impossibly obvious and instead takes it seriously in an attempt to cry foul and make a political point, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to judge other people's remarks.

If a person is completely unable to see a joke when it is impossibly obvious and instead takes it seriously in an attempt to cry foul and make a political point, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to judge other people's remarks.

God, your like a knight in shining armor right now, Fiddles.

If a person is completely unable to see a joke when it is impossibly obvious and instead takes it seriously in an attempt to cry foul and make a political point, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to judge other people's remarks.

I would have to see proof that he was being sarcastic as a joke. Since the OP presented the statement as an actual proposition, I made a series of statements based off of that predication, seeing as he started the thread and I'm not someone who apparently has been watching Limbaugh regularly since the beginning of his career as a publically broadcasted moron, instead of just a quiet one.

The long and short of it: the thread was started as a debate on Limbaugh's comments taken as a real proposition. That's what's being debated.

Not to mention that the post of mine you quoted still stands true whatever the nature of this specific comment of Limbaugh's. Really, your post and the quote in it are completely unrelated: My statement in that post was general related to Limbaugh.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?

He's all yours, conservatives. Doing you all proud. :)

I suspect that if Rush is ever run over by a truck, it'll be driven by a conservative who just wanted to get Rush OFF their side! :D

By what standard of intelligence or definition of the word 'brilliant'?! :eek:

He's very shiny if you polish him ith a lint-free cloth. :D

Well, I think I've learned something tonight.
I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's that taxing the poor doesn't make them richer. Maybe it's that right-wing commentators have an unpleasant sense of humour. Maybe it's that people really need to develop a keener nose for irony. Or maybe it's just that everybody really, really hates Rush Limbaugh.
Whatever, it's been a blast, but it's nearly three here in Britain and I really need to go to bed.
I'm sure God would love to bless you all, but unfortunately he doesn't exist. Goodnight.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?
That's like saying cutting taxes for the rich will eliminate them. We've tried that for 25 years and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Well, I think I've learned something tonight.
I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's that taxing the poor doesn't make them richer. Maybe it's that right-wing commentators have an unpleasant sense of humour. Maybe it's that people really need to develop a keener nose for irony. Or maybe it's just that everybody really, really hates Rush Limbaugh.
Whatever, it's been a blast, but it's nearly three here in Britain and I really need to go to bed.
I'm sure God would love to bless you all, but unfortunately he doesn't exist. Goodnight.
You are officially a badass. Congratulations.

I love listening to him tell it like it is. My favorites are when democrats call in to complain about something, (Bush, the weather, their bowl movements) he just rips them to shreds.

1) Can you send me a transcript of a Democrat complaining about their bowel movements? Cause that'd be funny as hell.

2) Cutting people off, turning off their connection, and using false logic does not count as "telling it like it is" or "ripping someone to shreads."

Being loud and haveing your finger on the "dump" button does not make you right or smart.

God, your like a knight in shining armor right now, Fiddles.
This would be so much easier if I could simply ride through the thread on hrose back, putting some broad sword about, and then head off into the sun set.
On a magickal pony.

I would have to see proof that he was being sarcastic as a joke. Since the OP presented the statement as an actual proposition, I made a series of statements based off of that predication, seeing as he started the thread and I'm not someone who apparently has been watching Limbaugh regularly since the beginning of his career as a publically broadcasted moron, instead of just a quiet one.
Ah, I see. So, rather then actually read/watch/listen to any of his stuff, you just parrot what other people have said against him? Or perhaps you just assume?
And I never watched him either, just listened/read his stuff from the '90s, his golden era. Now he's sort of a Bush-whore, and that's just sad.
The long and short of it: the thread was started as a debate on Limbaugh's comments taken as a real proposition. That's what's being debated. Not to mention that the post of mine you quoted still stands true whatever the nature of this specific comment of Limbaugh's.
And my statement still stands. If you honestly think that he was being serious, you apparently lack the common sense and judgement (as well as knowledge about his stuff) to be able to comment in a way that is any way knowledgable or relevant.

If a person is completely unable to see a joke when it is impossibly obvious and instead takes it seriously in an attempt to cry foul and make a political point, I draw the logical conclusion that they have no intelligence with which to judge other people's remarks.

