Jerk Of The Day 6/25/08 Rush Limbaugh

Discussion in 'Hero and Jerk of the Day' started by ChenZhen, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. brian.ingram

    brian.ingram Sacrifice more than golf!

    Wow! That's one well protected driver! I mean, what with two airbags up front and one in the back. . . .:D
  2. mparrish

    mparrish Rosie the Riveter Redux

    Like liberals, conservatives come in many stripes. Traditional conservatives live within their means, provide endowments for future generations, and avoid profligacy. More extreme libertarian conservatives are more likely to "believe in the freedom to live however I choose without any interest of the potential consequences."

    Rush is the latter. We have a lot of the former here at CleanMPG.

    As a demographic, Rush listeners are more likely to be hard working middle class types who are struggling with fuel costs. If I were a listener & ditto head, I'd be pissed at the elitism. "Of course you can do what you want. You're a millionaire. How 'bout some compassion for your listeners?" That's what I'd think.

    Boasting fuel inefficiency seems like the wrong angle for him to play. He should just bash OPEC & environmentalists and be done with it. Maybe he just can't afford to acknowledge the solution no matter who he blames. If the solution is fuel efficiency, it's a short hop to "Hollywood Prius liberals". So it's embracing FSPs full stop all in the name of his political radio games! Good luck with that Rush.
  3. Shiba3420

    Shiba3420 Well-Known Member

    You should re-read the entire thing carefully understanding the following. I enjoyed studying philosophy and it creates a certain mind set...for a bit of logic to be correct/true, it has to hold up at the extremes.

    The gun concept is an example of his logic taken to an extreme, and clearly we see it doens't hold up. There is only one thing that would make the comparision incorrect, if you don't belive that wasteful driving is bad for all of us. If you don't, my counter to his logic isn't correct. If you agree that excess polution is bad, then the doing violent things because you can afford violent things is the natual, extreme extention...its a far reach, but since it doesn't hold up, it invalidates his idea; Which is the whole point.
  4. Vooch

    Vooch Well-Known Member

    the problem with Rush'es position is that Gasoline production is so heavily subsidized.

    If the FSP's paid the full cost of a price of gas - I'd say more power to 'em
  5. lamebums

    lamebums Member

    Hi Vooch--

    I think you may have gasoline and ethanol confused in terms of subsidies? The tax breaks given to the oil companies amount to $17 billion which is less than two percent of their entire operating fund and the prices at the pump.

    Ethanol on the other hand is subsidized at the pump to the tune of $1.50 per gallon. :mad:
  6. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    Subsidies are probably only a small part of the costs he's talking about. Be careful with your economics. There are substantial external costs (e.g. pollution) involved in the consumption and production of gasoline that individuals impose on society.
    (RIP my old friend/boss Leo Hurwicz)

    Frankly, I see the recent Rush comments mainly as a case of "a fool and his money are soon parted," but that Rush already won the jerk lifetime achievement award when he used his show to pick on 13 year old Chelsea Clinton.
  7. 98CRV

    98CRV Well-Known Member

    Rush is number one in talk radio for a reason: he knows what he is doing. To claim that he is an idiot is to play the game in his wheelhouse. He doesn't care if some people can't stand him; he gets the publicity when they utter his name with contempt. He doesn't care about the contempt part, just utter his name.

    He has the money to drive a car/truck that gets 12 mpg. That is a legal activity. Shooting somebody is not a legal activity, so linking his act with assault/murder is illogical unless some form of compulsory collectivism is your issue, something I don't like.

    I am glad Rush expressed his opinion; it isn't mine, but that's ok. He's not trying to control my life, and I have no business trying to control his.
  8. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    Last I checked, Rush is making about $25M annually...if I'm off a couple of million I think we can say he is set for life. ;)

    There are many things legal that are unwise or immoral. From Rush's electronic soapbox, he has lots of influence.

    My background: Voted GOP in every general election from 1976-2004. Also an energy conservative, also a moral conservative, so I'm disappointed with his prescription drug abuse after blasting jocks for doing the same.

    I don't agree with Jimmy Carter on many things, but the energy crisis IS "the moral equivalent of war" and he are heading for an energy Pearl Harbor....conservatives like James Woolsey agree.

    For Rush to tell 20 million listeners daily energy will always be plentiful is not much different that various Americans that tried to keep us out of WWII until we were alone - endangering our way of life. Sorry I bordered on Godwin's Law. This is anything but patriotic.

    Did not mean to get this political.
  9. sailordave

    sailordave Well-Known Member

    In my opinion, he has no more influence on people's personal choices than individuals in the music industry. He's on the radio where people can only hear his voice and opinions. Rappers have music videos where they show their "rides" that are usually horrible gas guzzlers even without the nearly 1,000 lbs of extra weight from stereo equipment, rims, LCD monitors, and whatever "pimping" junk they decide to throw in. Their listeners or viewers then go out and try to customize their car to get the right look like their rap idols, things that reduce the mpg even further. Another influencing source is the movie industry (remember "the fast and the furious"?). Sure you see some actors driving a Prius to a movie premier, but what do they actually drive and how often do they take private jets? Remember John Travolta? His house includes parking spaces for his three private jets. He shows them off on celebrity talk shows. Are you going to label him an idiot of the day as well? How about those spoiled rotten little girls on MTV's "My Sweet 16". Their parents give in to their lil angel's demands for high dollar Mercedes or BMW of the V8 or V12 variety and they still get angry because it isn't the right color. Oh, and yes, GM is a sponsor of Hannity's radio show. They give him and Rush GM vehicles to drive and report on their experience with the vehicle on their radio show. They admit that they are a sponsor. The fact isn't kept secret from their listeners. Say what you will about Rush and his 12 mpg remark but at least he isn't a hypocrite in this matter, not like so many Hollywood celebrities who preach saving the enviroment, show up to a movie premier in a Prius, and they jet off in a private jet to one of they many mansions that use more energy than 5 private homes combined. Only Hollywood celebrity that isn't a hypocrit when it comes to saving energy is Ed Begley Jr. He's a nut but at least he practices what he preaches and for that I respect him.
  10. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    Travolta ...Jerk of the Day...I'll keep that in mind.

    One thing you have to keep in mind when you're watching trash TV is that you are supposed to be aghast at how screwed up and unhappy people are in spite of all their advantages. Some people may choose the "My Sweet 16" girls as role models, but I think most people watch them so they can feel superior in about the same way that they feel superior to the shirtless drunks that always appear on "Cops."

    In contrast, I don't think most Limbaugh listeners feel superior to him though he does seem to be pretty screwed up (divorces, drug addictions, general bitterness) in spite of all his success.
  11. chief302

    chief302 Well-Known Member

    I would argue that the external costs of overindulging in booze and strippers is much higher than wasting fuel.
  12. chief302

    chief302 Well-Known Member

    It has been a while since my logic class, but equating excess consumption and committing murder has to be some sort of fallacy. Perhaps continuum or slippery slope? One is a legal act and the other is illegal. I would consider both to be unethical and arguably immoral, however.

    I think you were originally trying to refute Rush's premise that since he is rich he can "waste" fuel. I don't know if you can logically refute it since technically he mostly likely has the legal and financial means to drive whatever vehicle he chooses. The argument then becomes: Is he an unethical or immoral person because of those statements?
  13. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    Sometimes booze and wasting fuel go together....last night I passe a wrecked vehicle that suggested reckless driving.

    I'll agree in all those cases it's not being responsible.

Share This Page