Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? (1 Viewer)

[SWJJ]

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.

coherency?

First I said that Rush listerner are not all sheep,
Then I said that such generalizations are made about conservatives and thats why I quit posting on the EE as much, and I said that yall would now say I am whining.

Then you posted:

I find complete hilarity in the idea that the EE is somehow dominated by "the left".

Moderates? Probably. However, this "conservatives get ganged up on" stuff is nonsense. Ideologues get hit by all sides because the EE, more than most other places, is free minded turf. A leftist ideologue is just as likely to get an intellectual beatdown here as a right wing one. However, since this is a board comprised almost entirely of southern white males there just aren't many of those.

It's not about conservative or liberal it's about being able to express your self in a succinct way. LSSPAM is one of the strongest defenders of the war on this board. He doesn't whine about getting ganged up on when Reb and adder are going at him because he's able to express himself and his own thoughts effectively. dapperdan is about as rightwing as you'll find and is also one of the more respected posters here because of the wealth of knowledge he brings to almost any subject. Same can be said for guys like Inkspot and Sparkle.

It's not a conservative thing, it's a thinking thing.

So I tried to make my objection clearer by replying:

I disagree. I know that all views may take an "intellectual beatdown" but it is the overall tone that rightwingers are simply "sheep" and that they are not freethinkers.

Implications are rampant that they "get thier marching orders" or "are brainwashed" just in these two threads.

And then when this is pointed out we get accussed of whining.

I dont really care, I am not scared and will not dunk a legit discussion, I have views that many on the board disagree with, and I feel I have [almost] always been very reasonable when discussing them, and though from time to time I may point out what I feel to be a condesending tone towards the low brow redneck religous right wingers, I generally have my discussions with out "whining."


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.

and then no one would address the issue about limbaugh listeners being sheep so I posted:

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...

and then you chopped up some of my posts and quoted them out of order to justify that I was whining.

then I replied:

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..."

I dont see where the coherency was a problem?

 

[LSSpam]

Yes, all Rush does is "articulate better what I was thinking anyways". But the core problem is what you "think" anyways are (often) just gut feelings and suspicions at first. "I feel like we need to be in Iraq". You really don't know why at first. I mean there are lots of terrorists in the Middle East and dem suckers bombed us, but you don't really understand the underlying strategy or issue. It just "feels" right. Then you can do one of two things.

First you can examine the issue. Consume news stories from multiple places, learn about the region, listen to a variety of experts, and analyze the issue intellectually. Or you can tune into Rush on the drive home (hey you're busy, I understand)

So Rush comes on with his ridiculously oversimplified talking points and you go "yeah, yeah that does sound right. That der Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Ditto Rush, we should stay and fight"

Well he just "articulated what you thought anyways"

But where's the thinking? You still don't understand the issue. Rush isn't there to "teach". He doesn't help you "learn" anything. You took a gut, visceral reaction like "Dat der Black preacher hates white people" or "we need to kill dem terrorists", had it articulated into a 10 second sound byte or talking point . . .

And are now parroting it everywhere. Sheep. Baaaaaa

 

[Shawn]

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.

I didn't anticipate the need to split hairs so much.

Did anyone see SuperBad? Or Bad Santa? I liked both of those movies. They are crass and vulgar and childish. That doesn't mean anyone who saw those movies or enjoyed them is a crass, childish, buffoon. They are probably more likely to be crass and childish, than would be the audience for "Ghandi."

On the other hand, I did point out that those who I consider the sharpest conservative posters on this board, are almost never involved in discussions about defending a guy like Rush. It doesn't necessarily follow in reverse, that defending Rush makes you a stupid. Still, it's an observation worth noting.

Will there be outrage if I trash PJ O'Rourke?

 

[LSSpam]

I think the idea that people are accusing other people of believing something completely opposite "Taxes is ok!" and then tune into Rush and come out believing something different "Taxes is evil!" is absurd.

The problem is the conservative "talk radio" (I use the phrase to represent a wide spectrum of similar agenda based partisan chatter from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc) often chooses to pray on the sub-conscious fears of people, specifically working-class and middle-class white people, and exploit them by providing rationalization.

