HOW DO YOU DO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF ELECTED LEADERS?

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter you're still doing 'sound biting' that I am criticizing here. You can't be honest and hold up one statement out of a lengthy discourse and use it as proof that the person is 'evil' or 'hateful' or anything else when that same statement in context obviously means something different than it does by itself. The pertinent part of that transcript you linked is the same thing as the clip I posted early in this thread.

2 Replies

@old europe,

OE, why don't you send Rush a list of words and phrases that he could use instead of being himself so that he would be acceptable to you? I'm sure he would take that in the spirit it was intended. Sure Rush says a lot of things that I dislike because I think that a) he is wrong or b) he has crossed the line into bad taste. But I express myself in ways that many (most?) of you think is terrible too.

So, I try to give others the right to express themselves in their own style and words rather than try to fit everybody into the same pigeon hole of what is and is not acceptable or how I would say it. But then I resist political correctness every chance I get too.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p,
I do see plenty of partisan hatred spewing from liberals here on A2K, but I've come
to accept it because the democrat party is deeply rooted in hateful fear mongering.

All aspects of life would be better if the left would just tone it down a few notches.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, why don't you send Rush a list of words and phrases that he could use instead of being himself so that he would be acceptable to you? I'm sure he would take that in the spirit it was intended.

Why should I, and how is this pertinent to my post?

I have no problem with somebody making outrageous statements or declaring that he wants the President of the United States to fail.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I just and only copied that - otherwise, as said, I really don't mind what he said. (Might be, I would judge it differently, if I lived in the USA.)
So basicly, I even don't have a significant different point of view than you have here, Foxfyre. With a few "buts", though.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Well I would and do have problems with that if that was somebody's only intent. In this context however, Rush was neither outrageous nor did he say that he wanted the President to fail in the way some of you keep trying to make it appear that he did.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I think it horrendous that anybody would want the lawfully elected President of the country to fail. I think good people everywhere want the President to succeed. But if what the President considers 'success' is what others consider 'failure', then that has to be factored into a point of view. There is a world of difference between wanting somebody to fail because he beat our guy or because we just don't like him and in wanting somebody to fail in getting what is perceived as a destructive agenda accomplished.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

But Foxfyre, Farmerman really hit the nail on the head by saying what he had to say in the way he did.

Don't get me wrong...it makes sense for him to do it.

He has a vested interested in being a controversial as possible...in stirring the nest. And he has a vested interest in pandering to a particular audience.

He did.

The pot is boiling.

A reasonable guess is that what is happening...is exactly what he wanted.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Understood. A2K is a big tent and each to their own, and I don't condemn those who like to play that way.

But I'm just wierd I guess in that I get no pleasure out of trashing people unfairly, no matter how famous or who they are, and I would rather use real criteria as much as possible for discussion. Mean spiritedness, rudeness, hatefulness, and cruelty is offensive to me and I would just rather not play in that sandbox.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter you're still doing 'sound biting' that I am criticizing here. You can't be honest and hold up one statement out of a lengthy discourse and use it as proof that the person is 'evil' or 'hateful' or anything else when that same statement in context obviously means something different than it does by itself. The pertinent part of that transcript you linked is the same thing as the clip I posted early in this thread.

Isn't this exactly what was done with the sound clips of Rev. Wright to condemn him?

Why should this situation require any different consideration or treatment?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, why don't you send Rush a list of words and phrases that he could use instead of being himself so that he would be acceptable to you? I'm sure he would take that in the spirit it was intended. Sure Rush says a lot of things that I dislike because I think that a) he is wrong or b) he has crossed the line into bad taste. But I express myself in ways that many (most?) of you think is terrible too.

So, I try to give others the right to express themselves in their own style and words rather than try to fit everybody into the same pigeon hole of what is and is not acceptable or how I would say it. But then I resist political correctness every chance I get too.

Did Rev. Wright get the same consideration and allowance?

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

In what context are you asking that Butrfly? That RevWright should be able to express himself in his own words and style? No problem with that.

Or that RevWright should be above criticism for anything he says? I haven't argued that for Rush or anybody.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I would and do have problems with that if that was somebody's only intent. In this context however, Rush was neither outrageous nor did he say that he wanted the President to fail in the way some of you keep trying to make it appear that he did.

But see: again you're interpreting what Rush was saying (particularly if you're referring to the first occasion where he made that statement, without any caveats or qualifiers attached), saying that his declaration that he wants Obama to fail was not his only intent, and you reject any other kind of interpretation.

You say you would rather use real criteria as much as possible for discussion, but then proceed and parse Rush's words rather than taking them at face value.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I reject any interpretation that does not include Rush's words in their full context with an honest effort to discern his intent. I will continue to criticize any attempt to put a dishonest interpretation out there as if it was honest and the truth. I like to think that I give everybody that much respect and, if I misreresent somebody's original intent, I like to think I give anybody a chance to clarify, correct, amend, or restate so that they communicate exactly what they intended to communicate.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fair enough.

However, I don't consider Rush's interview with Hannity which he gave after being widely criticised for his original statements as part of the "full context".

If you find anything in the original, quite lengthy lecture given by Limbaugh on how he wanted Obama to fail that would indicate a more nuanced position, you could always point to that rather than trying to interpret what he actually meant.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I heard the initial monologue on Limbaugh's show and I read the essay on his website. For those capable of hearing or reading with an open mind will see that his very obvious intent was no different than what he said on the Hannity show--Hannity just gave him a chance to reclarify some points for which he was being mischaracterized and criticized. I wish he had included the line that he could and would support Obama IF. . . on the website just to shut up the numbnuts who want to pretend he intended something different.

So I will refer you to that essay on Limbaugh's website. Just plug Rush Limbaugh into your browser and you'll get a link. If you want to subscribe to the website, you will have access to the tapes of his shows. (I am not a subscriber).

And then re-listen to the youtube clip or read the FOX transcript again and you will see that there are no inconsistencies.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The context is in my post above the one you chose to respond to.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Oh, okay. I didn't see the earlier post. I myself did not object to anything Rev. Wright said before I went back and looked at the quote in a much larger context, preferably a whole sermon. And I read and/or listened to a lot of them. I do think Rev. Wright was mischaracterized in some of the criticism, but after putting the quotes into their proper context coupled with the kinds of people he praised and celebrated and the content on his website, I came to the conclusion that a lot of the criticism was valid.

I wonder if anybody now criticizing Rush Limbaugh has bothered to do a similar amount of homework?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I have no idea. I have no interest in the guy. Have never listened to his shows and never visited his website.

I do listen to other conservative radio talk shows on occasion though. I particularly like listening to Jimbo Hansen's show.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I've read the whole transcript of the segment on his show and also linked to it in this post here. I myself did not object to anything Limbaugh said before I went back and looked at the quote in a much larger context, preferably the whole transcript. I do think Limbaugh was mischaracterized in some of the criticism, but after putting the quotes into their proper context coupled with the kinds of people he praised and celebrated and the content on his website, I came to the conclusion that a lot of the criticism was valid.

1 Reply

HOW DO YOU DO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF ELECTED LEADERS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know