The funny thing is that if it wre anyone BUT Rush saying that, I would have automatically jumped to that conclusion. My first thought was; 'Parody.'

Unfortunately, when you have said as many truly cosmically absurd things as he has, it's hard to tell when he's kidding.

Which, I suppose, is not necessarily a bad thing. As you know, I'm a big supporter of messing with people. :)

"Wisdom" and "Rush Limbaugh" have no business in the same sentence.
Unless wisdom is being used sarcastically.

I love listening to him tell it like it is. My favorites are when democrats call in to complain about something, (Bush, the weather, their bowl movements) he just rips them to shreds.

Reminded me of the Cheney-Edwards debates.....*Tears up*

Yeah, Edward tearing Cheney a new one....
*eyes tear up*
:fluffle:

the sad thing is that rush is a gentleman and well reasoned thinker compared to his competition like michael savage.

Ah, I see. So, rather then actually read/watch/listen to any of his stuff, you just parrot what other people have said against him? Or perhaps you just assume?

I didn't say I hadn't listened to him at all - my point was that I don't listen to him regularly, and haven't been watching since the mid-90's or whatever, but I have listened to his show a fair number of times.

And my statement still stands. If you honestly think that he was being serious, you apparently lack the common sense and judgement (as well as knowledge about his stuff) to be able to comment in a way that is any way knowledgable or relevant.

Based on his opinions and arguments in general, I'd have to unfortunately say that this struck me as in character. I can imagine him seriously suggesting it.

your like a knight in shining armor

Obsolite and foolish looking?

(sorry, not ment as an attack on you, H N Fiddlebottoms, I just couldn't resist :D )

the sad thing is that rush is a gentleman and well reasoned thinker compared to his competition like michael savage.
That's faint praise. A dessicated tomato plant is a well-reasoned thinker compared to Michael Savage. George W. Bush is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics compared to that dumbass.

Meh. Polititainment relies on spewing the most extremist tripe you can imagine to keep people listening. I doubt Rush himself even seriously thinks this is a good idea, or has anything to do with taxing the rich. Anything for ratings. The fact that anyone takes him seriously, on either side, goes a looong way toward explaining what's wrong with American politics.

That's faint praise. A dessicated tomato plant is a well-reasoned thinker compared to Michael Savage. George W. Bush is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics compared to that dumbass.
sometimes faint praise is all you deserve

does savage have actual followers or do people just tune in to his show so they can rant about what an idiot he is?

i feel so sad for those dittoheads who call rush and say how great he is.

Obsolite and foolish looking?
A sword isn't obsolete if all the other guys got is a knife.

Based on his opinions and arguments in general, I'd have to unfortunately say that this struck me as in character. I can imagine him seriously suggesting it.
Suuure. And since you couldn't identify this, I'm supposed to believe that you were properly identifying his opinions and arguments the "fair number of times" you've listened before?
Just admit it, you wanted this to be true, and so you assumed it was without thinking. That makes you seem just a bit foolish, but defending it like this is really dragging you through the mud.

And Ashmoria, Michael Savage is the fucking man. I don't think I've ever heard someone else so completely out of their heads on the radio. He goes from supporting a final solution for Islam to discussing his dogs, in seconds (and not even mean dogs, but little lap dogs with cutsey names).

A sword isn't obsolete if all the other guys got is a knife.:rolleyes:
Spoken like a true geek...


But save the sword for the renasaince fair, even nine year olds in my neighborhood carry glocks...

A sword isn't obsolete if all the other guys got is a knife.

True. And a sword has the added advantage of being bad-ass.

Now if the other guy has any sort of firearm......

And Ashmoria, Michael Savage is the fucking man. I don't think I've ever heard someone else so completely out of their heads on the radio. He goes from supporting a final solution for Islam to discussing his dogs, in seconds (and not even mean dogs, but little lap dogs with cutsey names).
oh is that all it takes to qualify.

some days he spends what seems to be the whole show talking only about how great he is. it gets pretty tedious.

not that i listen to him very often. i only listen to the radio in the car and he is on sometime in the late evening...ending at 10 pm. so i hear 15-30 minutes at a time.

dont you ever worry that there are people out there who are going "HELL YEAH lets kill all those A-rabs!"?

oh is that all it takes to qualify.

some days he spends what seems to be the whole show talking only about how great he is. it gets pretty tedious.

not that i listen to him very often. i only listen to the radio in the car and he is on sometime in the late evening...ending at 10 pm. so i hear 15-30 minutes at a time.

dont you ever worry that there are people out there who are going "HELL YEAH lets kill all those A-rabs!"?

