Posted on 11/17/2011 10:04:23 AM PST by servo1969
It was surprising to hear Rush Limbaugh say the words, “I don’t have the guts to bring it up,” but he did, on November 8th, to his massive radio audience.
Rush Limbaugh lacking the guts to address something publicly? Rush Limbaugh not willing to tackle controversy? Really?
He was responding to a statement by a caller named Lawrence as they discussed Joe Paterno and the scandal at Penn State.
CALLER: “What’s that?”
RUSH: “Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it, and that's all I'll say. If you can figure it out on your own, fine and dandy. . . .”
What was Rush talking about?
Let’s put this in context. If there is any prominent figure in America who does not bow down to political correctness or media pressure, it is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, he’s on record as saying that when people try to silence you, you should shout louder.
-snip-
What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is “glaring; it's right in front of everybody,” and yet “Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it”?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
>> Rush is a big picture kind of person. He doesn’t discuss so much the individual brushstrokes. Gay issues are but a brushstroke on the larger picture of liberalism. >>
Indeed, well stated. And in his big picture, he is always tying in the political correctness of the gay lobby, the feminist movement and the race pimp industry, and how it effects the whole dynamic in the country. To him, that is the most important part of those movements and the most interesting part to talk about.
We have an entire religious broadcast industry that focuses almost exclusively on the social political issues when they talk politics. Thank God not everyone stresses the same things all the time.
You know, there was a wrestling promoter many many years ago, down south (and not Vince McMahon or Ted Turner), I think his name was Jim Barnett or something.
Story was, him, and Rock Hudson (who was a close friend of his), would plow booze and drugs into some of the University of Kentucky college football players, and then have sex with/rape and blackmail them.
This was way back in probably the 60's, during the National Wrestling Alliance territory days. There was a few stories, that have popped up, of other men being involved in taking advantage of those kids.
Its considered wrestling gossip, but its been told by so many different folks who knew people there and were around in that area, that I think its pretty likely, especially in light of what happened with that promoter later on.
Look it up, I think it eventually wound up in a few books, I'm wondering if this isn't the same thing happening all over again, but with younger children and a few different details.
In my uninformed opinion he meant
The Gay Mafia.
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/the-power-gays-of-new-york/
http://www.observer.com/2011/06/new-yorks-new-power-gays-the-top-50/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/gay-power-the-pink-list-406297.html
But I’m not sure. Rush spoke without so much as a clue to those outside his skull.
Folks should consider the fact that some politicians and ruling elite types aren't evil in word and deed as a character flaw, they are that way because they are practicing satanists. You do not need to believe in that stuff, just know that some of them DO.
So, people ask him why he doesn't run for political office, he's being BLACKMAILED.
My suspicions are that Paterno was being BLACKMAILED too, what other reasons did he have to grant Sandusky access to everything on the campus, Second Mile and all the young boys Sandusky could eat and destroy. All taking place at an idyllic place they all call Happy Valley; Amazing!
Read Joe Farah’s column today, and I think you’ll understand what Rush was alluding to. Bob
Bullshit.
He was talking about it today.
He talked about Franco Harris being fired.
It’s not just Europe. In Hawaii the age of consent was 14 until 2001.
The democrat legislature voted to override democrat Governor Cayetano’s veto of a bill that would have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Cayetano became the first Hawaiian governor since Hawaii statehood to suffer a veto override.
Is Rush still inexplicably pushing the narrative that Paterno was fired because of his age?
The elite have taken the homosexual grooming of boys mainstream - everywhere in American life. This has a purpose.
You win, next topic.
—
Do I get a golden mic 8-?
a soylent cracker garlic dip is in order..
with a shot or two of 2ifbytea as a chaser. :-]
now I understand how OmegaMan felt..
surrounded by blood sucking flesh-eating zombies..
his future and mankind’s unknown..
(drink)
I haven’t heard him in a few years, but listened regularly and often for many, many years. Unless he’s totally changed, he always avoided the entire homosexual agenda topic A-Z except for a few comic comments which became increasingly rare.
You say he was “talking about it”. What is “it”? Has even mentioned the word homosexual? Or does he still say “gay”? Did he say the rapes were homosexual rapes?
Unless someone can prove me wrong, I still assert that Rush either avoids totally, or treads very very lightly on the entire homosexual agenda topic. The fact that our country is now being ruled by an elite that favors and covers for homosexual sodomy and pederasty is ignored by almost all “conservative” talkpeople. And politicians.
They’re cowards or complicit.
I’ve run or helped run the Homosexual agenda ping list for almost 10 years on FR and I know what the agenda is doing to the country. They can’t be that ignorant that they just don’t know what I know.
I don’t think it makes HIM less conservative, I merely pointed out that the SUBJECTS he tackles are more Republican.
>> I don’t think it makes HIM less conservative, I merely pointed out that the SUBJECTS he tackles are more Republican. >>
Respectfully I disagree. I totally disagree that the social issues are MORE conservative and the non social issues are MORE Republican per se. This comes and goes with the times to a degree, but in the season of the tea party - the key conservative movement of the moment - the priority issues are not the social issues. In the season of the culture war, the reverse was true.
One last try :)
The subjects he deals with are (how’s this?) more traditional Republican subjects of good government, tough on crime, low taxes, etc.
He treats them from a conservative point of view.
The social issues are what revitalized the conservative movement in the post-Carter era, and those are specifically conservative issues.
I compare it to a businessman being elected to office. He’s still a politician, but he’s bringing a business point of view to politics.
This doesn’t mean the Republican issues aren’t also conservative ones—they are, and formed the foundation for the conservative Republican revival under Reagan.
But Limbaugh tackles those issues which have been traditionally Republican ones, from the point of view of a conservative who’s moved into the party. (Note he has had ‘trial separations’ from the Republican party, never from the conservative movement.)
If that doesn’t clear it up, well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Take care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.