Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 Feb 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
The first few topics here were originally posted to Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show before this jargon article was split off.

Contents

[edit] Jargon

"Screwed the poor" is most certainly not objective, formal, accurate in any connotation, and is not certainly not appropriate language for Wikipedia. I've deleted it.

If anyone else knows any of the jargon previously used on Rush's show, please add it to the page - this appears to be the best comprehensive list that I've seen so far. EddieH 06:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Apparently, "knowing" something doesn't qualify it for inclusion here, as recent mass deletions have confirmed. You must be able to cite it. I agree that citations are valuable, but disagree with the notion that they are essential. Being able to cite a reference for a fact, such as that I attended a certain school, does not change the veracity of that fact. Similarly, frequent listeners to Rush's show should be able to enter jargon entries and definitions here for the benefit of researchers and non-listeners without being burdened with the need to find and cite a reference. To support that position, I would point out that the subject of this particular article is light-hearted and not of any tremendous import. I would NOT take a similar stance were this an article on a matter of science, for example. Esjones 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I absoultely agree 100%. I wish people would quit being so obessed over that "citation needed" label and quit taking the lazy way out by just deleting stuff. Now, I understand needing citations for things that are controversial and are not common knowledge (as are nearly all the Rush jargon for regular fans of the show). Not everything in Wikipedia needs to read like and be treated like a term paper.76.177.190.137 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the opinion of the Wikipedia community. One of the main pillars of the project is "verifiability". We can't just add stuff that isn't verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The section header infers the terms are all Rush's, but (for example) the "Breck Girl" was apparently not coined by Rush (see [1]). Should these just be explained when found, or should the section intro be changed to indicate they're terms commonly used on the show but not necessarily invented by Rush? -- RandallJones 17:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Randall Jones:
Two things. First, I've changed the section intro per your request. Second, "infers" should be "implies": "inferring" is the act of reading between the lines and can only be done by sentient beings, while "implying" is the act of suggesting something without explicitly stating it.
Cheers! — DLJessup (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The most dangerous man alive

I distinctively remember someone giving this title to Limbaugh, and I distinctly remember Limbaugh using it as a gimmick until passing it on to President Clinton. I think he passed it on to Clinton on his TV show. Anyone have an idea? — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

[edit] Uber-man

I don't have an online transcript to back me up on this, but Uber-man is in fact a self-imposed or staff-imposed nickname for Rush. This is quite evident by one of the bumper themes in which a parody of classic TV music is in the background to an announcer saying "The .. Adventures of Uber-man!" (followed by the typical "Rush Limbaugh" chorus). Therefore I'm reentering the nickname into the page based on my having heard it several times on the show. The knowledge of this may be limited since some radio stations clip the bumpers off, and it has only aired maybe 5 times I'm guessing, but Rush 24/7 subscribers (including me) hear all the bumpers in the audio stream. EddieH

I'm actually a 24/7 subscriber as well, but I use it to time-shift the programs, so I've always listened on either streaming audio or podcast, where you don't get the bumpers. I'll take your word on it, though; I presume that if I'm wrong, somebody who does listen to the live audio feed will correct this soon enough. Sorry to have reverted you, but we get a lot of vandals around here.
— DLJessup (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, far from exemplifying Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch, Limbaugh instead is a perfect example of the ignorant, moronic, self-satisfied Last man described in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Only an ignorant elitist would disregard that Rush has on several occasions attributed his talent and understanding to God - so obviously he's not *self-satisfied*, though obviously he is proud of what God has made him. And taking the opportunity to call him ignorant and moronic is a good attempt at insults, but I'm afraid that "ur mom" would be a more intelligent slight. EddieH
Rush is not referring to any sort of Nietzche-ian concept. He is using the term "Uber-" simply because it has become quite common, especially in younger people, to use "uber-" in place of "super-" (uber-cool, uber-dumb, uber- insert_adjective_here). My son uses it rather frequently, in fact.
Besides, I highly doubt he agrees with Nietzche's view of the world and we who are in it, thus further making any reference in this discussion to Nietzche's "Ubermensch" rather uber-moot, uber-absurd, and perhaps even uber-dumb. --HngKngPhooey 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts

I have a great doubt Addadictomy is legitimate. Does anyone recall the context? patsw 03:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

San Francisco covers sex change operations for city employees. If I recall correctly, there was a lawsuit against SF by a city worker who had been fired when they were partway through their sex change—it apparently requires multiple surgeries—and wanted the city to cover the remainder of the process.
— DLJessup (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a cite on rushlimbaugh.com patsw 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere else in the country would the people of San Francisco be told that they have to pay for a new medical procedure. A sex-change operation called the addadictomy. You won't find this anywhere else.[2]

Come on. You can't be serious. Addadictomy-an operation that changes a female to male by adding an appendage. Chopadictomy-an operation that changes a male to female by removing aforementioned appendage. It's just one of the thousands of truly ingenious parodies that Rush presents on his show. mikelb 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure he used it on the show because at the time I identified it as an old joke. I thinnk if someone looked in the Playboy archives, they would find it in the late 60's.

