Well Blatham's reading list which apparently is supported by Frank is instructive--apparently Blatham reads nothing that is not Bush bashing but he missed the mark with Woodward's book who doesn't support his assertion here. I'll get around to my own bibliography soon enough, but for right now I am late leaving for an appointment.
Maybe Limbaugh has it right; they follow Bush like the nazi party did in Germany.
c.i.
When a German minister once said, she thought, there could be such parallels, she was forced to reseign! :wink:
Walter, Are you suggesting I resign from a2k? LOL
Well, no, not really - we won't make it a habit
Foxfyre wrote:...I'll give you Ann Coulter gets very close to acid journalism and inappropriately so at times.
dtom, sensing danger, raises the crucifix in front of himself and reaches for a stake...
Foxfyre wrote:I accept that as your opinion Revel. Most very learned people who have actually analyzed the sitatuion with open minds--Sammons, Franks, and numerous others--would strongly disagree with you.
And McTag, I'll give you Ann Coulter gets very close to acid journalism and inappropriately so at times. But Rush Limbaugh, a hate monger? Conservative yes. Opinionated yes. Sometimes in poor taste, yes. But a hate monger? No.
I am not quite sure what you accept as my opinion so I am not quite sure what most learned people who have actually analyzed the situation with open minds strongly disagree with me about. Is it the part about these republicans who are point out Bush's faults rumsfeld and the way the war has been handled in general having nothing to with George Bush being so broad minded that he encourages dissenting views but rather just the Iraq situation itself warranting critical questions whether the president encourages it not? Or the fact that in the first administration those with less conservative outlooks were just window dressing?
If it is the last that those so learned people disagree with me about, of which so far you have not provided proof and others have provided some proof to the opposite opinion; that to me was not the main point of the discussion.
The main point is this:
For a long time when people have pointed out bush's faults we were dismissed as left wing radicals, now there are even conservative republicans who are pointing out bush's faults so it can no longer be dismissed as a radical lefty thing. Maybe now people will start to see Bush and company for what they are because Bush will not be running again and so we won't be in election mode.
Well, that is my positive outlook for today and so I quit on that note.
Those of you who can't see that Dowd is Coulter and that Moore is Limbaugh only on the opposite sides of the fence, regardless of which side YOU're on, need to look in the mirror and repeat: I am hopelessly hyper-partisan over and over until it sinks in.
I'll rephrase that for the super-hyper-partisan :wink::
Those of you who can't see that Coulter is Dowd and that Limbaugh is Moore only on the opposite sides of the fence, regardless of which side YOU're on, need to look in the mirror and repeat: I am hopelessly hyper-partisan over and over until it sinks in.
But Bill, what are you suggesting? Everyone knows that Moore is an over-fed egomaniac and that Rush is always right! How could you possibly think that is hyper-partisan?
Not now McG, I'm trying to make a point.
Dowd and Coulter, I agree Obill. I do not agree that Limbaugh is the opposite of Moore. Rush can be arrogant, irritating, insensitive at times, and definitely exhibits poor taste in some of his analogies as testified by an earlier post by McTag, but I have not caught Rush intentionally putting false information out there knowing the gullible public will swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Rush takes a lot more pride in his journalism than Moore does.
Foxfyre wrote:Dowd and Coulter, I agree Obill. I do not agree that Limbaugh is the opposite of Moore. Rush can be arrogant, irritating, insensitive at times, and definitely exhibits poor taste in some of his analogies as testified by an earlier post by McTag, but I have not caught Rush intentionally putting false information out there knowing the gullible public will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Well...in a sense...since he made such a fuss over people who abuse drugs while actually being a drug abuser himselfl...it can be argued that he was intentionally putting out false information.
Quote:Rush takes a lot more pride in his journalism than Moore does.
Holy shyt...give a guy some warning, will ya.
Goddam near spit pea soup all over my keyboard.
You are a card, Fox. I gotta give ya that!
eeeeewww! People still eat pea soup? After what happened in the 80's?
Eh, Foxy, no two people are exactly the same, so it follows that no two people will make perfect opposites either... but your exception is duly noted along with McG's.
Anybody else?
McGentrix wrote:eeeeewww! People still eat pea soup? After what happened in the 80's?
Well...
...they do if they've got 666 tattooed on the nape of their necks.
I can't speak for anybody else.
revel wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I accept that as your opinion Revel. Most very learned people who have actually analyzed the sitatuion with open minds--Sammons, Franks, and numerous others--would strongly disagree with you.
And McTag, I'll give you Ann Coulter gets very close to acid journalism and inappropriately so at times. But Rush Limbaugh, a hate monger? Conservative yes. Opinionated yes. Sometimes in poor taste, yes. But a hate monger? No.
