Skip to comments.This above all (to understand Rush Limbaugh is to understand America)
Posted on 06/11/2002 8:49:34 PM PDT by TLBSHOWEdited on 07/12/2004 3:54:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Shakespeare passage that begins with the words "This above all" comes from Hamlet. Polonius, that "most secret" councillor, gives advice to his son, about to depart for a longer stay abroad. The three words entered my consciousness around the age of 12
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The moderator and / or self-appointed know-it-alls around here may yank this thread.
They'll tell you it was previously posted.
I can assure you that I also posted it, earlier today, AFTER I DID A SEARCH for it, which FR engine returned NOTHING!
So don't be too alarmed if the Department of FR-Land Security swoops down upon your narrow shoulders.
I perceive annoyance in your post here to which I am responding, but dang if I can find the cause.
I agree that the search engine doesn't find any of these posts - my guess would be that there is a filter for common words, and the phrase "This above all" being all common words falls through the cracks.
He definitely has been a force for good in the political realm. He also, like any human being, isn't above correction himself and shouldn't be let off the hook when he is in error.
He will launch into ecstasies of indignation over things of which he has little more than a superficial knowledge and understanding.
Two cases in point were the NY Times article about the EPA's report on global warming and the Washington Post article about the supposed opposition of the military chiefs to an attack on Iraq.
Both articles were misrepresentions to one extent or another but Rush swallowed them hook, line and sinker and used them as springboards to launch rhetorical assaults on the Bush administration.
As a perceptive commentator on contemporary America, Rush is a has-been.
But what incorrect assumption did Tom make? All he said was it was posted before, and it was, just where he referenced.
hmmm... In the case of Iraq, I think the jury is out on that one. We'll see soon enough if they are going to do anything of substance. In the case of the EPA report, Bush should have known this report was coming out. (This process of releasing EPA BS started with his dad...) He let klintonoids pull a fast one on him, and he denied it when he faced criticism. He even claimed he read it. He didn't. Which one is sticking to one's principles? This was a disaster on many levels. He wanted to play the middle, but all he ended up doing was p!$$ing everyone off. Conservatives are angry, because he supports enviro wacko lies, and liberals are just as mad at him as they were before. They may be stupid, but they know a half-hearted attempt at A$$ kissing when they see one. My own Wacko-greenie aunt still hates him, but the diference is that NOW she thinks this global warming crap is truer than ever!
From NewsMax.com---Monday, June 10, 2002 Fleischer: Bush Didn't Read 'Global Warming' Report White House press secretary Ari Fleischer says President Bush didn't read his Environmental Protection Agency's 268-page report on the theory of "global warming", even if he said he did
The president's spokesman then jested that his candor could cost him his job. "I've enjoyed working here, thank you," Fleischer said today.
Fleischer was asked at his daily briefing about Bush's comments that he'd read the report.
"Whenever presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed," Fleischer said. The reporters laughed and clapped.
When Bush was asked about it last week, he dismissively said, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."
You wish.No, I know!
I used to listen to Rush religiously every day.
Now the conservative radio commentator whom I try to listen to regularly is Michael Medved.
I am constanly learning new things about the goings on in America and the world from him.
But not from Rush.
For some time he has been regurgitating the same old rhetoric about the same old subjects ad nauseam like a broken record.
Today again Rush said that his show was about the stuff he's interested in.
Well, my interests have moved on since 9/11 and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Unless he changes his ways Rush will become incersaingly marginalized and he won't have a clue why.
I don't have the luxury of listening to Rush for three hours a day. When I drive to and from lunch I tune him in, and I still enjoy him immensely in small doses.
Wow. Rush shows up the year Ronald Reagan leaves office, and he "saves Conservatism." What happened to it that it needed saving?
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.