Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

I understand. I listen to Rush and I don't think that anyone would make the mistake of calling me one of his flock. The difference really is, and again SBTB already made the point, is that we're primarily dealing with Southern White Males here. If we were based in NYC, the Bay Area, Seattle or any other liberal hotbed, I'm sure there would be greater evidence of those on the left lifting their talking points from other resources. But that's not the nature of the proverbial beast. We are a HEAVILY right-leaning forum (look at any election poll thread from 2000 through 2008) with a lot of Libertarian influence and a few smart people at various points on the political spectrum. That's pretty much all there is to it.

TPS

 

[Saint by the Bay]

No one even addresses my points...

People have REPEATEDILY called rush limbaugh supporters Sheep, and say that they take thier marching orders directly from him.

I am simply saying this is not a FAIR STATEMENT!

I am not whining about the vast liberal media, or some conspiracy by the media to twist things left.;


I am saying these are completely unfair implications about conservatives that support limbaugh.

Shawn was even so bold as to imply defneding Rush makes you a stupid conservative,


none of these statements are valid and no attempt at validating these statements have been made,

instead they all say I am whining...

Whatever.....


yet these are the "great debaters" of the EE?

pulease...

Actually your point was that the EE is unfair to conservatives. Allow me to quote you:

But of course when a right leaner defends themself from the masses, and feels they kinda got ganged up on (which I feel he did) they are whining.

That attitude has caused me to post less and less on the EE...
See wombats eloquant summary of the EE in that thread.

the overall theme is that right leaners and conservatives are some less "enlightened" than the moderates and left leaners. I'll stop pointing this out before I get accussed of conservative crybagging...

Now your trying to turn it into a debate about Rush listeners while taking the claims of victim hood to the next level because your point Shawn and I responded to has been effectively debunked.

So, on your new point about Rush listeners I think they come in all shapes and sizes. You have some that just parrot him and some the use him as yet another source of information as they process things in their own mind and formulate opinions.

As with most things it's not black and white.

 

[Saint Mike]

I understand. I listen to Rush and I don't think that anyone would make the mistake of calling me one of his flock. The difference really is, and again SBTB already made the point, is that we're primarily dealing with Southern White Males here. If we were based in NYC, the Bay Area, Seattle or any other liberal hotbed, I'm sure there would be greater evidence of those on the left lifting their talking points from other resources. But that's not the nature of the proverbial beast. We are a HEAVILY right-leaning forum (look at any election poll thread from 2000 through 2008) with a lot of Libertarian influence and a few smart people at various points on the political spectrum. That's pretty much all there is to it.

TPS

I think, perhaps, the implication is that a conservative viewpoint is not a legitimate viewpoint---particularly if the poster's stated views happen to square with Rush, Hannity, etc. Why couldn't it be that the poster holds those views independently of any pundit, but that the punditry happens to echo said views?

 

[purvis_guy]

TPS, very good points. But one of the things that you and others don't seem to want to even think about or admit is that Rush listeners do not get their thinking from him but that the precise reason for his lasting success is that he very eloquently(sometimes ) puts into words exactly how alot of his audience already feels about certain issues. I don't need him to tell me I am a fiscal conservative and have been for many years, I don't need him to tell me I don't like Hillary Clinton, I don't need him to tell me I support being on the offensive on the war on terror. Rush was not around to tell me what a disaster Jimmy Carter's Presidency was, I figured that on my own, He was not around to tell me that Ronald Reagan was a conservative's conservative, I figured that on my own. I also absolutely do not agree with everything he says, which is another thing that Rush haters seem not to be able to admit about his audience. I have some liberal thinking on alot social issues, but am a political conservative.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

TPS, very good points. But one of the things that you and others don't seem to want to even think about or admit is that Rush listeners do not get their thinking from him but that the precise reason for his lasting success is that he very eloquently(sometimes ) puts into words exactly how alot of his audience already feels about certain issues. I don't need him to tell me I am a fiscal conservative and have been for many years, I don't need him to tell me I don't like Hillary Clinton, I don't need him to tell me I support being on the offensive on the war on terror. Rush was not around to tell me what a disaster Jimmy Carter's Presidency was, I figured that on my own, He was not around to tell me that Ronald Reagan was a conservative's conservative, I figured that on my own. I also absolutely do not agree with everything he says, which is another thing that Rush haters seem not to be able to admit about his audience. I have some liberal thinking on alot social issues, but am a political conservative.

