Customer Reviews

See, I Told You So

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

In Rush Limbaugh's second book he does a nice job of pointing out several theories and predictions from the first. Some of the most notable is the press' double standard in handling of democrats and republicans, most notably the sitting President.

This is a fast paced book and thoroughly entertaining and educating to anyone open-minded enough to give it a read.

This is a must read for finding out the truth about a possible Presidential candidate and New York Senate candidate. These are things you will never read in the Liberal media. I have the audio cassettes and have listened to them numerous times and I suggest all true Americans should do the same.

An articulate look at the gaping holes in the liberal philosophy. What Rush says in this book is common sense about family, religion, and society in general. It is good to see someone standing up for moral and ethical behavior, and speaking against the cycle of dependency that liberalism strives for

After reading this book, I decided that I've been too hard on Rush Limbaugh. Although I still remain skeptical of his tone at times, and I think he could have done a better job of citing his sources, I have to admit that his ideological principles are right on the money. I especially like his positive view of America, his emphasis on individualism, his distrust of government, and his knack for expounding the absurdities in liberal ideology. By putting things in understandable terms and adding a dash of entertainment (narcissistic though it may seem at times), I think Rush Limbaugh has helped many Americans understand what has gone so wrong in their country during the past half century. You have to give him credit for that.

I just loved this book. Right on the money. Just give Rush a chance and listen to him. It took years but he broke me of my liberal mindset once I REALLY started to think about things.

So many here simply HATE Rush and call him the hater but I know, I listen everyday, I don't hear any hate, just reality.

The left thrusts all these thoughts upon him claiming he says certain things when he doesn't.

The guy LOVES to P off Dems especially when they don't get the humor.

I think it's pretty low and sick when they mention his drug situation.

AS someone in severe pain from arthritic pain I always have to balance pain with how many pills I have to take with it just to function. Without them I would just lay in bed all day and moan. I don't like to take them at all, they have terrible side effects such as constant itching, but as I said the pain is sometimes simply unbearable for my incurable condition.

So the left shoots low and calls Rush a drug addict because he has severe pain and did his best to deal with it.

The problem with the left is that they LOVE to exaggerate. Some claim he was taking 100 pills a day! Please, lets get real. I have as bad pain as anyone but I can't tolerate more than 2, 3 pills a day and sometimes I don't take anything for days.

I grew up in the city and knew a lot of pill junkies. Even the worst ones could not take 100 pills a day, that would kill anyone especially with the strong medicine Rush was taking.

Look, none of us know his pain level, so we shouldn't judge him.
Also some here have got the facts wrong about his case but I'm not going to get deep into that. What is known is that the liberal Florida prosecutor who went after him FAR exceeded his legal authority to do so.

What really should piss liberals off is that if they say he was the lowest junkie in the world but if you listen to him you know that Rush has NEVER faltered in the quality of his radio show. If anything in the last 2-3 years he's sharper than he's ever been and he truly is the main voice of truth in this great land.

Even liberal Bill Maher said if Rush was that good and sharp when he was stoned we all should watch out because straight he'll be even more on point.

Liberals simply have a mindless hatred of the right.
Their ideas are silly and the best tool Rush has to display that, which he does every single day, is to simply play their own words and show them to be the gutless fools they are.

Rush is right, liberalism doesn't work, it never has and it makes problems worse.

It's the Democrats who claim that Republicans are mean and hate the poor and are racist.
But Rush points out the FACTS that Bush outspends Clinton on federal spending for the poor by more than two to one.
It's the Democrats who have a former head Klansman in the Senate. Bush has more black people in his administration than any other. Black home ownership is at it's highest rate ever.
Ted Kennedy left a woman to die in the water. How can this man still be reelected every time?
Could you imagine if a Republican Senator drove a car in the water today, and didn't report it until the next day because he was drunk, and the dead body of a young girl, not his wife was found?

He show how the Democrats blocked the rebuilding of the New Orleans to preserve the wetlands which turned ALL of New Orleans in the wetlands.