I've heard this used several times throughout the course of the show. -Nathan

[edit] New page?

It seems that jargon should be moved to a separate page, considering its vastness. The primary focus of the Rush Limbaugh show is not its own jargon, so I don't think that the primary focus of the article on his show should be his jargon. What do you say?Tix 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

————

As the Nike ad says, I've just done it.

— DLJessup (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rio Linda

The Rio Linda definition leaves out an important aspect... it should be mentioned that the references to Rio Linda began when the local radio station had taken Limbaugh off the air, stating that, in no uncertain terms, the city was too smart for such content. adembroski 9:35am Jan 07 2006

————

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

— DLJessup (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

————

Rio Linda doesn't even have a Radio Shack much less a radio station. Rush's making fun of Rio Linda began while driving around to learn the area when hired in Sacremento. He noticed the junk cars all over the the front yards and the legendary town of idiots was born. mikelb 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

————

mikelb is correct. This is clearly explained in Rush's first book "The Way Things Ought to Be." If I recall correctly, it appears within the first chapter.

In addition, the Sacremento radio station that Rush was employed by at that time, is a local radio station. At that time, his show was not yet nationally syndicated. So there could not have been a "local" radio station in Rio Linda that cancelled his show. Also, as mikelb stated, Rio Linda, CA does not even have a radio station. Besides, last I heard, Rio Lindans actually enjoy the attention they have received from Rush, and on the whole do not find his comments particularly insulting. People from Rio Linda have actually called his show and talked about it. I heard it myself some time ago.

I also feel I should point out that adambroski is clearly a liberal. They tend to make such things up, unlike we conservatives who prefer to rely on facts rather than fiction to support our arguments and assertions. Liberals also like to revise history to their liking. So, when it comes to disinformation such as adambroski's, feel free to disregard it. --HngKngPhooey 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A caller asked about Rio Linda today. I updated the entry here to reflect what Rush said. I have dated the entry so if it is disputed, you can listen to the MP3 at around 2:50. patsw 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ma Richards

Does anyone know if the nickname "Ma Richards" (Ann Richards, former governor of Texas) was developed by Rush? I still don't know whether or not it was developed with negative or positive connotation (obviously Rush would be using it satirically now if the latter were the case). EddieH 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm not certain of the origin of the nickname, but as Ann Richards was Texas' governor, it probably refers to the only previous female governor of Texas, Ma Ferguson. --paperhat 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Ginsberg

There's a new internal link at "Buzzi", but the base entry at "Ruth" is gone, please restore. patsw 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush's books anyone?

Rush devoted an entire chapter in each of his (first) two books to the "Limbaugh Lexicon" - shouldn't that be cited as a source here? The Way Things Ought to Be and See I Told You So --Nerd42 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective sources