I would say this runs contrary to simple human nature.

Humans want to be herded and led. It's the way we are. It's why ideologues on both sides are so successful. What they are able to do is convince us that these are our opinions when really we're just herding up because that's what we do.

Unlike most I'm willing to concede this happens to me as well. If I listen to too much of one side it starts to have a serious effect on my opinion. It's why I try and go to such a wide variety of sources. Now that I have Sirius it's awesome switching from Patriot to Left to the new Independent (110) because I'm getting a ton of views on an issue in the same day.

The problem is there are lots of people who limit the information they intake to certain ideologues. They are easy to spot because they use the same talking points and are completely unable to express themselves when their views are challenged. If Rush or Hannity or Moore or Frankken hasn't covered the subject or facts they are completely unprepared with the proper verbiage to compose a response.

Here those people get no quarter given (though they ask for rolls of quarters) because somehow we have managed to gather up on the EE some pretty strong thinkers from all political persuasions and positions.

 

[SWJJ]

Actually your point was that the EE is unfair to conservatives. Allow me to quote you:



Now your trying to turn it into a debate about Rush listeners while taking the claims of victim hood to the next level because your point Shawn and I responded to has been effectively debunked.

So, on your new point about Rush listeners I think they come in all shapes and sizes. You have some that just parrot him and some the use him as yet another source of information as the process things in their own mind and formulate opinions.

As with most things it's not black and white.

Actually if you would have quoted my entire post you would have also show the first half of the post:

I would not have thought you felt this way.

I listen to rush whenever my schedule allows it, generally about 7ish hours a week (of 15 hours of programming)

I can tell by the comments that the majority of "rush haters" do not listen to him.

Often his comments and thoughts are taken out of context, and he is far less a cheerleader for the republican party than levin or hannity.

Rush makes no bones that he is an entertainer and he does what he does and says what he says to make money.

He gives very thoughtful political insight and as TPS says presents angles that are both often correct and outside of the mainstream thought.


Does he have a bias against Liberals? Yes, he disagrees with the policies.

He takes issues with the republicans when it may be unpopular with his fan base to do so, but of course he will ultimately always side with the republicans because for a conservative the Dems are just not an option.



Rush's biggest problem (IMHO) is his huge ego. which can easily get tiresome of listen to, but being a listener, and someone who agrees with limbaugh on multiple issues (not all personally) does not make you "brainwashed".

Nor does defending him...

I thought lazybones did a good job defending himself from the masses in the other thread..

Again I started by saying that being a rush listener does not make you brainwashed, then followed that with a generalation that you decided to quote as my orginal post, that because of such generalizations I feel the EE is unfairly harsh on conservatives,

no one addressed my rush limbaugh point and went straight to the generalization, which I knew would happen, and began to attack to me saying I was whining, which I also predicted when I said, in that same post:

"I'll stop pointing this out before I get accussed of conservative crybagging..."

 

[Shawn]

As a point of clarification, I never attacked anyone for listening to Rush, nor did I call them sheep.

I consider him to be more of an entertainer, than a particularly rich source of political thinking.

I watched Dr. Phil this week (about 30 minutes). He made some good points to some crazy wife on there. But I'm not planning on using that show as a source of information on how to handle my relationships.

 

[LSSpam]

even some people I believe are "moderates" on this board make such implications about rightwingers, especially limbaugh listeners, saying his listeners are sheep, and are brainwashed...