They're all busy on the NS General forum. :D

A sword isn't obsolete if all the other guys got is a knife.

But if Person C has an assault rifle....

Suuure. And since you couldn't identify this, I'm supposed to believe that you were properly identifying his opinions and arguments the "fair number of times" you've listened before?

It's called 'inductive reasoning'. From what I know of Rush Limbaugh, information obviously procured by listening to him, and thus limited by the number of times I have done so, I derived a pattern. Sort of like seeing the new neighbor sideswipe your mailbox three days in a row: On the fourth day, if the question is posed to you the logical answer would be "he'll do it again".

And Ashmoria, Michael Savage is the fucking man. I don't think I've ever heard someone else so completely out of their heads on the radio. He goes from supporting a final solution for Islam to discussing his dogs, in seconds (and not even mean dogs, but little lap dogs with cutsey names).

Isn't "the man" usually a positive reference, unless you're using it in a hippie/rocker context? :confused:

:rolleyes:
Spoken like a true geek...
No. A true geek would have said:
"My +245 Two-Handed sword of Alien Kobold Ninja Slaying is never obsolete."
OR
"0MFG!N0!!1!!!K474n4'5 pwn 4ll 07h3r w34p0n5!!!11!!!L0L!!!1!shift+1!!!"
But save the sword for the renasaince fair, even nine year olds in my neighborhood carry glocks...
Swords are too silly for my tastes. Beat sticks are the only true gentleman's weapons, simple, elegant, utilitarian, and just wonderful for bashing in a few thick skulls.
Guns were invented for pansies who were afraid to get blood on their shoes.

But if Person C has an assault rifle....
Then I'd have to see just how fast my valiant steed can run.
It's called 'inductive reasoning'. From what I know of Rush Limbaugh, information obviously procured by listening to him, and thus limited by the number of times I have done so, I derived a pattern. Sort of like seeing the new neighbor sideswipe your mailbox three days in a row: On the fourth day, if the question is posed to you the logical answer would be "he'll do it again".
Yes, but since you were wrong, that throws doubt on whether it was actually that particular neighbour who hit your mailbox (to further your analogy).
Isn't "the man" usually a positive reference, unless you're using it in a hippie/rocker context? :confused:
And I mean it in a positive way. There is a time and a place for people who are utterly insane, and that time and place just happens to early nights on the radio.

Then I'd have to see just how fast my valiant steed can run.

You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability....

Yes, but since you were wrong, that throws doubt on whether it was actually that particular neighbour who hit your mailbox (to further your analogy).

Wait...what? Here's a continuation of my analogy: I now realize that it is possible for my neighbor to swerve towards my mailbox and narrowly miss it, or even deliberately hit it, all on purpose as a joke to rattle me with. I will take that into account in my future judgement as to what the hell he's doing [talking about].

And I mean it in a positive way. There is a time and a place for people who are utterly insane, and that time and place just happens to early nights on the radio.

I fill my insanity quota with Monty Python. :D

She turned me into a newt....

The idea has a certain Jonathan Swift-like charm. Tax the poor, then they'll al starve and problem solved. Soylent Green, anyone?

Wait...what? Here's a continuation of my analogy: I now realize that it is possible for my neighbor to swerve towards my mailbox and narrowly miss it, or even deliberately hit it, all on purpose as a joke to rattle me with. I will take that into account in my future judgement as to what the hell he's doing [talking about].
No, because since you were at fault here (Rush's statement hasn't changed, your stance on the statement has been changed) then it means that you might have been at the wrong the last times.
I suppose you could go with the hitting your mailbox on purpose thing (which means it is entirely possible that he's been doing it on purpose the whole time), but it might be better if we realized that the analogy is rather faulty.
I fill my insanity quota with Monty Python. :D
It just isn't the same when someone is trying to be crazy, Savage really believes this stuff, which is half the fun.