It appears that most of these definitions don't need a source. Nevertheless, a couple of POV sources and blogs were used, which cite the definition and then offer their own critique or thoughts on the use of the term. Unless it's a neutral source or a disputed definition, selective sources like this leading to POV sources should be excluded. Zz414 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to be virtually unsourced. Both the use of the terms and their definitions appear to be based on the personal knowledge of editors. That makes for an unverifiable article. -Will Beback · † · 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has now survived an AfD with no consensus. However it is still mostly unsourced. While we have some sources for the use of theterms, we don't have sources for the definitions. I'll wait a few days then start deleting unsourced material. -Will Beback · † · 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of them don't have sources, and he still says them. It is also common knowledge what is meant by the phrases used in context. Eisen8388 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources needed are those that verify he said the terms and those that verify our definitions. Common knowledge isn't sufficient. If it were then we wouldn't need to add the definitions. -Will Beback · † · 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Then you will be left with just 2 terms. Plus, most of the sources you need a subscription to view. Meaning the common-person won't be able to verify those terms. Eisen8388 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If we can only verify two terms then we'll include just two terms. We don't bend our core policies for minor reasons. While Rush's website may be an adequate source (albeit an expensive one), I doubt that the site provides interpretations or histories of the terms. So assertions like "The nickname "Algore" was used extensively on the show during the U.S. presidential campaign in 2000" would still need a separate source. -Will Beback · † · 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Not every term Rush coins or uses is recorded on his web site, nor perhaps anywhere else. This doesn't alter the fact that it was said, and that it is used with a certain intent and within a certain context. Is it your position then that such unrecorded and therefore unreferenceable terms do not exist for the purpose of this article? Then how much real knowledge will be lost just because a citeable reference was never created? I personally think this is using the lack of reference material to seriously devalue the article. And just being a mirror site for the paid rushlimbaugh.com content doesn't really provide me with a sense that this page deserves to exist at all. Before the mass deletions of the past few days, I thought the article was quite interesting, useful and educational, in its own way. Esjones 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifibility, now ensconsed in WP:ATT. The idea is that any reader or editor should be able to verify anything in a Wikipedia article. If I, or you, can't verify the material in this article then the unverifable material should be removed. There are two issues with this list: the terms and the definitions. I'm sure that many of the terms are sourceable from transcripts, etc. But only a few of the definitions are verifiable. Some of them are so obvious that there's no point in even including them. (what's the point in saying the "El Rushbo" is how the subject refers to himself?) The definitions that aren't sourced are original research. "No original research" is another core policy of Wikipedia, WP:NOR. So, if there are 3rd parties who've discussed these terms (which has happened with the most famous, like "feminazi") then those terms and their usage are verifiable and should be kept. -Will Beback · † · 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What a ridiculous dispute. It's not clear to me how most of these terms could possibly be "sourced" as this guy seems to be demanding. Many of them require a contextual understanding of the Rush Limbaugh Show, which cannot be gained by clicking on a link in Wikipedia, even if it is to a subscription-only transcript. How does one "source" the fact that Rush regularly uses a particular word? Do I provide 15 links to show transcripts from 15 different days? And if he never specifically defines a term, but it is obvious from the context and from one's understanding of his personality, is it then not a candidate for inclusion in the list?
If your position is that unsourced material must be deleted whether it is true or false, regardless of its ability to be conveninetly sourced, and regardless whether it even makes sense to source it, you have a large task ahead of you, which is to delete approximately half the content of Wikipedia. Instead of being destructive and removing perfectly good information due to its lack of sources, why don't you try adding the sources and preserving the information? MarcusMaximus 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
To: Will Beback. I am an annual member of Rush 24/7. If you can forestall deletion of the list, I will examine it thoroughly and research his site for examples of the usage of those terms by “El-Rushbo” himself. Also, I own a copy of both of his books. I will cross-ref the included lexicons with the list presented here. I will do this first. Then, I will research his site for references to corroborate the remainder. I simply need to know where you would like me to list the citations. I could directly edit the page itself, if you like. Just let me know.
The only problem I foresee is linking to the pages on his site directly, as it may not be available to non-members. However, I have used Google.com in the past to find transcript material with great successon the basis of "visitor" status. If I can access the information via "visitor" status, I can link it freely. If not, I would be pleased to field any recommendations you may have to offer in order to remedy this problem.
As for NPOV status: If the terms and definitions are provided in such a way as to include only Limbaugh's "point of view," then this status is inappropriate for obvious reasons. If others include their POV, then it becomes an issue.--HngKngPhooey 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There was previously a very good list of terms that Rush uses to refer to himself, or that his promos use to refer to him when going to or returning from commercial breaks. These will not appear in transcripts since they are not part of the show. Is there a way to get these back? --MarcusMaximus 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to such terms as "El-Rushbo" , "Majah Rushie" , etc.? If so, these actually DO appear from time to time in the transcripts. However, now that his site has been completely revamped, there have been a sizeable number of additional features. For example, the Google search engine has been incorporated into the site for far more flexibility in transcript and material searches. Also, from now on, the entire show will be transcripted - making it far easier to find examples of such things as "self-references." Enjoy!--HngKngPhooey 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was refering to "all-sensing, all-knowing, all-feeling, all-caring, all-concerned Maha Rushie" as well as "a man, a legend, a way of life", "America's Real Achorman", "America's Truth Detector", and the like. --MarcusMaximus 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Here's an example. From Oct. 20, 2006, "...I would like to know why you think I am not with you in the cut-and-run crowd. Why is it that we look out the political landscape and we see the same things, but I, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maha Rushie am not with you on this? Why do you think this is?..."
I must point out that it was a small pain to find this. The site is still being re-tooled. So, there are a few problems with it. I searched Google using the following criteria: "all-caring" site:rushlimbaugh.com. Then, I had to click on Cached in order to see the page. Once they get the bugs worked out, I'm sure it will be much easier to access the transcripts. Enjoy!--HngKngPhooey 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rev'rennnnd Jack'suhhnnnnnn

Doesn't this actually come from the way that William F. Buckley pronounces it?