I am not quite sure what you accept as my opinion so I am not quite sure what most learned people who have actually analyzed the situation with open minds strongly disagree with me about. Is it the part about these republicans who are point out Bush's faults rumsfeld and the way the war has been handled in general having nothing to with George Bush being so broad minded that he encourages dissenting views but rather just the Iraq situation itself warranting critical questions whether the president encourages it not? Or the fact that in the first administration those with less conservative outlooks were just window dressing?
If it is the last that those so learned people disagree with me about, of which so far you have not provided proof and others have provided some proof to the opposite opinion; that to me was not the main point of the discussion.
The main point is this:
For a long time when people have pointed out bush's faults we were dismissed as left wing radicals, now there are even conservative republicans who are pointing out bush's faults so it can no longer be dismissed as a radical lefty thing. Maybe now people will start to see Bush and company for what they are because Bush will not be running again and so we won't be in election mode.
Well, that is my positive outlook for today and so I quit on that note.
excellent reasoning revel... i'm right there with ya...
OCCOM BILL wrote:Those of you who can't see that Dowd is Coulter and that Moore is Limbaugh only on the opposite sides of the fence
oh, but of course they are, bill. that's what makes a horse race.
in my fantasy world, bill maher will host an evening with the four of them. now that would be a real popcorn and heineken event. be sure to tivo so ya can wind back to the real bloody exchanges !
don't know if there's be any "honest debate", but the entertainment value of this "collision of experience" (wetftm ?!?!) cannot be denied.
Unchallenged Demagoguery
This kind of sloppiness, ignorance and/or fabrication is run of the mill in Limbaugh's commentary, both broadcast and print. From dioxin to Whitewater, from Rodney King to Reaganomics, Rush Limbaugh has a finely honed ability to twist and distort reality.
Limbaugh's facts are almost never challenged on his programs. A hostile caller hardly ever gets through the screeners on his radio show, and his TV show is just him doing a monologue in front of his cheering audience. No one in the history of national television has had such a political platform. He has almost never corrected anything he's said--although he did apologize once to the aerosol industry for implying that spray cans still had CFCs in them. (CFCs were removed in 1978.)
Limbaugh's chronic inaccuracy, and his lack of accountability, wouldn't be such a problem if Limbaugh were just a cranky entertainer, like Howard Stern. But Limbaugh is taken seriously by "serious" media--in addition to Nightline, he's been an "expert" on such chat shows as Charlie Rose and Meet the Press. The New York Times (10/15/92) and Newsweek (1/24/94) have published his writings. A U.S. News & World Report piece (8/16/93) by Steven Roberts declared, "The information Mr. Limbaugh provides is generally accurate."
He's also taken seriously as a political figure. A National Review cover story (9/6/93) declared him the "Leader of the Opposition." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who recently officiated at Limbaugh's wedding, says he tapes Limbaugh's radio show and listens to it as he works out (USA Today, 5/13/94).
FAIR is publishing a compilation of some of Limbaugh's more obvious whoppers in order to convince journalists and political leaders alike that when Limbaugh says, "I'm not making this up, folks," it's time to duck and cover.
Journalists, in particular, have an obligation to challenge Limbaugh's brand of hysteria. Someone who has amassed a powerful political following through the regular use of half-truth and distortion is begging for tough media scrutiny. In 1954, Edward R. Murrow confronted another demagogue who had a similar allergy to facts and documentation. Today's TV networks don't ask themselves how they can challenge Limbaugh's reign of error--but how they can profit from him. CBS News, the platform from which Murrow denounced Joe McCarthy, has been seeking to hire Limbaugh as a political commentator.
Real democracy is built on debate. But Limbaugh has little use for debates; he has forged a media empire largely on unchallenged monologues. The following confrontation--Limbaugh vs. Reality--is an attempt at stimulating (or at least simulating) a debate.
The list of fallacies compiled here is not exhaustive. It was assembled from easily available sources--Limbaugh's books, The Way Things Ought to Be and See, I Told You So; transcripts of several weeks' worth of his TV show; gleanings from as much of his radio show as we could take; and other published evaluations of Limbaugh's accuracy. (There's a publication, the Flush Rush Quarterly (FRQ), largely devoted to chronicling Limbaugh's falsehoods, and a book, The Bum's Rush by Don Trent Jacobs, that debunks his environmental rhetoric.) As Josh Shenk showed in The New Republic ("Limbaugh's Lies", 5/23/94), scrutinizing the TV show for a month results in errors too numerous to count.
"There's a pathology here, folks," is a phrase Limbaugh likes to use when discussing President Clinton's alleged inability to tell the truth. A psychiatrist might agree--and label it projection.
