Rush Limbaugh quotes (Cut N Pasted , but organized by me)

[the-dude]

LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

LIMBAUGH: "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

LIMBAUGH: "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (Told You So, p. 68)

LIMBAUGH: "The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

LIMBAUGH: "Anytime the illegitimacy rate in black America is raised, Rev. Jackson and other black 'leaders' immediately change the subject." (Ought to Be, p. 225)

LIMBAUGH: Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." (TV show, 9/1/93)

LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135)

LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)

LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written." (Radio show, 2/18/94)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to be "fair and balanced", I'm not going to post any rebuttals to or support of any of these. Its all you. Do your worst. I'm expecting one of the conservatives to do a Michael Moore equivalent.

[Necromancer]

If some one said that was very funny, I'd say "ditto."

[back2vinyl]

I wish I could make his kind of money spouting off shit in a stream of consciousness on AM radio.

[JSpaceman]

Originally posted by back2vinyl
I wish I could make his kind of money spouting off shit in a stream of consciousness on AM radio. Or would that be a stream of UNconsciousness?

[back2vinyl]

Originally posted by JSpaceman
Or would that be a stream of UNconsciousness?

I would call the show "Stuff I wish was true". Callers can say anything they want as long as they don't disagree with me. The most argumentative thing any of my guests are allowed to say is "Gee, I didn't know that."

[PeterABnny]

Oh, my God, I just realized... Don't you see?! Ianalex is actually Rush Limbaugh!!! Word for word, that is EXACLTLY the kind of dumb-ass rubbish that Ianalex would say! We have a celebrity on the boards! :eek:

[the-dude]

Rush Limbaugh has this to say about Cobain:"...Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris, who had been trying to kill himself for 12 years, and finally did it right, by using a shotgun, so he couldn't miss..."

[tobedawg]

Wow!! A junkie talking smack about another junkie...

Maybe he was jealous because Kurt got better drugs?

[beezlebob]

Way back in the 90's FAIR (http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html) did a thing called The Way Things Aren't:Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html) where they compile a bunch of half-truths and lies that he said on the air. Rush then sort of responds (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-response.html) and then to FAIR responds to that. (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/fair-limbaugh-rebuttal.html)

They call him out on a lot of stuff even he cannot defend. It's amazing to me that he has any following. It's a good read.

[akip]

Originally posted by beezlebob
It's amazing to me that he has any following.


cement-heads like company.

[jps]

If I threw up right now, what came out of my mouth would be more intelligent than anything attributed to Limbaugh in the above quotes.

I am very interested if anyone could shed light on the acreage of forest land... or any of them for that matter.
And the "worthless shred of human debris..." comment. Well, maybe in part it is my age and my feelings about the music and movement that happend when nirvana first broke and then when Cobain died, but that makes me wanna go take a dump on Limbaugh's microphone... and it kind of makes me want to cry that someone could be so out of touch.
Anyone else remember in the '92 campaign when George H.W. Bush was amazed by the scanning equipment at the supermarket checkout? How do you get so out of touch?!?!

[Marlowe]

When forest fires start, we fight them to mitigate damage, whereas before, fires would run unchecked and destroy millions of acres of forest. I don't know if there are more or fewer trees now than then, but I also wouldn't dismiss the statement out of hand just because it sounds implausible at first blush.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
When forest fires start, we fight them to mitigate damage, whereas before, fires would run unchecked and destroy millions of acres of forest. I don't know if there are more or fewer trees now than then, but I also wouldn't dismiss the statement out of hand just because it sounds implausible at first blush. at what point would u dismiss it?

& yes, I'm askin what point you would...

[JSpaceman]

Originally posted by jps

Anyone else remember in the '92 campaign when George H.W. Bush was amazed by the scanning equipment at the supermarket checkout? How do you get so out of touch?!?! I don't remember it, but it sounds hilarious... and sad...

[Phreon]

I'd like to know the context of those quotes. They don't mean much without.

Phreon

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by Phreon
I'd like to know the context of those quotes. They don't mean much without.

Phreon

If you go and read the FAIR article on Rush that I posted that has most of these quotes, all will be revealed.

For example, on the issue of the forests:

LIMBAUGH: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?"

FAIR: "In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million acres today."

LIMBAUGH response: Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition.

"According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres -- six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting -- were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco-Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23

FAIR's response to Rush: Limbaugh's rebuttal is a lengthy dodge, which compares the amount of forest land in the U.S. today to that in 1920. But the Constitution was written in 1787, not 1920.

and on feminism:

10. Feminism
"Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along," Limbaugh said.

FAIR pointed out that before feminism, women couldn't even vote -- since feminism "came along" in the 19th Century. "I was referring to contemporary militant feminism," Limbaugh now amends.

