Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Rush Limbaugh

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Try eating 16 at once and see how you feel.

I don't think I ever ate sixteen of anything. Except maybe...


Barbeque!!!!!

There! I've changed this into a barbeque thread. :D
 
Rush to judgement

Timebuilder said:
I would imagine that the real dog had been in the news that week, and this was a cheap laugh...I think it was in bad taste, to be honest.

This happened years before the Clinton's received their dog, Buddy. Bad taste is an understatement considering a 13 year old girl, who was probably quite self-conscious about her appearance, has very little to do with her parents politics.

flywithruss said:
In response to the "White House dog" comment ...

Rush himself felt bad for having made that joke...When Rush learned Mrs. Clinton was at the party, he made a point to seek her out and speak to her.

Rush described this encounter with Mrs. Clinton on his show shortly after it happened.

I'd like to get a second opinion on this story since it came from Rush himself. For instance, if he felt so bad about it, why did it take years to apologize? I'm sure he or his people know how send a letter so why the precondition that they be at the same party? Why did he apologize to Hillary instead of Chelsea? If the production staffer put that picture up by mistake, what was the picture suppose to be? In other words, what was the joke?

No, he's a calculating, vindictive ideologue and here's something for dittoheads everywhere to ponder - he turned himself over to rehab only after he got caught.
 
Last edited:
No, he's a calculating, vindictive ideologue

Gee, I'm shocked. I never thought you felt that way from the first part of your post. I take it you must know him personally? I can't imagine what you must think of James Carville or Hillary. You must be REALLY mad at how they comport themselves.



For instance, if he felt so bad about it, why did it take years to apologize?

Do you have anything that you felt bad enough about that you wanted to apologize for, and you knew that sometime you would have an opportunity to make that apology in person? I wasn't aware that there was a time frame for an apology. If he had sent a letter, or made a call, a great many people would have found fault, suggesting that he was too shallow to offer a personal apology, or didn't care. This is a no-win situation where his critics are concerned. Apparently, you are one of those pople that will not be satisfied no matter what he does.

Why did he apologize to Hillary instead of Chelsea?

In this situation, that would require two things: 1) the presence of Chelsea at the party, and 2) the permission of her mother to make that apology to Chelsea. Had he been asked to, I believe that he would have been willing to meet with Chelsea and explain what had transpired. For all we know, the offer was made and was not agreed to. Obviously, you have an axe to grind.



If the production staffer put that picture up by mistake, what was the picture suppose to be? In other words, what was the joke?

This is where I have to change hats for a moment. I'm putting on my broadcaster's hat.

I have appeared on televison, and I am well versed in production techniques. Not every program aspect or segment is under the direct control or creative input of a host. An entire show is simply too complicated to allow this level of input. Just ask how unnerving it was for the crew that produced Martha Stewart's show to have their every move scrutinized, and find out how much extra production costs were incurred by her anal retentive approach to TV production. There are books you can read about this.

Suffice it to say that when you already produce a three hour nationally syndicated radio show and then spend another couple of hours on a TV show, you don't even get to rehearse every segment. Some things are mentioned on a script like "Rush: we got a look at the new White House dog today...(pause for picture on monitor)" and the host may have no idea what the writers and the rest of his production team have cooked up.

In other words, he probably was waiting for the joke himself, trusting his team to walk the line. If they crossed the line, then Rush was right to fire the parties involved.

he turned himself over to rehab only after he got caught.

I guess the fact that he tried to quit before makes no difference?

I guess you're another "compassionate liberal".
 
Last edited:
Typhoon1244 said:
Well, don't be too sure. I said they do some wild stuff. I didn't say you'd want to do any of it with them. (Now Skywest girls, on the other hand...) I agree completely...I just thought the "deviant" comment was over the top.

OK. What if GWB had done this? Think our attitude is as long as it is someone we like then we cut some slack. For example, if a fellow ASA pilot did this during a flight with a female flight attendant would that be OK? Probably would be "understanding". What if Leo did it with a secretary during business hours on company property? Fire the bum! Just trying to put it in perspective.
 
OK. What if GWB had done this? Think our attitude is as long as it is someone we like then we cut some slack. For example, if a fellow ASA pilot did this during a flight with a female flight attendant would that be OK? Probably would be "understanding". What if Leo did it with a secretary during business hours on company property? Fire the bum! Just trying to put it in perspective.

There are so many variables, but one principal never changes: wrong is wrong. If it turns out that Rush is wrong for acquiring drugs outside of the accepted chain of pharmacy and physician, then he is wrong. He'll be the first to tell us of the hell of drug addiction when he has his next opportunity.

If GW had done the same act in the same office with a similar intern, it would still be wrong, and I'd be sending him a letter asking for him to come clean. I would not expect him to lie under oath, but frankly, I wasn't that surprised when Clinton lied.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sixteen of ...

TonyC said:
NOT so fast there, Hoss...

I don't think I ever ate sixteen of anything. Except maybe Krystal - Fresh Hot Small Square. Wait ! I think I might have had sixteen Krispy Kreme - HOT NOW or Southern Maid Donuts.

I have eaten MORE than 16 x 2 pieces of sashimi at an all-you-can-eat! It was kind of an accident. I ordered like 20 pieces of salmon sashimi, and I didn't know it was 2 pieces for every 1 you wrote down. So I checked 20 and ended up with 40 slabs of salmon. This was on top of about 15 hits of other types of sushi (it was 1 for 1 with the sushi,) about 5 or 6 hand rolls, and a plate of teriyaki beef. And you can't waste it otherwise they charge you extra for each piece of fish you leave. I learned a valuable lesson that night, never trust the Japanese!!!:D

BTW-Just kidding about the Japanese, they rock!
 
