Not sure about it. While Tallens's edit is way overstating its case, the page is focusing on his show and his opinions. What are the in-show reasons for his belief?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
He says God is too good to allow global warming to exist or something along those lines.
Deleted these lines for being too opinion-based:
- He's had four wives and no kids. Yet when a woman argues in favor of private organizations carrying contraception coverage, he calls her a "slut."
- Soon after Barack Obama openly announced his position on gay marriage, Limbaugh said Obama was spearheading a "war on traditional marriage". A man who's been divorced three times wants to talk about traditional marriage.
If I remember correctly, Fluke was demanding more than simple contraception coverage
.
Also, here's a line to add to the YMMV section once it gets made:
- Moral Event Horizon: About once a year there's some statement or another he makes that causes his opponents to say Rush has crossed this line "for good this time", often trying to imply said statement will cause him to lose his relevance. The latest in the long string of yearly supposed crossings of this line is the Sandra Fluke controversy.
@Severen LOL Reason.com as a source. Let me guess is free market the cure to this societal ill as well (if it isn't already) and the big bad gub'mint will just make it worst?
I've been looking at former posts in the discussion, and anything that mentions the incident I posted about have started edit wars and been deleted. I pull it from the front page and bring it here for tweaking.
Slut Shaming: He called Sandra Fluke a prostitute when she spoke on a panel about the birth control vs. religious freedom debate in which she spoke on behalf of a friend who had ovarian cysts.When people were upset by this he gave a rather creepy response. "So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." He has since apologized.
I agree with past posters that this page isn't neutral at all. If I had gone to listen to Limbaugh after reading this I would have turned on the radio expecting to hear about all the cute kitties he's saved and adorable little fuzzballs (tribbles?) Rush utilizes Refuge in audacity and vulgarity, and it should probably be acknowledged somewhere that he's said some pretty offensive things.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah... huh. Weird, most pages on this site are definitely left-leaning but this one seems to be overly... soft. I mean, honestly it seems softer than the image that he's intentionally trying to cultivate.
Edited by 216.99.32.45 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
this page is not neutral. it glorifies this dude way too much. "set the standard for political talk shows"?? seriously this guy has said some horrible shit and while i am all for being neutral, this is not neutral in the slightest. any edit made for accuracy or to point out something will be edited out ASAP. also, "crowning moment of awesome/funny" thing seriously wasn't awesome or funny. it was an example of his stupidity. i love tvtropes and it saddens me to see shit like this happen.
Hide / Show Replies
Translation: "I don't like Rush."
Seriously, he's got the highest-rated political talk show in the country, and has kept it that way for nearly 20 years. If that's not "setting the standard" what is? Just because you don't agree with him doesn't change that.
As to the Crowning Moment . . . get a life, dude.
"Highest-rated political talk show" by whose standards? Besides, given that every talk radio personality seems to have a divisive, flagrantly confrontational, Strawman Political style no matter what, I don't think Rush having the "highest-rated political talk show" makes him any more immune from the types of criticism he (as well as other talk radio hosts) receives on a regular basis.
Edited by SeanMurrayI
"'Highest-rated political talk show' by whose standards?"
By the amount of listeners and advertising revenue he generates, maybe? Criticize him all you want, but nobody cares whether or not you like him and you're not entitled to your own facts; he's still the biggest fish in his pond and he set the standard that all other radio hosts follow. Suck it up and deal with it. I mean, come on, The Daily Show has an insane number of fans and makes a ton of money, but you don't see me whining about it.
Edited by LexLogic
Um.. The daily show isn't a real talk show.
I know this is late to the discussion but I feel I have to point that out.
Yes, it is. I may be the only one to call bullshit on this, but Jon Stewart only hides behind the "it's just a comedy show!" thing when someone challenges him or points out where he's wrong. Otherwise, Stewart is always dead serious about the political points he makes. It's a classic case of "heads I win, tails you lose." If you're a comedian, stick to comedy; if you want to talk politics, become a pundit. You can't have the best of both.
Edited by LexLogic
(OOOOOOOLD REPLY IS OLD) Look, man, I hate Rush as much as the next guy, but it's indisputable that he's a pretty big name in the talk show business.
This entry is being edit warred over. Given that we don't care about his personal life, it's staying gone.
- He's had four wives and no kids. Yet when a woman argues in favor of private organizations carrying contraception coverage, he calls her a "slut."
I feel there needs to be some mention of his, perhaps woefully uninformed but still ridiculous and offensive nevertheless, defense of the Lord's Resistance Army, the militia in Uganda responsible for abducting children for soldiers and sex slaves among other horrific crimes. Not sure how it could properly be brought up on this page, but it's certainly significant.
Hide / Show Replies
No comments about this? None? With the YMMV deleted, how do you address this?
- Further clarification. He was outspoken against recreational drug users while he himself became addicted to a prescription pain-killer he was given by his doctors after a back surgery.
Felt this was justifying edit.. IMO reasons behind the addiction don't mater. feel free to re-add if it snot agreed.
Started the YMMV page, but did not transfer the Gorbasm entry. Reason being that the entry describes his coining the term to describe other people's debatable reactions to something, not his own. If it were on the page of those "other people" he was describing, then I'd move it to that respective YMMV.
In other words, for this entry, it's not the reader's/listener's mileage that varies, but Rush's. Ergo, I'd like to debate the possibility of applying an In-Universe tag to that entry.
On a side note, did the term Nerdgasm exist before 1992? If not, we could have potential observations of an Unbuilt Trope in Rush's 1st Book The Way Things Ought To Be.
Edited by DonaldthePotholer
So I feel the Kotaku article about him taking the side of video games as being protected by the first amendment should be listed somewhere. It's not Even Evil Has Standards, nor is it Strawman Has a Point. Any ideas?
Hide / Show Replies
Enemy Mine seems to work, since the overwhelming majority of gamers (and tropers, and frequenters of internet discussions in general) are liberal and find themselves agreeing with someone they gleefully hate.
It strikes me as especially funny how many gamers are surpised by Limbaugh's stance. A little due diligence would easily show that he's against most governmental micromanagement of private businesses.
It is absolutely amazing how this article stays neutral...no actually rather positive about Limbaugh.
Hide / Show Replies
BWAAAH!
If I recall, there used to be an "It just bugs me" page about rush, but it was taken down because it was just petty name-calling and bitching.
I TELL YOU HWAT! Hide / Show Replies
Not at all surprised by that.
BTW, I know whoever is working to keep this page neutral must have a full time job on their hands. I just want to say thank you.
I'd like to add on to this. Its a hell of a lot more neutral than a lot of other pieces at least. Pages should show both the weak points and the strong points of something, leaning more towards the strong points.
Put this page on lock it's proving too tempting for whackjobs and conspiracy nuts. That's twice now I've had to revert edits by global warming conspiracy types. I no longer care that this page is neutral whereas Michael Moore's is overtly negative and actually DOES resort to insults (which is what some of the "Rushheads" below me are complaining about, seriously you won the pundit pages no need to be a sore winner) but I don't want for TV Tropes to be a place where pseudoscience is peddled by ultra partisan types.
Edited by 23.242.192.212 Hide / Show Replies