Don't forget that we have to lock up the RDDB's and convict them on RICO statutes, wait a minute thats a good idea...
As a matter of fact Savage is the Man!!! However I can understand your dislike if you are a gay activist, cause he seems to be a little down on them:fluffle:

[QUOTE=dont you ever worry that there are people out there who are going "HELL YEAH lets kill all those A-rabs!"?[/QUOTE]

the sad thing is that rush is a gentleman and well reasoned thinker compared to his competition like michael savage.

Takes a lot of forethought to stand and expose the myths of all the leftist cool-aid. Yeah perhaps he gets a little loud occasionally especially when he feels he needs to counter multimillion dollar backed commie websites like Moveon.org

Well he does have a point. All the poor people would starve to death(more likely turn to crime and tax evasion) which would make all the poor dead or imprisoned which would decrease poverty. It would also dissuade people from becoming poor because of the immense penalty resulting from it.

And no poverty isn't a choice, it's the result of many choices.

It just isn't the same when someone is trying to be crazy, Savage really believes this stuff, which is half the fun.
If his schtick were new or original, I might be convinced, but it's the same shit I heard from Klan members when I was a teenager--they believed it too, still do for all I know. Didn't make them crazy--just ignorant and hateful.

Yeah, Edward tearing Cheney a new one....
*eyes tear up*
:fluffle:

I guess everyone should be thrilled listening to a lawsuit crazy attorney like the dems ran for vp frivolously drive up medical cost

Guns were invented for pansies who were afraid to get blood on their shoes.:rolleyes:

I've never shot anybody, but have had the unfortunate necessity to use pointy things and blunt objects to defend myself a time or two.

Those were adreneline drenched minutes where luck or a wrong decision could have meant the end of me and I wouldn't really want to repeat any of those events.

But even when I was close enough to smell the sweat of those who wanted to do me harm I always had the presence of mind to try not to get any on my shoes...







blood is such an inconvienence when it's entered into evidence against you.

If his schtick were new or original, I might be convinced, but it's the same shit I heard from Klan members when I was a teenager--they believed it too, still do for all I know.
You don't listen to him properly, then.
The most obvious difference is that Klansmen never interrupt their rants for, say, a story about their cute little dogs, or to tell us their grandmothers recipe for meatballs. Savage does, and it is that sort of Kwality spasticity that makes him worthwhile.
Then there is that adorable accent, the A-rab hating, his love/hate thing with animals, etc.
Of course, some people don't want to listen past your limited perusal (Savage is an acquired taste) and never get down into the full depth and breadth of his deliciousness, instead being shocked off by the initial bitterness.

You don't listen to him properly, then.
The most obvious difference is that Klansmen never interrupt their rants for, say, a story about their cute little dogs, or to tell us their grandmothers recipe for meatballs. Savage does, and it is that sort of Kwality spasticity that makes him worthwhile.
Then there is that adorable accent, the A-rab hating, his love/hate thing with animals, etc.
Of course, some people don't want to listen past your limited perusal (Savage is an acquired taste) and never get down into the full depth and breadth of his deliciousness, instead being shocked off by the initial bitterness.
It's not shock that drives me away--I've heard all that and more--it's just a matter of taste I guess. I'd just rather not wade through the shit to get to the diarrhea (which is the funny part of the shit, after all).

Takes a lot of forethought to stand and expose the myths of all the leftist cool-aid. Yeah perhaps he gets a little loud occasionally especially when he feels he needs to counter multimillion dollar backed commie websites like Moveon.org

Really, moveon.org is commie? Can you link me to a time where they advocated the government/public ownership of all the means of production? No? Didn't think so. Then don't come into this forum spouting that bullshit.

Could you also point out these multibillion dollars backing moveon.org? Prove what you have to say, or I refer you back to the "shut up your bullshit" part of my rebuttal. (heehe, buttal).

A little loud? He yells, is beligerant, uses false logic, makes up facts, cut other people's connection so they can't get a word in, and is all around an idiot.

Like he doesn't have big money backing him and his show ::rollseye::

And what the hell is a cool-aid?


And no poverty isn't a choice, it's the result of many choices.