Re: Rush to judgement

Timebuilder said:
...you don't even get to rehearse every segment. Some things are mentioned on a script like "Rush: we got a look at the new White House dog today...(pause for picture on monitor)" and the host may have no idea what the writers and the rest of his production team have cooked up.

In other words, he probably was waiting for the joke himself, trusting his team to walk the line. If they crossed the line, then Rush was right to fire the parties involved.


The show was taped. Several hours passed before it was broadcast to the nation. If something in such bad taste happened during the run through that got a staffer fired, why wasn't it corrected before the the show was put on the air?

Buddy, the real White House dog showed up in the middle of Clinton's second term. The Chelsea incident happened about one year into Clinton's first term. When Rush apologized to Hillary, did he mention what the picture was suppose to be?

In this situation, that would require two things: 1) the presence of Chelsea at the party, and 2) the permission of her mother to make that apology to Chelsea.

Chelsea is a college graduate in her early 20's. She's a young woman now. Why would Rush need the permission of her mother to apologize to her?
 
Last edited:
The show was taped. Several hours passed before it was broadcast to the nation. If something in such bad taste happened during the run through that got a staffer fired, why wasn't is corrected before the the show was put on the air?

I can't say for sure if the show was taped or not. Considering the hour, you are probably right, though. I would have made an extra effort to replace this segment with another piece. There are two possibilities I can think of: one, there was insufficient studio time available to come up with a replacement segment, or more likely, it was seen as more benign at the time than it seemed in retrospect. Hindsight may have revealed a new insight, such as "Oh, man. I can't believe we did that."


When Rush apologized to Hillary, did he mention what the picture was suppose to be?

That's a good question. We will probably never find out publically, but I hope to find out at some point since I have returned to show business.


Chelsea is a college graduate in her early 20's. She's a young woman now. Why would Rush need the permission of her mother to apologize to her?

Clinton family policy was that no one should have press access to Chelsea. Her mother accepted the apology on her behalf, and that was the end of it. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you.

Do you have a personal interest here? I can tell you from both my broadcasting and political background that a great many things happen that people in these lines of work take for granted as a part of the business. The children of Al Gore and Gerald Ford had several mentions for their activity as minors, as did Amy Carter. Amy Carter was widely ridiculed by the press, which was even more liberal than they are now, because she wanted a chain saw for Christmas. In fact, I remember some political writers mentioning her gangly lack of grace. And they were democrats!

Maybe you and I just have a more reasonable standard of behavior than a TV production team.
 
Last edited:
Silence...

One of the things that I find encouraging in all of this is what we're NOT hearing. Now, reportedly, this whole sh'bang got kicked off by an employee of the Limbaugh household who took her story to a reputable news outlet*. I haven't heard anyone criticize her for her actions.

Yet, when another woman took information about illegal activity to legal authorities, she was subjected to the wrath of millions of (I can say liberals here, right?) who plastered her with very unsavory labels and ridiculed her for "ratting" on her friend. Where are they now?

The silence is refreshing.


(*OKAY, OKAY, I'm sorry. I meant to say tabloid, but I was trying to be objective and not slant the point.) :)
 
Re: Silence...

TonyC said:
Yet, when another woman took information about illegal activity to legal authorities, she was subjected to the wrath of millions of (I can say liberals here, right?)

Talking about anyone we know?
 
Oh, I'm pretty sure we know..........

Who was the "friend" of Monica Lewinski, who had the famous semen stained blue dress for a while hidden in her closet?
 
jarhead said:
Who was the "friend" of Monica Lewinski, who had the famous semen stained blue dress for a while hidden in her closet?
You know, Bill loved that dress from the moment he spotted it... :D
 
In Mexico, one can self-medicate. If you want to get Tylenol 5 for your headache you can. While I don't approve of abusing a drug it's not like he is shooting heroin. I wish we had the enlightened pharmacy policies of Mexico!
 
wil said:
I wish we had the enlightened pharmacy policies of Mexico!
Some of rampers do...

(Wait, did I say that out loud?)
 
Wait a minute.

(thumps palm of hand on the side of the head several times)

Did someone just use the word enlightened and the word Mexico in the same sentence???
 
What Ever?

I got out of the military because of the liberal's
like CLINTON. I'm proud to say I'm severing again
under a Commander and Chief like Bush.
The only reason it took America so long to Kick
some A$$ was because it took Bush to re-build
our military. Clinton cut our defense buget by 36%.
You don't here that in the news.
Nor do you here Bush complaining about it. He's
doing what is neccessary.

LT. Col. Thrust Master
 
Re: What Ever?

Thrust Master said:
You don't here that in the news.
Sometimes you don't ever hear it... :D
 
For the love of God if I hear one more idiot make the innane distinction that all conservatives are god loving, moral pillars of society and that all liberals are "secular" folk with no regard for humanity in general I think I'm gonna go nuts. I can't believe anyone could be that stupid.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: conservatives and liberals are equally at fault. They are also equally responsible for all the good things we enjoy as citizens of this country. People who latch onto the belief that one side or the other is entirely good and "right" and that the other is evil and/or immoral have missed the point entirely. Usually because they can't really grasp what's going on around them.

The fact that some of these idiots can vote scares me silly. But that's America baby. You gotta want it bad.

Have fun.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top