————

No. William F Buckley, Jr. simply has an somewhat unusual way of speaking, that's all. So, does Jesse Jackson. Although, the reason Jesse Jackson speaks the way he does differs greatly from W.F.B. Jr.. Jesse speaks that way on purpose. He does so for the purpose of sounding like a reverend in everything he says. This is one of the reasons why Rush mimicks him when saying his name.

In truth, Jesse Jackson is not your typical reverend. He is more a reverend in name rather than actuallity. I am from Chicago, and so is he. We here in Chicago are very well aware of his history before he mysteriously became a "reverend." Though it is not widely known (namely because he was never tried or convicted of it), he ran a protection racket on Maxwell_Street in Chicago back during the late 1950's - early 1960's, perhaps even later, I'm not sure. The folks who lived in the area at that time would know far more about it than I.--HngKngPhooey 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From time to time Rush has attributed his pronunciation to an imitation of William F. Buckley and expressly denied that he's mimicking the way Jackson speaks.

[edit] NPOV debate

This article was recently placed on a NPOV status; no comment here on this talk page has been presented to support or deny this claim. As such, it may be that the subject matter itself is right/conservative leaning. No presentation has been made here, nor on the radio show on which this lexicon of "terms" is heard, to the contrary. However, the presentation of said items should itself be done in a neutral manner, and it's this that I do not dispute. This is difficult; however I would expect that if a specific non-neutral presentation is being made, that it be made known here, and/or edited in the article proper. I realize it's easy for fans of the show to with to post things here with enthusiasm, and those who are opposed to the show and/or its content, to wish that this article not exist. With that, I congratulate anyone who can put aside their personal leanings and work to make neutral (if need be) the presentation and appearance of what is, arguably, controversial (albeit somewhat humorous) material. �Fwgoebel 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been relatively impressed with the presentation of most terms, which include the definition and generally qualify the instance with Limbaugh's own take on the issue or a citation to an objective historical episode. Some work can be done, but it's in pretty good shape, considering the conservative-leaning nature of the article. --Zz414 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this article should have a NPOV tag. My vote is to remove the tag.Rob944s2 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If the terms and definitions are provided in such a way as to include only Limbaugh's "point of view," then this status is inappropriate for obvious reasons. If others include their POV, then it becomes an issue.
As for the uncertainty of some definitions: I have been a listener of the show for over 16 years. I am well aware of the intended meaning of most, if not all, of these terms and will be happy to define them for you (without personal bias). In addition, I will be submitting this list to the folks at The Rush Limbaugh Show and Premiere Radio Networks. I will request their assistance in cementing, comfirming, adding, deleting, and correcting any and all information included in the list. This and my above offered assistance (see Selective sources) will be an endeavor which will consume a substantial amount of my time and effort. My only request, if I may be so bold, is that my efforts not be ignored or disregarded out-of-hand. I seek merely to resolve this dispute amicably.
As for the suggestions to remove this page, it has been my experience (and that is long) that there is and has been for many decades a consistant effort by those whose views fall to one side of the political isle (I won't say which. You know who you are.) to stifle and quiet those whose views fell on the other side of the isle, while those of the other side have consistantly welcomed healthy debate on the merit of the issues themselves.
Examples are endless but inappropriate here. This is not a forum, so I'll only site one - The Fairness Doctrine. Bill Ruder, JFK's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, admitted, "We had a massive strategy to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." This Doctrine was dumped by the FCC in the 1980's after tremendous amounts of evidence demonstrated that the regulation stifled free speech. After the FCC dumped the Doctrine, the majority party in congress at the time (1980's) quickly attempted to make it law. It was vetoed by President Reagan, who called it "antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment."--HngKngPhooey 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Abeg92 did a drive-by add of the NPOV tag without starting a discussion here as required 2007-02-12 (diff). It has been removed. It can be added back when someone has a bona fide neutrality dispute to discuss here. patsw 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I missed the last AFD nomination

The last AFD nomination began with This article does not assert the notability of the jargon. The discussion of the terms themselves is all original research. Only a couple of the terms are sourced, leaving it unverifiable. Nor is it likely that we'd be able to source either the terms or their meaning. Wikipedia is not a collection of words or definitions.