I just think that is an unjust, invalid, and unsupport generalization of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people....

and frankly the tone is one of superiorority over the lowly sheep that listen to rush.

Obviously not all people who listen to Rush are "sheep". A random sampling of this threads responses demonstrates quite a few who listen to him don't even frankly like him

I think a number of people who do listen to Rush are "sheep". Would it make you feel better if I said the same thing about a large part of DailyKos' readership?

 

[SWJJ]

As a point of clarification, I never attacked anyone for listening to Rush, nor did I call them sheep.

I consider him to be more of an entertainer, than a particularly rich source of political thinking.

I watched Dr. Phil this week (about 30 minutes). He made some good points to some crazy wife on there. But I'm not planning on using that show as a source of information on how to handle my relationships.

You did not, I was asking if you shared that view.

You did (I took anyway) imply that anyone defending Rush limbaugh was not a "smart conservative" which I took to mean dumb.

 

[St. Widge]

TPS, very good points. But one of the things that you and others don't seem to want to even think about or admit is that Rush listeners do not get their thinking from him but that the precise reason for his lasting success is that he very eloquently(sometimes ) puts into words exactly how alot of his audience already feels about certain issues. .

And that is at the core of the problem. Some of his listeners, the most vocal unfortunately, "feel" ways about things without having any idea why or any independent thought about it. They then just go around parroting his talking points without knowing what they are really talking about.

Those people then show up on message boards and in real life spouting little Rush one liners without the ability to defend themselves. And as a result, get viewed as idiots.

Some of that does wrongfully fall on people who happen to share those views, but know why, but it's not like you are being persecuted. If you present the reasons for your view, that is always respected. What isn't respected are the drive by "your a liberale" or "you must be a liberale" posts that shoot through the board. Unfortunately, some of that bad vibe does go wrongfully on to some who don't deserve it.

But, that's why we have the ability to explain our points of view. If someone takes a cheap shot at you, beat them with logic. Because complaining that you are somehow persecuted isn't going to do it.

 

[Hoyasaint]

TPS, very good points. But one of the things that you and others don't seem to want to even think about or admit is that Rush listeners do not get their thinking from him but that the precise reason for his lasting success is that he very eloquently(sometimes ) puts into words exactly how alot of his audience already feels about certain issues. I don't need him to tell me I am a fiscal conservative and have been for many years, I don't need him to tell me I don't like Hillary Clinton, I don't need him to tell me I support being on the offensive on the war on terror. Rush was not around to tell me what a disaster Jimmy Carter's Presidency was, I figured that on my own, He was not around to tell me that Ronald Reagan was a conservative's conservative, I figured that on my own. I also absolutely do not agree with everything he says, which is another thing that Rush haters seem not to be able to admit about his audience. I have some liberal thinking on alot social issues, but am a political conservative.

I think what the issue here is there is a big difference between Rush simply saying what you already believe in and believing in what Rush says.

This is where it gets tricky, for those who find that Rush says what they believe, you've come to those beliefs and conclusions on your own and can readily defend YOUR take on that position and explain how you got there. At that point, conversations typically begin to discuss the general weaknesses or strengths of what led that person to their beliefs. This essentially allows both sides of a conversation to address the underlying issues and have significant discourse.

Unfortunately, what we typically what we see on the EE from 'conservatives' is a stance that is stated by Rush (or some other similar personality) and when pressed on the matter, rely solely on the justifications given/espoused by said personality. Upon further pressure, they buckle cry foul and claim they are being attacked or ganged up on. With drive by talking points, cliches, and beliefs established by personalities there is no discourse or ability for people aligned on opposite ends of the issue to communicate their positions effectively which may result in learning a thing or two about the very topic you are discussing. Instead everythread devolves into shouting cliches.