It's not just that you're angry at terrorism, terrorists hate our freedom and must be destroyed.

 

[TPS]

Mike,

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. There just seems to be more uniformity among conservatives. Maybe it's just my take on it, but generally you have a segment of people who, at least the better part of which, tend view things in more rigid terms - often more in black and white. I'm not saying that's wrong (I have argued as much in the past, but I'm not doing it for the purposes of this reply), but it does lend itself to us vs. them, me vs. you, this vs. that rather than a quest for common ground or commonality.

No doubt many individuals have independently arrived at their respective viewpoints (possibly up to and including ideologies) separately from the Rush Limbaugh show. I'm not sure anyone would deny that. But at the same time, throw me the bone and admit that plenty of people have come to their understanding via that and similar programs. Just look at so many people wanting to call themselves "conservative" as if traditional conservative principles have any benefit whatsoever for them as citizens or Americans. Sure, the few privileged out there maybe. But it's a movement steeped more in anger than anything. That's certainly my opinion, but I know and run with many conservatives. They are not all bigoted, but there are some common themes and angsts that I'm sure you can't possibly chalk up to chance alone.

>>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 understand that Purvis. I am a listener (occasional these days), and I don't take marching orders from him. And no doubt, he plays to his base. But where I think he loses credibility and where he goes wrong is with his meanspirtedness. He gets away with it, but he names most of his political and social adversaries in subhuman and derogatory terms which ultimately doesn't seem to foster a whole lot of good, diplomacy or progress for the nation. I understand that he's entertainment, and the majority of his base appreciates the way he attacks and dehumanizes others. But it's not an intellectually honest pursuit as far as I'm concerned. It's a way to railroad an opponent, tagging them as something which might not be farther from the truth. For instance, it was one thing to label former moderate Senator Paul Tsongas from Massachusetts "Paul Tax on gas" early in the '92 election. Hey, I thought it was pretty creative. But "Dingy Harry", "Senator Dick Turban", "Queen Bee Nancy" only serve to rile up even more hatred. He knows what he is doing and how it's going to play among the less savvy of his listeners. I harken back to the late 80's or early 90's when he did his April Fools schtick about taxing the poor as a joke on his audience who lapped it up so thoroughly that he had to end the assault early to remind them not to take everything he says completely seriously. I can respect that, many can not.

JMO

TPS

 

[Saint by the Bay]

and then you chopped up some of my posts and quoted them out of order to justify that I was whining.

I took the last two lines from ONE of your posts not parts and quoted it exactly in order.

 

[RebSaint]

George F. Will -- Washington Post Opinion Writer (washingtonpost.com) - washingtonpost.com

Conservatism needs more voices of this ilk. Pat Buchanan, although rather shillish at times is another incredibly intellectually rigorous individual. There are more credible conservative voices, but Hannity, Rush, and Coulter have had more appeal.

 

[V Chip]

I disagree. I know that all views may take an "intellectual beatdown" but it is the overall tone that rightwingers are simply "sheep" and that they are not freethinkers.

Implications are rampant that they "get thier marching orders" or "are brainwashed" just in these two threads.

And then when this is pointed out we get accussed of whining.

I dont really care, I am not scared and will not dunk a legit discussion, I have views that many on the board disagree with, and I feel I have [almost] always been very reasonable when discussing them, and though from time to time I may point out what I feel to be a condesending tone towards the low brow redneck religous right wingers, I generally have my discussions with out "whining."

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.

I'm responding to this post although I have read the thread to it's end (as of the time of me composing this)

I'll start off that yes, you are correct in that sometimes people espousing conservative viewpoints get called out as sheep. Sometimes even undeservedly so, but I think those points are rare.

For example, if I came back in reply to this post and simply replied "See? Conservatives are ruining the country. Jesus! Kill Muslims! States Rights!" and that was it, would you think my post was insightful and deserving of reasoned response? Perhaps you would, in that case you are the better man than I. Unfortunately, a lot of people do post those types of things, although the majority of the time it would be from the conservative fence: "See? Liberals are ruining the country! Godlessness! Homosexuality! Welfare!!" And if someone comes with a weak drive-by post of that nature, and if they get "Sheep!" response, then I don't have a problem with it. If you come back with a reasoned, thought out response, no matter how far away from my views, I won't disparage you although I might find your views hard to comprehend.