And many cercumstances.

And what the hell is a cool-aid?
Kool-Aid, 'tis a reference to Jim Jones' cult where they drank cyanide laced Grape Kool-Aid for some reason or another.
Somehow, this applies to Democrats, though I have never convinced some one to explain how.

Kool-Aid, 'tis a reference to Jim Jones' cult where they drank cyanide laced Grape Kool-Aid for some reason or another.
Somehow, this applies to Democrats, though I have never convinced some one to explain how.And it wasn't even Kool-Aid at Jonestown--it was Flavor-Aid. As far as I can tell, however, it's not limited to Democrats--it generally means that someone has bought into the company line so completely that they're beyond convincing otherwise.

Kool-Aid, 'tis a reference to Jim Jones' cult where they drank cyanide laced Grape Kool-Aid for some reason or another.
Somehow, this applies to Democrats, though I have never convinced some one to explain how.


I see. Thank you very much for clarifying that for me :)

It just isn't the same when someone is trying to be crazy, Savage really believes this stuff, which is half the fun.




I have to agree with you, it is just hilarious when a person is unintentionally crazy, the results are usually comical. I mean did you hear about the Manson case or Dommer? HAHAHAHA!! I would rather fucking die than have the world ran by corporate jingoistic assholes like Savage, Limbaugh, Billie O', or anyone at Fox news. I know I sound like a democrat but I'm not. Democrats can go to hell too for all I care. I think our government needs some drastic changes and needs to be revised when people are quoting bigot jerks as though they were Gandhi. I see it two ways, you can get fake news from some corrupt jerk or you can get fake news from guys like Jon Stewart or Steve Colbert. I find myself laughing just as much at Limbaugh as I do Stewart, only I know Limbaugh is serious and that is fucking scary. Like every empire before us we will fall. People forget history, they don't learn as they should. In time our government will fall and be rebuilt correcting the mistakes that were made in the past only for new loopholes to be found and to become as corrupt and unjust as our current government before it collapses. It is a vicious circle that will always involve poor and a select few taking advantage of the poor. You can not end poverty unless everyone one day decided to contribute to an anarchist society, and that is just a school boy dream. You can not end poverty, it will always be a tool. If Limbaugh wants to end poverty he should be more active in such areas, which he is not. He is simply contributing to the poverty levels by driving his large car to his giant mansion on the hill that he bought with his six figure salary while the woman who runs the camera for his show probably goes home to her cold, small apartment with her two starving kids. Fucking hypocrite. Viva la Revolucion!

I have to agree with you, it is just hilarious when a person is unintentionally crazy, the results are usually comical . . .
Yes, indeed they are.
and thanks for providing such an excellent example

I have to agree with you, it is just hilarious when a person is unintentionally crazy, the results are usually comical. I mean did you hear about the Manson case or Dommer? HAHAHAHA!! I would rather fucking die than have the world ran by corporate jingoistic assholes like Savage, Limbaugh, Billie O', or anyone at Fox news. I know I sound like a democrat but I'm not. Democrats can go to hell too for all I care. I think our government needs some drastic changes and needs to be revised when people are quoting bigot jerks as though they were Gandhi. I see it two ways, you can get fake news from some corrupt jerk or you can get fake news from guys like Jon Stewart or Steve Colbert. I find myself laughing just as much at Limbaugh as I do Stewart, only I know Limbaugh is serious and that is fucking scary. Like every empire before us we will fall. People forget history, they don't learn as they should. In time our government will fall and be rebuilt correcting the mistakes that were made in the past only for new loopholes to be found and to become as corrupt and unjust as our current government before it collapses. It is a vicious circle that will always involve poor and a select few taking advantage of the poor. You can not end poverty unless everyone one day decided to contribute to an anarchist society, and that is just a school boy dream. You can not end poverty, it will always be a tool. If Limbaugh wants to end poverty he should be more active in such areas, which he is not. He is simply contributing to the poverty levels by driving his large car to his giant mansion on the hill that he bought with his six figure salary while the woman who runs the camera for his show probably goes home to her cold, small apartment with her two starving kids. Fucking hypocrite. Viva la Revolucion!