Now once again before the ganging up on cries continue, I personally am, for the most part, conservative. However every position that I hold, I do so because I've thought long and hard about it. So I'll gladly take you from my belief in anything to the very roots of why I believe that. Every step you push me on that belief will be explainable down to a simple point or life experience. And, in some rare instance if I get to a point where I can't exactly tell you why I feel that way, I'll admit it.

 

[HouDat]

I think the thread has gone far enough without there being an agreed-upon definition of "conservative".

To some, patriotic = conservative.
To some, isolationism = conservative.
To some, small government = conservative.
To some, pro-life/pro-family = conservative.
To some, pro-white = conservative.
To some, evangelical = conservative.
Etc.

Are we talking Goldwater or are we talking GWB? Or something outside of the aforementioned?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Actually if you would have quoted my entire post you would have also show the first half of the post:



Again I started by saying that being a rush listener does not make you brainwashed, then followed that with a generalation that you decided to quote as my orginal post, that because of such generalizations I feel the EE is unfairly harsh on conservatives,

no one addressed my rush limbaugh point and went straight to the generalization, which I knew would happen, and began to attack to me saying I was whining, which I also predicted when I said, in that same post:

"I'll stop pointing this out before I get accussed of conservative crybagging..."

Well then the coherency of your post is the issue. It was kind of set up in a way that if you challenged the notion conservatives were treated unfairly on the board (which is exactly what I did) the Rush listeners aren't sheep card could be played even though I didn't even address that point in any way.

And yes, I stand by anyone complaining that having their views challenged is somehow being mean to them is whining. Victim hood has become the foundation of discussion in America. Once it was strictly a minority thing but now-a-days everyone is getting in on the game.

 

[RebSaint]

I would say this runs contrary to simple human nature.

Humans want to be herded and led. It's the way we are. It's why ideologues on both sides are so successful. What they are able to do is convince us that these are our opinions when really we're just herding up because that's what we do.

Unlike most I'm willing to concede this happens to me as well. If I listen to too much of one side it starts to have a serious effect on my opinion. It's why I try and go to such a wide variety of sources. Now that I have Sirius it's awesome switching from Patriot to Left to the new Independent (110) because I'm getting a ton of views on an issue in the same day.

The problem is there are lots of people who limit the information they intake to certain ideologues. They are easy to spot because they use the same talking points and are completely unable to express themselves when their views are challenged. If Rush or Hannity or Moore or Frankken hasn't covered the subject or facts they are completely unprepared with the proper verbiage to compose a response.

Here those people get no quarter given (though they ask for rolls of quarters) because somehow we have managed to gather up on the EE some pretty strong thinkers from all political persuasions and positions.

I'm just going to echo yours and TPS's points just by adding that I'm not ashamed to say that my political perspective has changed in part from reading and participating in debates on the EE. A good example is Ron Paul's writings on race. As many knew, I was pretty keen on Paul and kept reading and hearing about these writings, so I came to the EE.

I'll also add that rigorous, analytical debate should be an exchange of real ideas, points, evidence and argumentation, NOT an exchange of talking points or cliches.

I'd also claim that it's not just Limbaugh who is part of this problem. I think most of the talking heads on the major networks are nothing more than ideologues repeating talking points over and over again. It's not a debate as much is it is theatrics.

And those who claim that when these folks listen and merely parrot what they hear on the AM dial or whatever craptastic TV show they take in, they're going to look rather foolish around those who are much more informed and actually know how to really have a debate.

 

[RebSaint]

I think the thread has gone far enough without there being an agreed-upon definition of "conservative".

To some, patriotic = conservative.
To some, isolationism = conservative.
To some, small government = conservative.
To some, pro-life/pro-family = conservative.
To some, pro-white = conservative.
To some, evangelical = conservative.
Etc.

Are we talking Goldwater or are we talking GWB? Or something outside of the aforementioned?

Well, hence the other problem with some self-proscribed ideology. To me, it would be #3.

And I'll also add that thinking is real, real work. It's why I think so few actually engage in real thinking.