Mr. Limbaugh describes "liberals" like me as unpatriotic, soft of terrorism, soft on crime, gutless, lacking in character, stupid and/or ill-intentioned.
I confess to being none of those things. I am a God-fearing patriotic American, an Eagle Scout, a faithful husband and dad and a successful entrepreneur who, thanks to the American dream, is in the top 1 percent of the population economically (and no I don't need a tax cut).Yet five days a week, three hours a day, Limbaugh hammers away at "folks like" me in these terms and worse.

I am not repeating "outright lies." These are the things he says for a living, and I'd defy you to find a day in which he is not attacking Americans, like me, who commit
the crime of not sharing his political philosophy (as if it were the Truth and all other points of view are not only wrong, but sinister). Frankly, I can't imagine you would want to patronize the business of someone who did that sort of thing to you every day, and was continuing to do so. I don't.

This is why I was happy to say that as a season-ticket holder of the Rams since they arrived in St. Louis in 1995, I would never attend nor watch anothergame if Limbaugh became a publicly notable owner. I did nothing to slander him or misquote him. I did not mention race.

Certainly as a fellow capitalist, you can't object to the notion of exercising one's right to vote with his pocketbook in the free-enterprise system.
Rush suggested taking the very same kind of stepnot long ago when he urged his listeners to boycott General Motors. He reasoned that to buy cars from the company wouldbe to support the policies of President Obama. Again, this is not a lie, it's a fact.

If you're like most of Rush's loyal followers, you will probably ignore this, because it represents a perspective you simply aren't ever able to consider. In Rush's world, there are no liberals who also can claim -- as I have, accurately -- to be patriotic and successful and moral, and the like. When have you ever heard him concede any good in his political opposition. (He couldn't bring himself to say ONE nice thing about President Obama when asked recently on a Today show interview).

If you do take the time to respond, please react to the specifics of what I have written, rather than angrily telling me where I can stick it.

I did note that, unlike virtually every other person who has responded to me about Rush, you were civil and not profane. That was a nice change.

Thanks.

Gee, these arguments sound familiar. What a coincidence: This just happens to be the nonsense that Rush Limbaugh spews in his defense (most recently
on the Today show) whenever he's under attack. Imagine that. You and he just happened to come to the same independent conclusion. Or not.

I'd be delighted to debate him (or you, which is the say) on the substance of any his arguments. He's wrong about the idea that fighting endless, pointless wars is
a more effective way to protect America than using exerting our power through diplomacy. He's wrong in saying that global climate change need not be taken seriously. He's wrong in his "pro-life" views, which completely contradict the whole notion of less government ("pro-life" meaning that nanny-state big government should tell require any girl or woman who is pregnant to take that pregnancy to childbirth, regardless of her religious views about the beginning of life). He's wrong in attackingaffirmative action programs, which do not provide special treatment for people, but rather level the playing field in a nation that has -- since its inception -- givenwhite males (like me) a leg up in education, business and in many other areas.

And I certainly would love to debate about tax policy. The progressive income tax -- enacted under FDR -- is NOT socialism. Under this tax, America has seen millions of people amass great fortunes over many decades (I'm actually an entrepreneur who has done quite well myself and paid handsome capital-gains taxes when I sold my company years ago). The highest tax rate proposed by President Obama on the rich (myself included) would merely return it to where it was during Reagan's years, and it would be a fraction of what it was under, say, Richard Nixon, who wasn't Lib Socialist the last time I checked. Tax policy is actually a pretty complex thing that deserves serious debate, but I've never seen Rush put himself in a position where anyone who understands its complexity could debate him one-on-one. So much for no one "refuting the message."

One other thing: I don't need you to pay my bills. I pay them myself, with good credit.

Some very interesting points. And I certainly didn't mean to characterize your viewpoint as crude. I was referring to the name-calling, profane posters, but
as you point out, was descending into my own name-calling in the process.