Personally, I think there are Rush listeners who are brilliant, and those who are ignorant, and many in between. And IMO most fall towards the non-brilliant side of the fence than the brilliant one, but I don't have facts to back it up so I don't comment on it -- it's just my personal observation. Plus I try to treat each poster as an individual rather than a generalization, but sometimes I do fail.

Having said that, I go back to the original point in this thread and the other that right-wingers are "ganged up on" by "the masses" and that the EE is biased against the right: hogwash. No matter what the view, if one brings a weak argument to the EE and expect people to pat them on the back, they are in for a rude awakening. I'll 100% cop to the fact that fools are not suffered lightly on the EE, no matter their political, religious, ethnic, or socio-economic affiliation. But I think the idea that the EE is biased against the right is completely bogus.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

George F. Will -- Washington Post Opinion Writer (washingtonpost.com) - washingtonpost.com

Conservatism needs more voices of this ilk. Pat Buchanan, although rather shillish at times is another incredibly intellectually rigorous individual. There are more credible conservative voices, but Hannity, Rush, and Coulter have had more appeal.

Even though he's not popular I'd put Gingrich in that lot as well.

 

[RebSaint]

No matter what the view, if one brings a weak argument to the EE and expect people to pat them on the back, they are in for a rude awakening. I'll 100% cop to the fact that fools are not suffered lightly on the EE, no matter their political, religious, ethnic, or socio-economic affiliation. But I think the idea that the EE is biased against the right is completely bogus.

I think this point is 100% spot on.

 

[tenordas]

I voted "never". Actually, now and then when I am in the car going somewhere, I may hear him occasionally as I'm looking for a station, but usually it only takes a few sentences for him to infuriate me - even when I agree with his premise. He is just a ratings seeking buffoon who will say pretty much anything (from a far right perspective) to try and work up a frenzy for ratings. Blech. I'd like to lock him and Bill Maher in a room and when the survivor comes out, shoot him.

Why do we listen to such people, no matter what their political leanings?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think this point is 100% spot on.

Yes, and that's the point I was really reponding too.

I could care less about if someone listens to Rush or not and I think the same could be said for most of the EE. If you can put forth coherent meaningful ideas I don't care if your primary source of information is Penn and Teller.

 

[Hoyasaint]

No matter what the view, if one brings a weak argument to the EE and expect people to pat them on the back, they are in for a rude awakening. I'll 100% cop to the fact that fools are not suffered lightly on the EE, no matter their political, religious, ethnic, or socio-economic affiliation.

lus-un2:

Morans of all types have gotten many a whuppin on the ole EE

 

[Shawn]

George F. Will -- Washington Post Opinion Writer (washingtonpost.com) - washingtonpost.com

Conservatism needs more voices of this ilk. Pat Buchanan, although rather shillish at times is another incredibly intellectually rigorous individual. There are more credible conservative voices, but Hannity, Rush, and Coulter have had more appeal.

I like Buchanan.

Sometimes he's an ***. And I don't agree with a LOT of his isolationist tendencies. But there's no doubt the guy is sharp, well informed, and often just plain interesting to listen to.

I don't rate Buchanan at the top of my list, but he's a solid guy who I'd listen to any day. I wouldn't dare mention him in the same breath with Rush.

Ditto on Gingrich, though for some reason, when he becomes politcally active, he seems to become insane. Intellectually, he's a heavyweight. I'd love to have dinner with him.

 

[HouDat]

Even though he's not popular I'd put Gingrich in that lot as well.

Absolutely. I realize that demagogues hate Gingrich because he led the collective stomping of the Democrats in the mid-term elections of '94. But the guy is one of the most profound political thinkers of our day.

Controversial? Sure. But like many great thinkers from throughout history, you'll always be labeled as such when you challenge conventional thinking.

BTW, I think George Will = $$$. Buchanan? Sometimes.