I like you. You're an angry fucker :)

I see. Thank you very much for clarifying that for me :)

And if you don't take the time to investigate backing of websites for yourself just keep sippin' that stuff:headbang:

And if you don't take the time to investigate backing of websites for yourself just keep sippin' that stuff:headbang:

You made the claim, friend, the burden of proof falls on you.

I destroyed your first baseless claim that they are "commie." Tough it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had some powerful corperate or political sponcer, you gatta prove that one first.

Besides, like our friend Havokians pointed out, Rush is rollin' in it.


Sounds to me like you're the one sippin' someone's jucie.

I'm generally not keen on people who act as though genocide (for lack of a better word) is a good idea, regardless of whether or not they have adorable dogs.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?


On the other hand, you can't get blood from a turnip.

On the other other hand, Rush Limbaugh IS a turnip.

If this is what passes for humor in his tiny little drug befuddled brain (and I have to assume he thought he was making a joke with this comment, if not then he is simply an idiot), he might do well to consider a career change to, oh, I don't know, taxidermy? Sanitation engineer? File clerk? Far too many idiots listen to him and think that when he says this sort of nonsense that he is speaking the truth, and that his ideas are actually viable. Which is an even sadder comment on his listeners than on him, really.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?

And with this I have gone from thinking that Rush Limbaugh is a mindless, soulless, festering, evil sack of puss to thinking that he may be the most consistently brilliant ironic performance artist that the world has ever known. I'm not sure whose vain he's following more here. Anne Coulter, or Johnathan Swift.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?

ROFLAMAO!

I find it incredible how few people here can grasp sarcasm. Grow a sense of humor people! You have to TRY to miss this one. It is as if you've never hear the term 'illustrate absurdity with absurdity'...
sigh...

When God was handing out a sense of humor you all must have got back in line for ungraceful indignation.

It is as if you've never hear the term 'illustrate absurdity with absurdity'...
The point is that he isn't. He's using an absurd argument to illustrate one that is relatively sensible. Even disregarding the sensibility, the concept behind the two things is rather different.

The point of progressive taxes is not to make fewer rich people. If anything, it is an expression of the belief that no rich person could have gotten where they are without the society (and that includes the government as well as poor people) - and that it is therefore only fair for them to give something back.

You can disagree with that, and I'm sure you do. But the point is that this is just another strawman argument to make Limbaugh and his listeners feel better about themselves.

Rush Limbaugh is the most vinegary of all douches.

Well, the first time i heard this I thought: WTF??

Read it again and thought: LOL, this gotta be sarcasm, nice one

Then again: He really thinks this way??

So, whatever this guy smokes - I don't want it! No Sir, I'm staying clean!

Next he will tell us that we should fight terrorists (individuals) by invading foreign nations....funny guy

brilliant thinking by rush again. so far we have been subsidizing poverty, by governmenthandouts and after decades and futilly spending trillions of dollars in this "war on poverty", it is time to try a new approach, just as we tax cars with low gas mileage more to make them go away, we can use the same strategy for poverty. of course, taxing it will only be the first step, later we will introduce legislation, that will make it completely illegal.

"My fellow Ameicans I'm pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever.
The bombing begins in five minutes..." - Ronald Reagan


you lib rush haters should get your head out of your ass and learn how to read great sarcasm.

Am I the only one who sees the tragedy of finding one's self in the service of someone who'd actually use the phrase "less smarter" in conversation?

I'm glad you said that. I was starting to think I was the only more smarter one here ;) No-one noticed that he couldn't spell "brilliant" either.

And for those of you wasting breath on this topic, even Rush Limbaugh knew it was a joke when he said it.

'On his radio show Rush Limbaugh, made a dramatic and innovative proposal.

We must tax the poor. This is not hardhearted and mean. It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it. Obviously, we want to eliminate poverty, and there is the one method that has never been tried: tax it.

The poor represent a promising new revenue stream. More money to the Treasury, and the lessening of poverty at the same time.'

Many thanks to RushOnline.com for this eye-catching suggestion. I apologise if this has already been discussed, it's quite an old page, but I feel that such a bold policy deserves more serious consideration. What does everybody think?
I agree. We also should tax cancer, so that people will stop getting it. It would also be best to tax the old, to discourage people from aging. It would be particularly helpful, I think, to tax death, because (as we all know) death is the number one major killer of Americans...to stop this plague, we must encourage all Americans to avoid death and pursue a philosophy of Life.