I grew up in a very conservative household in which Barry Goldwater was held in high esteem. Indeed, even as a liberal, I admired him until his death. I would submit that his brand of conservatism was REALLY about less government in our lives, which is why he was openly pro-choice on abortion, for example. Today's "conservatives" make a giant exception to their "limited government" principles in insisting that the federal and/or state government should mandate childbirth (an unfunded mandate, by the way) for every woman or girl in America who becomes pregnant, regardless of her circumstance (in the name of "life).

Also, the notion that conservatives want less government when it comes to private enterprise is absurd. The captain of industry -- largely conservative, largely Republican -- expect tax breaks and safety nets for everything they do. Practically every major development in the country seeks TIF's or some other form of support from the government. Every state in the nation -- and virtually all major cities -- have economic development and tourism departments that exist solely to help the private sector make more money. I was a state tourism commissioner. I know. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Nor could the founders have envisioned anything like the strangehold that the insurance industry has on America's disgraceful health-care system. We'll agree to disagree on that one, for now. Limbaugh as a great thinker? I think not, although I admire his talent as a broadcaster. He's a fine entertainer, which by his own assertions, has always been his top priority.

As for the phrase "tea baggers," I'm pretty sure it came (albeit unknowingly) from the Tea Party organizers themselves. They gave themselves that unfortunate label.

One last thought: I'm no apologist for Washington, but it's not a foreign entity. No one of either party will admit it, but Washington is what you get when America holds up a mirror.

I love how the NFL has become a "leftist liberal racist organization." Go to any NFL game and you'll be treated to patriotic displays of support for the military -- in St. Louis, military contractor Boeing actually sponsors the national anthem. Not so liberal. We've heard a lot of words used to describe the monopolist captains of industry who own the 32 NFL franchises. Until today, "liberal" wasn't one of them. Also, I believe all 32 teams are majority-owned by whites and the large majority of team executives are white. I bet it's news to black players that they haven't suddenly taken charge of the league. As to the victimization of Rush through verbal criticism: Aren't paybacks hell?

Thanks for the first intelligent response -- without name-calling or profanity -- that I've received. It's refreshing.

Good for you that you would support a team owned by Sharpton or Moore. You're more magnanimous than I.

I have been a Rams season-ticket holder since they moved to St. Louis in 1995 and I attended both Super Bowls we played in. Call me petty,
but I could not in good conscience support this team -- even if it went to another Super Bowl -- with a publicly touted owner like Limbaugh who, on a daily basis, questions the patriotism, character, good intentions and intelligence of liberals like me. I have great respect for people like George Will, David Brooks and the like, who present arguments with passion and intelligence, but without mean-spiritedness. It can be done. I know, because I'm a liberal in the media and in the public eye. And I am dear friends -- like family -- with the conservatives I debate publicly.

I'm not sure there's an equivalent figure to Limbaugh on the left, not even Keith Olbermann. For a liberal to mirror what Rush does, he or she would say things like:
"Conservatives are racists!" "Conservative hate the poor!" or "Conservatives love war and slaughtering innocents." There may be some liberals who say such
things about particular people on particular issues, but I know of no one who lumps all conservatives together and slanders them as a group the way Limbaugh (and Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, in his footsteps) do.

My problem with Limbaugh isn't with conservatism (which I don't believe he represents) nor is it with past statements or sound bites that are politically incorrect.
It's not with his positions or statements on race. I object to the poisonous tone he has fostered in America -- as reflected in about 95 percent of the posts on Breitbart (yours being a notable exception) -- and yes, I believe Limbaugh is without question the most effectively divisive figure in contemporary American society, bar none.
He can't get a president elected, or even unelected, but he can -- and has -- affected the very tone of political discourse in this country.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks for the first intelligent response -- without name-calling or profanity -- that I've received. It's refreshing.

Good for you that you would support a team owned by Sharpton or Moore. You're more magnanimous than I.

I have been a Rams season-ticket holder since they moved to St. Louis in 1995 and I attended both Super Bowls we played in. Call me petty,
but I could not in good conscience support this team -- even if it went to another Super Bowl -- with a publicly touted owner like Limbaugh who, on a daily basis, questions the patriotism, character, good intentions and intelligence of liberals like me. Sorry, but I couldn't.

