Rush Limbaugh: Open mouth, insert foot.

Published on July 10, 2005 By dharmagrl In Current Events

Am I the only one who finds his statement about the London bombings offensive?

It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks.

So, if that wasn't a 'successfuk' attack, what is? Are there guidelines about what constitutes a 'successful' attack versus an 'unsuccessful' one?

Pull you head out of your arse, Rush. People DIED. People were INJURED. It's not about how big it was or how many people didn't die. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the scale. To me, an unsuccessful attack would be one where bombs didn't detonate, or where the bombers were caught before they could complete their plan.

Londoners and Englishmen will prevail, they will not be intimidated so in that respect the terrorists didn't get what they had hoped for....but to make statments like that almost belittling the incident....

....that's just disrespectful.

Comments (Page 4)

dharmagrl

on Jul 11, 2005

The fact is people died, people got injured, there morning routine was interrupted in a fight for their lives. Something that will take a long time for them to forget, no matter if they were directly affected are not. It will be in their conciousness for a very long time

Absolutely.

Looking on a scene of carnage, knowing you were almost part of it, that isn't something you shrug off, and those who think that there was no "terror" no trauma, are kidding themselves.

It's affected me, and I wasn't even there. People are putting on their game faces now and saying that they won't be beaten, but....I'm sure many of those who were injured will have problems with PTSD and the underground.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the terrorists succeeded. They caused mayhem, they killed, they maimed. That's what their goal was, and they achieved it. Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.

Lord Shitzu

on Jul 11, 2005

Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.

Well said.

dharmagrl

on Jul 11, 2005

Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.

Well said.

Thank you!

Myrrander

on Jul 11, 2005

The Rush apologists amuse me. If this sort of thing had come from Al Franken or Mike Moore, you guys would be chomping at the bit and wanting blood. It comes from one of yours, though, so by the unseen pact of the party, you have to support it.

If it HAD come from Moore or Franken, you can bet that there'd be just as many lefties defending those jackasses, too, just because "a liberal said it." If a person keeps getting driven from the left (Tim Robbins' "Embedded/Live" is a great example of BS propaganda from the left that made me annoyed and angry), still can't stand the right (can't hang out over there with the neo-cons and pro-lifers), and by all means doesn't fit in with the moderates (I use waaay too much profanity and like to do drugs) -- what the hell does that make a person? That's the boat I find myself in.

Hi, Myrr! How are ya?!

Weren't they nice to let me comment again? And you all were kind in supporting that (even those of you that DIDN'T support it were still nice about it)

Daiwa

on Jul 11, 2005

So much for JU being the bastion of right-wing whackos.

As with Franken or Maher, who can be very funny, you have to pay attention to what is said, not the sayer. And some may find the words, standing alone, offensive or insensitive. I doubt seriously we'd be asking for Franken's or Moore's blood for agreeing with us (in the broader context, not the specific).

Words can have different impact in different contexts. It's possible to be both insensitive, in a personal tragedy context, and correct, in a political/societal context, which I think is the case here.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Jul 11, 2005

Nope, he's just being indicted for doctor shopping, money laundering and narcotis possession.

Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem.

philomedy

on Jul 11, 2005

Isn't it amusing how many different meanings Rush Limbaugh manages to put into things...he must be a much deeper individual than, oh i don't know, Dick Durbin, who if I recall correctly...couldn't have possibly been taken out of context...if memory serves me correctly, we were calling for Durbin to be put to death, were we not?

"Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem."

Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right.

Daiwa

on Jul 11, 2005

Sorry, Philomedy, but the comparison to Durbin's comments is a bit of a stretch, to be generous.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Myrrander

on Jul 11, 2005

Guys like drmiler are exactly what I'm talking about. From Rush, nothing can be wrong, because nothing from the right can ever be wrong. I don't understand such black and white reasoning at all. The same statement, from a liberal, would immediately be taken as an insult to Londoners simply because it came from the left. Labels are really beginning to bore me.