Seriously, though, I dig it. Usually Rush gives me the bad kind of chuckle (you know, where I'm laughing AT him instead of WITH him), but this time I feel that I can share the chuckle without malice.

. He is simply contributing to the poverty levels by driving his large car to his giant mansion on the hill that he bought with his six figure salary while the woman who runs the camera for his show probably goes home to her cold, small apartment with her two starving kids. Fucking hypocrite. Viva la Revolucion!

Who built that car? Who built that mansion? I hate to tell you, but in the real world there are people who make a good deal of money building those products, and they are definitely not living in poverty...a construction worker can easily make $20/hour, and a worker in an auto plant $24-30 not including benefits. If we got rid of them, that would put quite a few more people in to poverty.

When Congress tried to tax luxury items using a similar rationale, the number of people unemployed rose and by extension more people fell in to poverty.

ROFLAMAO!

I find it incredible how few people here can grasp sarcasm. Grow a sense of humor people! You have to TRY to miss this one. It is as if you've never hear the term 'illustrate absurdity with absurdity'...
sigh...

When God was handing out a sense of humor you all must have got back in line for ungraceful indignation.

Not having a sense of humor has nothing to do with not grasping it. Improper context does. People were given a small excerpt from his show, without being given proper information as to when he said, why he said it, or what he was referring to. Also, it is very difficult to pick up sarcasm when dealing with written word, as ones tone is lost. Had there been an audio clip, some confusion may have been averted, however, due to it's nature, it is almost impossible to take as such unless one heard what he said firsthand.

It is axiomatic that if you subsidize an activity or condition you get more of it; if you tax it you get less of it.
How about corporate F*CKING malfeasance?
What does everybody think?
What do i think of Limbaugh? I'm sure a few here have expressed it more and less eloquently. F*ck that fat misogynist malicious foam-at-the-mouth veracity-challenged blowhard mouthpiece. Him and his excised-just-in-time pilonodal cyst.
No offense if you like the guy, or ... whatevah.

Not having a sense of humor has nothing to do with not grasping it. Improper context does. People were given a small excerpt from his show, without being given proper information as to when he said, why he said it, or what he was referring to. Also, it is very difficult to pick up sarcasm when dealing with written word, as ones tone is lost. Had there been an audio clip, some confusion may have been averted, however, due to it's nature, it is almost impossible to take as such unless one heard what he said firsthand.

Nicely said, but etiquette and common sense don't exist here. Flames and mockery are much more entertaining.

snoip... It would be particularly helpful, I think, to tax death, because (as we all know) death is the number one major killer of Americans...to stop this plague, we must encourage all Americans to avoid death and pursue a philosophy of Life.

snip


We already do... people still die, but they are deferring it longer these days... because of the tax?

The point of progressive taxes is not to make fewer rich people. If anything, it is an expression of the belief that no rich person could have gotten where they are without the society (and that includes the government as well as poor people) - and that it is therefore only fair for them to give something back.

Ummmm, not it isn't. It is that people pay according to their ability to. Taxes are not the moral equivlent of a debt to society.

You can disagree with that, and I'm sure you do. But the point is that this is just another strawman argument to make Limbaugh and his listeners feel better about themselves.

Don't presume to know my position on something before you ask me - I consider it an insult and it will make you look foolish. I happen to approve of the progressive tax system. I frankly think that it should be tweaked considerably though. (instead of arbitrary income thresholds it should be more 'graded on the curve'. ) I also think that nobody should be exempt from tax and that paycheck witholding should be illegal.

I also think that nobody should be exempt from tax and that paycheck witholding should be illegal.
No one is fully exempt from tax, unless there are people who don't pay sales tax, who don't pay tolls on roads, who don't pay license fees for many and sundry services provided by the state. I suppose if you lived in an earthship in a state with no property tax, built every piece of equipment and raised food yourself and removed yourself completely from the economic system, you might get away from it, but I think you'd still get popped for something.

Now if what you meant to say was "nobody should be exempt from income tax..."

