1
   

Rush Limbaugh divorces his third wife

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:06 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
What you're saying seems reasonable enough, Foxfyre, apart from the idea that conservative values are more easily defended.

Having said that, can we finally get away from the absurd notion that the left controls the media? Mesquite's list certainly suggests a substantial conservative presence, and that's just on the radio!


Only if we can get away from the absurd notion the right does.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:14 pm
D, I think the left solidly controls the mainstream news alphabet networks, artisitic content, etc. etc. via the alphabet networks and stations.

The right has Fox News which most think tilts somewhat right and it has talk radio. Statistically, well over 3/4ths of American news media types are registered Democrats and tilt decidedly left at least according to polls over the last decade or so.

As far as conservative vs liberal values, I didn't say liberal values aren't defensible as I believe some are. It is just harder to articulate that sometimes I think as so much of liberalism is so subjective.

I think both camps would be way more constructive, however, if they would look more for the things on which they agree instead of playing the constant one-upmanship game or get caught up in the win or lose syndrome.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:56 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If you listen objectively to a conservative talk show, you will hear a lot of liberal bashing, yes, but you will mostly hear conservative viewpoints expressed along with reasoned discourse as to why they are 'superior' to any other. Liberal talk show hosts don't seem to be able to do that as well so a liberal talk show is mostly conservative bashing and that gets old to everybody really quick.

I do listen in on the ride to and from work. 20min each way is about all I can handle. Outright falsehood is not "reasoned discourse". Since they are not really NEWS media they can get away with it. As McG. said, "it is entertainment". Rush was only the first. Now the beast has many heads. I have no idea what the audience is or for that matter what portion of the audience is in the true believer category, or like me, just there for a caffeine substitute.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 05:58 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes I catch him in factual errors too. But again, when you're mostly ad libbing for three hours a day, five days a week, I think few of us wouldn't make at least some. I screw up on facts just typing a few dozen posts on A2K every week. Smile


LOL Foxfyre...please take your blinders off and come into the light. The excuses you make for Rush Pillbaugh is incredible...LOL.

How would you feel if doglover got on national radio for three hours, ad libbing, and presented so called 'factual' information about you, your family and your beliefs. Would you still feel that it wasn't any big deal?

The difference between you and Rush screwing up Rush is millions of people aren't clinging to your every word. At least here on A2K, factual errors are often picked up by more knowledgable posters and corrected. Unlike Rush, where there is no one or no way for his factual errors to be pointed out or corrected.

Rush is a big irresponsible oaf.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 06:25 pm
Quote:
Rush is a big irresponsible oaf.


To some people this may be the case, but to millions of other Americans, he isn't. Those who don't like him, should just ignore him.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:12 pm
"Entertainer" is hardly the right word.

Anyone who speaks in prescriptives (moralizing to others) sets themselves up for the charge of hypocrisy if they violate one of their own presciptions. For Ralph the plumber to be caught with a prostitute in a budget motel is not a big thing. For a fire and brimstone preacher, it's hypocrisy.

Rush deserves to have charges of hypocrisy levelled at him because he has been hypocritical.

It's a bit tougher to nail social liberals (live and let live) on this. You could nail me on it if I, for example, disavowed my daughter for having a same sex relationship. Or perhaps, for not smoking enough marijuana.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:16 pm
bump
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:16 pm
Miller wrote:
Quote:
Rush is a big irresponsible oaf.


To some people this may be the case, but to millions of other Americans, he isn't. Those who don't like him, should just ignore him.


Nah. Anyone who speaks falsehoods, and Rush has a long long list of them behind him, fully deserves attention and reprimand. Particularly when he functions as a political entity, and Rush does function as exactly that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well since he has the ability to create such liberal apolexy, he must be doing something right. Smile


That's a joke, but not a valuable joke. Carefulness in getting things right is important, intellectually, morally, and politically. Ann Coulter is an even worse example (another entertainer?) and she is despised by more thoughtful people who support traditional Republican policies (Tucker Carlson, David Brooks, for example).

Brooks and Carlson do not receive the sort of attacks that Coulter and Limbaugh do because they aren't guilty of the careless disregard for facts that mark the other two.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 08:29 pm
Well I regreted making the joke only because I'm trying not to use broad generalities no matter how appropriate, and I did take it back. Or tried to.

Believe it or not Blatham, there are some of us who are quite bright and quite well educated that don't get our shorts in a wad and nitpick to death every nuance, exaggeration for effect, or bad metaphors for emphasis or humor. Some of us actually look to what the person is saying as well as how he is saying it. And some of us don't have to pronounce a person as evil (disingenuous, immoral, imprecise, uncareful, invaluable - you pick whatever uncomplimentary adjective you prefer) because they choose to communicate in a different way than you choose to communicate.

However much you dislike Rush Limbaugh, he has had the top rated radio talk show in the country for the best part of two decades and he does it by being outrageous, upbeat, fun, funny, and frequently expressing the sentiments of 20 million listeners. He must be doing something right.
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 02:04 am
Quote:
However much you dislike Rush Limbaugh, he has had the top rated radio talk show in the country for the best part of two decades and he does it by being outrageous, upbeat, fun, funny, and frequently expressing the sentiments of 20 million listeners


I hear the bear patrol coming... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 06:27 am
I do want to add this to the discussion.
Rush must be doing something right,because if he wasnt the left would not be as afraid of him as they are.
If the left was not afraid of him,they would not be talking about him,monitoring his every show for content,worrying about his personal life,or even care what he says.
My advice to the left is if you dont like him,dont listen to him.
How hard is that?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 06:51 am
mysteryman wrote:
I do want to add this to the discussion.
Rush must be doing something right,because if he wasnt the left would not be as afraid of him as they are.
If the left was not afraid of him,they would not be talking about him,monitoring his every show for content,worrying about his personal life,or even care what he says.
My advice to the left is if you dont like him,dont listen to him.
How hard is that?