The best example of this is defense budget cuts. When Bush I cut defense programs, he was "modernising the military." When Clinton did it, he was "weakening the country." On the other hand, liberals would say the opposite -- Bush "bad," Clinton "good." Which makes me a bit sick of both sides.

I'm glad to see a few of the more conservative posters (including Dharma) giving Rush the old eye roll for this comment. It's comments like this from the right and propaganda like "Embedded" from the left that just make me want to throw up my hands and be like most Americans -- apathetic of politics all together.

ParaTed2k

on Jul 11, 2005

Apparently what began as an article about Dharma's feelings about what Rush Limbaugh said (and how he said it) has become a Rush Rocks vs Rush Rots series of rants.

For me, I didn't make my replies in defense of Rush Limbaugh or in offense to Dharma's feelings or interpretation, I simply shared my point of view about the statement.

It's ironic how people can't seem to get passed their opinion of Rush in order to speak to what he said. It's equally entertaining to see how people defend others who said the same thing, but take shots at Rush, simply because he is Rush. ;~D

((((And yes, I am entertained when the target happens to be Michael Moore or Al Franken also))).

Make up our minds, are we discussing Rush Limbagh himself, or are we discussing whether or not we considered his words to be offensive?

(((((btw, to Shitzu. Yes, I will refer to the terrorist scum as "bacteria". Yes, biologically they are human but like rapists, child molestors and other such oxygen thieves there is no reason to think of them as anything more than brainless single-celled organisms that, when left unchecked cause death to the healthy life around them.)))))

philomedy

on Jul 11, 2005

Sorry, Philomedy, but the comparison to Durbin's comments is a bit of a stretch, to be generous.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I didn't compare them. I was just pointing out that when a someone from the right says something wrong, its out of context. When someone from the left does it, he must be killed.

Certainly Durbin was taken out of context over something that was a lot more sensitive to Americans, but out of context is out of context, regardless of your emotional attachments to the subject.

dharmagrl

on Jul 11, 2005

[

If this sort of thing had come from Al Franken or Mike Moore, you guys would be chomping at the bit and wanting blood.

Like I said earlier, had this comment come from some left of center people would have been all over it like stink on poo.

It's possible to be both insensitive, in a personal tragedy context, and correct, in a political/societal context, which I think is the case here

I agree completely. For an experienced broadcaster, he sure used an inappropriate set of words.

And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem.

Yes, it would be a problem. Maybe not legally, but it's deceitful, drug seeking behaviour that he KNEW was wrong. Going from one physician to another, not telling any of them about each other, collecting presciptions for narcotics...can you not see somehting wrong with that behaviour?

[quote

Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right

Exactly. See my previous comment for further explanation.

dynamaso

on Jul 11, 2005

WTF! Why do articles like this end up dissolving into a left vs. right argument? It is really bloody tiring.

How about this? Both sides are wrong. Both sides are also right. Both sides have as many nuts sprouting ill-informed opinions as they have genuine, dedicated, caring folk who are trying to make the world a better place.

Either way, an insensitive comment deserves some response but it should not be according to which side of the f(#king political fence the commentator is standing.

Lord Shitzu

on Jul 11, 2005

(((((btw, to Shitzu. Yes, I will refer to the terrorist scum as "bacteria". Yes, biologically they are human but like rapists, child molestors and other such oxygen thieves there is no reason to think of them as anything more than brainless single-celled organisms that, when left unchecked cause death to the healthy life around them.)))))

Those are people too. Albeit people who made horrible decisions, not unlike the terrorists.

-----

on Jul 11, 2005

But, because it's Rush, I'm taking what he said out of context.

--So...essentially biased...

Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.

--I think that, along with murder, is their intent, to weaken the US "Devils" by forcing its allies to flee for cover..and ultimatley "abandon" the US (as in militarily), forcing the US to stretch its military even further...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!