No one is fully exempt from tax, unless there are people who don't pay sales tax, who don't pay tolls on roads, who don't pay license fees for many and sundry services provided by the state. I suppose if you lived in an earthship in a state with no property tax, built every piece of equipment and raised food yourself and removed yourself completely from the economic system, you might get away from it, but I think you'd still get popped for something.

Now if what you meant to say was "nobody should be exempt from income tax..."

I was non-specific intentionally. Why are you being such a twit abut it? Does it make you feel smart? It certainly does not make you look that way.

I was non-specific intentionally. Why are you being such a twit abut it? Does it make you feel smart? It certainly does not make you look that way.
I wasn't being a twit about it. I was pointing out that the claim that some people pay no tax is a bullshit one. The poor, even if they don't get hit with income tax, still pay a disproportionate percentage of their incomes in taxes because sales taxes are the most regressive tax out there. A 6% sales tax kicks a poor person's ass far more than it does a wealthy or even middle class person's. So you can drop the "holier than thou" attitude any time and we can have a legitimate discussion. Or not. No sweat off my balls either way.

Ain't no thing to me, but sure seems to be for you, Mr. Sweatyballs.

You are discussing the difference between a progressive and regressive tax.

A regressive tax, such as the proposed national sales tax in lieu of income tax, would blow chunks. I'd MUCH prefer a flat tax to that, but a progressive tax with more and less steep increments would be preferable.

As usual, I think Limbaugh (and Hanity while I'm at it), under our principles of basic freedom, have every right to come online, or speak on the air, and make complete and utter fools of themselves (as well as every moron who agrees with them).

Why is it the only time you people take him seriously is when he's doing satire? Would you people please try to put this in the context it was intended and stop trying to screw him over?

Why is it the only time you people take him seriously is when he's doing satire? Would you people please try to put this in the context it was intended and stop trying to screw him over? :rolleyes:
Fair enough. Now it'll be up to the other reader/posters here to determine whether or not you mean satire with this post.
Carri on.

Why is it the only time you people take him seriously is when he's doing satire? Would you people please try to put this in the context it was intended and stop trying to screw him over?I've been force fed Limbaugh at various jobs, even before he went national and was just a local nutjob on the radio. He doesn't deserve to be taken serious even when he is serious, never has. And this sort of tasteless attempt a satire doesn't improve his standing. I doubt anyone really thought he was serious, but it's just this sort of thing that cements his standing as a world class asshole.

I've been force fed Limbaugh at various jobs, even before he went national and was just a local nutjob on the radio. He doesn't deserve to be taken serious even when he is serious, never has. And this sort of tasteless attempt a satire doesn't improve his standing. I doubt anyone really thought he was serious, but it's just this sort of thing that cements his standing as a world class asshole.
Seconded.
As far as being world-class, i imagine that you mean that in the sense that the whole world has to put up with his asshole-ness. In another sense, i doubt he could remotely handle dealing with being out in the real world without legions of other stupid assholes to believe and propegate his bullsh*t. It's too bad he doesn't have more of "Timothy Treadwell"'s instinct. Now there's a vision worth whacking off to.

I've been force fed Limbaugh at various jobs, even before he went national and was just a local nutjob on the radio. He doesn't deserve to be taken serious even when he is serious, never has. And this sort of tasteless attempt a satire doesn't improve his standing. I doubt anyone really thought he was serious, but it's just this sort of thing that cements his standing as a world class asshole.

Mostly, he bothers me no more or less than any other political talk show person on the radio. But he does have two really annoying tendencies: He has a real anti-intellectual streak - which is self explanatory if you think about it; and the way he constantly refers to his audience as "folks". Both piss me off.

I miss arthur schwartz's food talk. Now that was a radio show.

Mostly, he bothers me no more or less than any other political talk show person on the radio. But he does have two really annoying tendencies: He has a real anti-intellectual streak - which is self explanatory if you think about it; and the way he constantly refers to his audience as "folks". Both piss me off.

I miss arthur schwartz's food talk. Now that was a radio show.
Oh i've thought about the bolded part alright. It f*cking well explains an awful lot. A LOT. I could go on, but i don't think i really need to.

EDIT:As radio shows go, The Bickersons was a most EXCELLENT radio show. *nods*