But that is not what he said -- and "Words mean things," as Limbaugh proclaims in his "35 Undeniable Truths of Life".

[the-dude]

Originally posted by Phreon
I'd like to know the context of those quotes. They don't mean much without.

Phreon
Go through the entire FAIR article, Rush's rebuttal, then fairs rebuttal and decide for yourself.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
When forest fires start, we fight them to mitigate damage, whereas before, fires would run unchecked and destroy millions of acres of forest. I don't know if there are more or fewer trees now than then, but I also wouldn't dismiss the statement out of hand just because it sounds implausible at first blush.

Forest fires are a natural part of the forest cycle and are necessary for a forest to be healthy.

[back2vinyl]

Another thing to consider is what kind of trees we have now. Gobs of loblolly pine as far as the eye can see in the piedmont region. I think we had a lot more variety in the 1700's, but the appalachian forests were mostly chopped down by 1900 or so.

We're doing a lot better than we were 80 years ago, but pulp trees planted by the lumber industry isn't quite the same thing as an old growth forest.

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by yoshomon
Forest fires are a natural part of the forest cycle and are necessary for a forest to be healthy.
Exactly, which is also why it's so important to log the forests and re-plant new-growth trees. Nice to see we finally agree on something.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Exactly, which is also why it's so important to log the forests and re-plant new-growth trees. Nice to see we finally agree on something. loggin & replantin is not the same as fire.

there r some trees that actually germinate bettr after fire. As well as the soil-changes, etc. etc....

Beyond that, we got the replantin into "farms" where we pick what we grow instead of letting nature.

I kno u weren't really agreein/w Yosh, but I figgerd I'd answer.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Exactly, which is also why it's so important to log the forests and re-plant new-growth trees. Nice to see we finally agree on something.

No. Old growth trees survive forest fires. Old growth forests are beautiful, diverse bioregions. Replanted forests lack biodiversity and are not the same.

We need to get the fuck out of old growth forests and let the bioregion heal itself after a fire.

[Wolverine]

How does one replace Redwoods or Sequoias? :confused:

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Wolverine
How does one replace Redwoods or Sequoias? :confused: by replanting them, after cutting them down, every 2 years... right?

or they gonna need more time? *rimshot*

besides, they only provide less than 1% of the oxygen & a habitat for less than 1% of the species of the world, so if they'r gone we only lose 1% of either.

Sounds like those 2 things we could live w/o... while the other sounds like they'r on their way out anyway.

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by yoshomon
No. Old growth trees survive forest fires. Old growth forests are beautiful, diverse bioregions. Replanted forests lack biodiversity and are not the same.

We need to get the fuck out of old growth forests and let the bioregion heal itself after a fire.
Young, growing trees produce more oxygen than old trees, which is all the more reason to harvest and re-plant.

We already protect gigantic swaths of this country's winderness from logging and significant changes. And that's cool. But, there's nothing wrong with logging, in and of itself, especially the modern-day efficient kind in which more trees are planted than felled.

[yoshomon]

Have you ever spent time in an old growth forest? These forests cannot be replaced and will not grow back in our lifetimes. When it comes to these forests, I could give a shit about efficiency, progress, or profit.

So here's a toast to the night
Three cheers and a grunt
(hey hey hey!)
To the Earth Liberation Front!

[PeterABnny]

When Yosh says that new growth forest doesn't have the same biodiversity of old growth, I can believe that. But does it have to have all the original biodiversity to be considered healthy? Mt. Airy Forest can be considered new growth, can't it? Up until 1913 it was open farmland. It seems to be doing very well for itself...

[yoshomon]

Old Growth Forest is a complete biological ecosystem and a very special and rare treasure. It contains large beautiful trees, young saplings, ferns, orchids etc as well as amoebas, bacteria's, worms, beetles, possums, Infact a myriad of living entities and most of them never studied.

It takes many centuries for a forest to reach the delicate balance required for all of it's species to live in equilibrium with each other. Once this stage is reached, an event like a tree falling or a big wind storm will not be totally disastrous to the forest as it's own rescue procedures are in place.

Human interference with the use of machines can be disastrous and makes us quite capable of removing an entire species from an area. Unbeknownst to us, that particular species may be crucial in the healing of the forest from a once in a century event. It may be the habitat (home) for an animal which has to eat a particular seed to break down it's husk and grow in it's scat to shade another particular tree until it is strong enough to handle direct sunlight.

Logging practices like clearfell and burn remove not only all vegetation but bacteria's and mosses which can take lifetimes to establish.

[back2vinyl]

Originally posted by Wolverine
How does one replace Redwoods or Sequoias? :confused:

Plant a tree. Put everyone on space ship. Travel at near light speed for a few minutes. Bam! When you get back, the tree will be fully grown! Problem solved!