He shows how the Food Stamp program has millions of unused dollars even with a multi million dollar plan to advertise it. The same thing with federal college scholarships and loans. Millions of dollar go unused because many students just don't apply for it, NOT because, as they lie, that Republicans cut the programs.

Rush gives intelligent discourse and dissects liberals words better than anyone. And that's what makes them so mad, because he is right almost all the time. Then he uses humor and makes them even madder.

He also backs up his arguments with proof.

So when the liberals are shown to be who they are and their arguments fall flat they get angry, and then they lie.

They try to make EVERYTHING into the next Watergate and fail everytime.
Week after week they try this strategy.
They cry wolf so often no one listens anymore.

Dick Cheney has a hunting accident and they try to associate it with the "failures" in Iraq.

Meanwhile when asked about what the Dems would do in Iraq Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean says "We don't have to have a plan, they are the ones in power now, we simply need to remove this administration"

THATS IT! They don't have to have a plan?!!!!
The truth is they DON'T have a plan other than hating Bush.

They think they are actually going to win elections with this mantra even though Bush will not be running again!!

Dean also made other choice comments like "I hate Republicans . . they never did an honest days work in thier lives".

This is the leader of the party!!!

THEY are the ones filled with hate, they say it outright, NOT Rush.

Liberalism is a gutless disease of holding your hand out wanting the government to do everything for you. In fact it helps keep people poor.

Republicans are NOT just for the rich. That's the lie and Rush shows it to be true.
Keep lying you Dems, you only look more and more foolish everyday.

This is a great book, Rush told you about liberalism years ago and it's failure is even more truer now than it was then.
The man's a master, and he is RIGHT!

This book is a must read for members of both parties on the Right and Left

I love to see the liberals who let their brains take permanent summer vactions come here and give Rush's books 1 star!!! Great book, by Rush!!!!

Regardless of your opinion of the writer's politics, this is just a really bad book. Poorly written, with no apparent thought put into structure, emphasis has been put on maintaining what I guess Mr. Limbaugh feels is his 'style'. Bold statements of opinion are stated as fact, with virtually no documentable facts given to back up the statements. When an opposing opinion is cited, it is always accompanied by a long list of childish insults aimed at the opposition. A purely selfish book, with only the faintest hint of interest in giving the buyer a decent read. Some funny lines, but they are almost all rather cruel insults, aimed at individuals and groups who are a bit helpless - the jokes seem more bitter and vicious than they really need to be. OVERALL GRADE: D

At one time, liberalism stood for liberty, equality, and justice. But no more. Rush emphasizes the fact that the essence of contemporary liberalism is increasing dependence upon government in exchange for votes. Rush exposes the liberals' attacks on the middle class for not being compassionate enough, for equating upward mobility with greed, and for associating spiritual and moral values with intolerance. Rush also quotes George Washington and James Madison to point out the Judeo-Christian roots of our Constitution and our society, something all but lost on liberal judges. We learn of the past doom and gloom predictions of the environmentalists, which I personally well remember, none of which have come true--not even close. Rush also challenges us to live up to our potential, and recounts his own setbacks in life (such as being fired six times, and being broke twice). As a result, Rush' views are based on real life.

I just have one question for the naysayers who give this one star and one or two ad hominem attacks to justify it. Why is it that your reviews are mostly one sentence long, with no information as to what is specifically wrong with the book? It makes me doubt whether you actually read it. And for the reader who accused Rush of hypocrisy because he collected welfare at one time, how does what he did in the past have any bearing on whether he is right or wrong? The typical Rush Limbaugh critic immediately ridicules him without discussing any actual issues, which is the problem with much of what you seem to hear nowadays coming from the left. Instead of attacking people, why don't we be civilized and go back to debating the issues? Attack the message, not the messenger. To whoever wants to post any further criticisms of this book, do us all a favor and explain WHY you dislike it, WHY you think he's wrong, and WHY conservatives are all morons. As for my own opinion of this book, I don't have much to add to what has already been written. There is nothing unorthodox or unpredictable that I can see. His arguments, however, are more supported by documentary evidence than I had expected, though there is no proper citation or bibliography, so it's anybody's guess whether his sources actually exist.