That's a silly argument, mysteryman. Foxfyre makes the same one.

The claim is, first, that what is popular must be right. Secondly, that protest is a consequence only of fearfulness.

Of course, all the same would applicable to anything critical said about Al Franken or Michael Moore or anyone else, like the Hell's Angels or the White Supremicist groups.

Each of us has the right, indeed the responsibility, to join the civic debate and voice our opinions on ideas and values that arise or float about in the polity. We have no guarantee that popular ideas are good ideas, and we have much in the way of historical anecdote to demonstrate that assumption to be both false and dangerous.

But we also have the responsibility to try and get things right, to speak with faithfulness to facts, and to hold some allegiance to truth above temporary or partisan wishes. Where an individual or a group has wide influence, those responsibilities increase in magnitude and where those responsibilities are not met, then it behooves all the rest of us to jump on such an individual or group.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:03 am
Who gets to decide what is 'right' Blatham? You? Me?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:04 am
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I do want to add this to the discussion.
Rush must be doing something right,because if he wasnt the left would not be as afraid of him as they are.
If the left was not afraid of him,they would not be talking about him,monitoring his every show for content,worrying about his personal life,or even care what he says.
My advice to the left is if you dont like him,dont listen to him.
How hard is that?


That's a silly argument, mysteryman. Foxfyre makes the same one.

The claim is, first, that what is popular must be right. Secondly, that protest is a consequence only of fearfulness.

Of course, all the same would applicable to anything critical said about Al Franken or Michael Moore or anyone else, like the Hell's Angels or the White Supremicist groups.

Each of us has the right, indeed the responsibility, to join the civic debate and voice our opinions on ideas and values that arise or float about in the polity. We have no guarantee that popular ideas are good ideas, and we have much in the way of historical anecdote to demonstrate that assumption to be both false and dangerous.

But we also have the responsibility to try and get things right, to speak with faithfulness to facts, and to hold some allegiance to truth above temporary or partisan wishes. Where an individual or a group has wide influence, those responsibilities increase in magnitude and where those responsibilities are not met, then it behooves all the rest of us to jump on such an individual or group.



I dont deny any of that,but it seems to be a one way street from the left.
If you are that concerned with honesty and fairness and accuracy from an ENTERTAINER,then you should also be concerned about those entertainers on the left that lie,distort,or simply make up things to suit themselves.
I dont see that happening.Instead,I see attacks on conservative ENTERTAINERS because you dont like their content,or you want to blame them for something( Clinton blaming talk radio for the OKC bombing),or you dont think they are "fair".
While I agree that Rush and his cronies are off the wall on some things,there are apparently several million that agree with him.
So,I wanna ask you this.Do you favor banning him?
If you say no,then I would suggest you just let him do his thing,and just dont listen to him.When his ratings suffer,and his sponsors leave,then he will too.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:14 am
"Right" in the sense I used it means 'corresponding to facts or actual states of affairs'. That means one ought to be careful with what claims one makes, careful that they are truthful.

People who are careless with the truth are pretty easy to spot. They make claims for which there is no, or little, or contradictory evidence. They use innuendo and suggestion and generalities. They seldom if ever bother to correct anything they've said previously which has proved incorrect or fallacious. Very often, they are bullies.

Truth can sometimes be difficult to discern, but this style is not. Anyone whose rhetoric follows along the above patterns is not likely to get to the truth except by chance.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:15 am
The point is that very few of us agree with everything any talk show host says on virtually any subject. The reason a talk show host is popular, however, is a) he/she is fun to listen to, and b) he/she says things that do frequently resonate or agree with views we already hold and we don't hear anywhere else.

If the talk show hosts had any power, Clinton would never have been elected president. He was. Twice.

And I agree 100% with Mysteryman. It is really unusual to hear--I don't believe I've ever heard--any liberal leftwinger on this board or anywhere else criticize outrageous things said by the media gurus on their side. I have frequently have heard right wingers criticize Rush and/or others or admit they are over the top sometimes, incorrect at times, across the line into bad taste at times. But these times are generally anomalys and are balanced by the things they get right.

I have little respect for anybody's opinion when they can't find anything good to say.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:24 am
Well, you point me to anyone on the 'left' who I hold as a 'guru', and then find something this person said which is non-factual or guilty of those style traits I mentioned above, and you might have an argument.

For example, please find anything said by Al Franken or Eric Alterman which is in error factually. But make certain they actually did say it.

As to the other point, no one here from the left criticizing voices that argue left policies...you just aren't listening.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:31 am
blatham wrote:
Well, you point me to anyone on the 'left' who I hold as a 'guru', and then find something this person said which is non-factual or guilty of those style traits I mentioned above, and you might have an argument.

For example, please find anything said by Al Franken or Eric Alterman which is in error factually. But make certain they actually did say it.

As to the other point, no one here from the left criticizing voices that argue left policies...you just aren't listening.


I just gave you an example.
Bill Clinton,as president,blamed talk radio for the OKC bombing,and absolutely nobody on the left said a word about that comment being "over the top,out of line",or just plain wrong.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 07:34 am
blatham wrote:
Well, you point me to anyone on the 'left' who I hold as a 'guru', and then find something this person said which is non-factual or guilty of those style traits I mentioned above, and you might have an argument.

For example, please find anything said by Al Franken or Eric Alterman which is in error factually. But make certain they actually did say it.

As to the other point, no one here from the left criticizing voices that argue left policies...you just aren't listening.


http://www.frankenlies.com/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 05:06:53