Just in case someone decides to revive this for a 4th time let me lay it out:

  • Notability is nothing more than a term of art meaning satisfying criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Rush Limbaugh is the most significant radio personality in history. His biographical article makes that clear. What makes the jargon article necessary is the biographical article is already long and the jargon being heard by 20 million people is itself of particular significance. It is a proper division for an article into more than one part based upon its subtopic. (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article)
  • Original Research is meaningless to apply here. Has any entry in the article not be verified by many other editors who have personally heard it? We can't expect there to be a published secondary source for this other than the show's audio archives. If anyone disputes an entry, the editors who are 24x7 members have recourse to their personal copies of the show's MP3's to settle a dispute.
  • Not a collection of words or definitions is not what this article is. It is, like many other articles, an attempt to inform the reader about an element of the popular culture based upon the wide interest among readers and editors in the subject. patsw 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research does apply to this article. Many of the citations don't make sense and lead to pages that don't give a definition of the word. If you have access to the shows audio archive, and have an interest in making this article in compliance with Wikipedia policy, please cite these entries properly. Furthermore, many of these definitions don't make sense and are poorly written. This article might attempt to serve a purpose in line with Wikipedia's policy, but with such poor citation and writing it does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Can someone with some familiarity of the subject please overhaul this article, and, if necessary, cite the audio archives where necessary? Jirt 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All articles must follow Wikipedia policies, even lists of radio jargon. The issue with original research is that many entries used to contain theories about what the terms mean, their derivation, or their usage. While it's easy to say that the a certain term was used, and the meaning may even be quite obvious, it is original research for an editor to guess at how Limbaugh came up with the term, or to assert that it's used "frequently", etc. We can verify that a term was used by checking the audio archives, but that won't tell us much else about it unless Limbaugh discusses his use of the term. Likewise, entries must be NPOV. That doesn't mean that Limbuagh is neutral, but our reporting of his terms mustn't endorse (or deny) his viewpoint. Following the last AfD we went through the article and removed the unsourced entries so that there are now just a couple. I think the article is looking pretty good and we just need to maintain it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tax on Gas" for Paul Tsongas missing in list

The list is missing a big one: "Tax on Gas" for ex-presidential candidate Paul Tsongas, maybe it was thought in bad taste because Tsongas died in 97? --70.108.174.208 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Iraqnophobia"

The article says it was "coined by a caller" in 2007. I have no evidence for this, but I promise that I saw that on a kid's t-shirt when I was in 5th or 6th grade. So, like 11 or 12 years ago. It was a picture of a spider's web with Saddam's head on a black widow in the center. Definitely made for the 1st Iraq war.

Again, no evidence, but I've never been more certain of anything in my life. Maybe check it out.--68.190.57.145 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Castrotti

I attempted to add the New Castrotti to this article. He uses this on a regular basis, so can we include it?12.26.68.146 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can add it. Please give a specific air-date when he's used the term so that we can verify it. Also, we need to be careful about speculating on the possible derivations and meanings beyond what's extremely obvious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorbasm

I'll posit it does not refer to the people themselves, just as an orgasm is not people per-se. It refers (referred?) to the act of being excited over something in the news that happens(ed) to Mr. Gorbachev, or a segment of the show discussing it. Of course, Rush implies these people should not get excited over him, chiefly because of his ties to Communist government.

Joe 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to his book, The Way Things Ought to Be, which is our source for this term? If so we should be able to determine if it's used to refer to people or to an act. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking your comments

I realize this is not about Rush, per se, but similar to how this article was nominated for deletion, the Neal Boortz jargon was just nominated for deletion. If you all could add your comments, be they pro or con, I would appreciate it. But since you all have the history, I thought you could add some support or suggestions. Please comment here. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-Nazi

I listen to his show, and heard THIS stated by him and others about the environmentalists. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SFOS

Means "Skull Full of Shit". Means idiot, Democrat. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chang Lim Bang

Chang Lim Bang and the Lim Bang Manifesto, the Chinese Communist parody of himself

Started by a local NYC Morning Show DJ, what ever happened to that particular character, and such? Therubicon (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You People

What happened to "You People?" Ryratt (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formerly nicotine-stained fingers

Does anyone know the origin of this frequently used phrase? It might be a good addition to the list. Rogimoto (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, he used to be a proud cigar smoker, then quit. There may be a source somewhere that mentions it ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the reference is to his former use of cigarettes. I believe that he still smokes cigars regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.220.28 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)