I'm not sure there's an equivalent figure on the left, not even Keith Olbermann. For a liberal to mirror what Rush does, he or she would say things like:
"Conservatives are racists!" "Conservative hate the poor!" or "Conservatives love war and slaughtering innocents." There may be some liberals who say such
things about particular people on particular issues, but I know of no one who lumps all conservatives together and slanders them as a group the way Limbaugh (and Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, in his footsteps) do.

One other note: Please define "Washington." I don't know if you've been there, but a little known fact -- ignored by Republican and Democratic politicians alike -- is that the federal government is actually staffed by real-life humans who have children and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and houses or apartments and medical bills and grocery bills just like any other "real" American like me who lives in the Midwest. They would have to bear the same consequences of "destroying" our free-enterprise system as anyone else. I don't think that's what "Washington" wants to do.

It's sad that the likes of Rush Limbaugh have so many well-intended viewing the world in such crude terms.

No one opposed Limbaugh's "right" to purchase a team. We who don't care for him did precisely what you said who would do in the case of someone you
found distasteful: We let the NFL know we "wouldn't support their team."

I'm a Rams season-ticketholder, and have been since they moved to St. Louis, and that's how I felt. I would simply vote with my pocketbook against Limbaugh, who attacks the patriotism, courage, honesty, good intentions and intelligence of liberals like me every day -- to millions, for millions.

I'm all for his "right" to buy a team, just as I'd fight to the death (as a patriotic American) for his right to free speech on the radio to insult people like me.

As for conservatives not having "whine-fests," have you heard about the tea-bagger movement and the fabrications about "death panels?"

Nice name-calling. But this isn't about Sharpton and Jackson. It's about Rush Limbaugh and his record of attacking people like me.

I'm white. I'm not opposed to Limbaugh on racial grounds.

I think he's mean-spirited and wrong on most issues, and I think the way people such as yourself respond to arguments which rants about
liberal demons -- instead of actually addressing arguments head on and respectfully -- is a result of the influence of people like Limbaugh.
It didn't used to be this vile in America.

Too bad.

I'm still waiting for the first response that doesn't sink to name-calling "leftist nitwits of the media" (of which I am one, by the way).

Rush has ABSOLUTELY no libel action, and he knows it, and it will be proven by the fact that he will sue no one. Period. If you don't believe me, do
a little research on libel-and-slander laws, which by the way protect Mr. Limbaugh every day. The proof that I'm right will come when he files no lawsuit.

Congratulations for exercising your freedom as a consumer by canceling your Giants' tickets, and thanks for being honest in saying that you wouldn't
support a team owned by a guy you found despicable.

Can you explain to me why I don't have the same rights when it comes to Limbaugh, a man who has made millions b daily questioning the patriotism, character, good
intentions and intelligence of liberals like me?

"I have better things to do with my money" than support an enterprise in which Rush Limbaugh is a public partner.

Why does that make me a nitwit?

Comrade?

Guess you can't debate without the obligatory insult-hurling and name-calling.

For the record, I'm a capitalist, not a communist, and I've done quite well financially thank to our free-enterprise system. Yes I'm a liberal, but am also
a God-fearing Eagle Scout and a patriotic American who voted for President Obama. I don't drink anyone's Kool-Aid. Imagine that.

As to documenting Rush's insults to liberals, are you kidding? I read his transcripts almost every day. It would be hard to find a day in which he does NOT
question the patriotism, sincerity, character, good intentions and intelligence of liberals. And he attacks liberals as a group, as if we all think the same on every issue and come from the same backgrounds, etc, etc. We do not.

As to squashing opinions, I'd fight to the death for Rush's right to say whatever he wants on the radio, and for his right to own an NFL team. But I have rights, too.
And if he owned a football team in my town, I'd be a former fan, voting with my pocketbook against him. Is that not my right?