RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele

RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 11:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If they are elected to office, doesn't that automatically remove them from the "entertainer" list? hmmm, maybe not .... [:D] Rush, however, isn't an elected official, nor does he hold any official office within the Republican party. That makes him an entertainer for the most part. Firm Which is exactly my point. Why is this entertainer being given so much influence by elected officials within the party? (did agree with the joke though)

Vendaval -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 11:40:41 AM)
That is correct. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Again, show me where the term ALL was used. You are reading something into the statement that is not there. Ven, So I take it that you did not mean "all" of his audience, when you said "his rabid audience"? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 11:43:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And, just out of curiosity ... why is an older audience a negative, in any case? I think the older, less educated audiences who tune into these types of shows generally have 2 issues, either they hold contempt against change and progress, or they have misgivings about their own life choices in the past not being as productive for them as it is for the younger generations, like in having regrets for not getting that college education and losing out on the earnings power over many years that a degree represented. It alot about 'politics of envy', but not in an "I want that, too" way, but in a "they shouldnt have more than what I had" way. I come to this conclusion from personal experince. Well, I'm glad you qualified where your belief comes from. Because, really, it's just anecdotal, and has little or no validity from a scientific or general point of explanation. I think the older, less educated audiences who tune into these types of shows ... And here is another of your assumptions, which I've already dis-proved, but you insist on continuing to believe and use in your defense. I notice you didn't address any of my other, later posts. Can I assume we are finished with those parts of the discussion? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 11:51:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Again, show me where the term ALL was used. You are reading something into the statement that is not there. Ven, So I take it that you did not mean "all" of his audience, when you said "his rabid audience"? That is correct. Do you then intend to correct your mis-statement? Firm

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 11:56:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I think the older, less educated audiences who tune into these types of shows ... And here is another of your assumptions, which I've already dis-proved, but you insist on continuing to believe and use in your defense. Please tell me how when no show in that list gets 50% or more of an audience with a college education, just how have you "disproved" my assumption that they all are shows that aim for the uneducated? Lets see your magic. :)

WomenDontRule -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:03:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule Having not read all of the responses, I hope I'm not repeating someone else's take...but here is mine. I find it amazing that ANYONE....Liberal or Conservative...Republican or Democrat....takes ANY of these radio and tv people so seriously that they have to revert to schoolyard bluster over them. Left-leaning, right-leaning.....they are ALL...100% of them....show people and if they can upset you then how much faith do you have in your own position that you feel you have to defend it from the likes of Oberman, or Limbaugh, or Moore, or Savidge?.....and that is exactly what you do when you attack any of these people...you legitimize their words as meaningful content against which you must attack in order to defend "your" people. It's like being in high school and some girl you want to date takes a shine to another guy....and you spend a lot of effort to try and shoot him down...try to make him look bad. Make fun of his name...make fun of his size.....his car....his house...anything. All you end up doing is making the guy look like a victim. There is a simple truth that is universal.....when the whole purpose of your actions is to tear someone else down, you must not have enough good about yourself to inspire people with. Dispute Limbaugh's or Oberman's facts...attack their positions....show where they are wrong. Ditto anyone else you disagree with. That approach worked in 1787 to bring thirteen colonies with a plethora of conflicting interests together. Wasn't perfect, but debating the facts and the positions and the realities - not the personalities - resulted in a pretty awesome document that survives to this day - a document both sides point to today to support their positions. You can be pretty sure no one will be pointing to Oberman or Limbaugh as a reference 220 years from now. Well, I wish you had read all of the responses because it might have helped explain. But to summarize, Limbaugh has become more than just another radio/tv personality. He has been legitimized by the Republican party, to the point he gives speeches to the party faithful and even has the RNC chairman apologizing for criticizing him. When you can have someone who spouts half-truths and exaggerations on a daily basis, for his own economic gain, become such an influence on a major political party that becomes scary. I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. He tried really hard to get McCain sacked and bypassed in the run up to the nomination and look what happened. He was critical of McCain and his tactics through the election and McCain changed nothing to suit him. I think the Democrats see him as larger than life and are afraid of him, but I have no earthly idea why. My own politics as a registered Independent do tend toward the moderate side of conservative, but I am not at all influenced by the man. No one I know is. I mean....he was not-so-invisibly attacking Bush the last year as well. And half truths and exaggerations? People on both sides of the ledger engage in that all the time. Then again go back to the Presidential election that pitted Jefferson against Adams....they had their own proxy fighters....and that was as much a barn burner with regard to personal attacks and attacks...as any in history relatively speaking.

twistedreality -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:08:26 PM)
I am so sick of all those cry babies on both sides of the table. First of all, the difference between conservatives and liberals is purely a core belief having to do with the governance of men. I do listen to Rush. I also listen to other conservatives and many liberals, as I learned a long time ago "somewhere in the middle is the truth". What Rush said is, he doesn't want Obama's socialistic policies to succeed. What is wrong with that? In my research, I have found no truly successful socialistic country. The United States is a country based on individual freedoms and self-responsibility. Furthermore, we are a republic, not a democracy. I challenge those who believe that more government is the answer, to provide me with one example of something that the government manages well. The English are pulling their teeth with pliers and Canadians come here by the thousands, for medical treatment, because of the limitations of socialized medicine. There has to be another answer to the problem. I say let us turn some law schools into medical schools.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. I tend to agree with that, but it still makes you wonder about Steele's collosal mistake to hurry the retreat and kiss up. That tells me that either "No Backbone" Steele is the wrong guy for the top GOP job, or that the GOP leadership/direction crisis happening under the covers is much worse than whats being portrayed publicly. That CPAC event was a clusterfuck in terms of cohesiveness, watching all those people with their own agendas jockeying in a power vaccum trying to orchestrate their own role as a phoenix-maker that will start the rise from the ashes. Rush Limbaugh's ideals, tactics, and "entertainment" hardly represent the conservative values of previous generations of conservatives that grew up in the Goldwater and Reagan era. Neither did the conservatives with the uber-religious bent that came before Rush's 15 minutes of fame, either.

TreasureKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:33:45 PM)
Fast Reply: I get amazed at how riled up liberals still get over Rush. Good Lord... he's not new on the scene. Rush has been a conservative talk radio host for almost 25 years now, 21 of those years with his national show. You don't like his ideas or what he says? Get over it. A good many people do enjoy listening to him and agree with his core conservative ideas... that's why his show has been on for over 20 years and is still going strong. So sorry, but he's not going anywhere anytime soon. You all will live.

Owner59 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:46:07 PM)
I get a kick out of the nervous laugh cons make, when caught trying to project their embarrassed reactions on others.Like Treasure here. I bet these nuts also get a kick out of normal peoples reactions to their outrages. Treasure`s freudenschade comment, speaks volumes. quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule "McCain changed nothing to suit him". Sarah Palin/fundie love.... McCain did that to get those rush`n votes.No one denies that.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:48:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY A good many people do enjoy listening to him and agree with his core conservative ideas... that's why his show has been on for over 20 years and is still going strong. But Rush doesnt remotely possess core conservative ideals. He posseses "his" conservative ideals. He has achieved what he has by capturing the "anger crowd". That hardly represents mainstream conservatism. In a nation with 300 million people that associates slightly more right of center, Rush represents only 20 million out of 150 million who identify as conservative or republican. The religious conservatives that came before Rush's latest popularity binge appealed to a good 60-70 million evangelical conservatives, or three times the amount of the base that Rush has. He only really appeals to those fringe 20 million with limited religious views, llimited education and 'malleable minds', those who actually buy into stupid shit like when Rush said feminism was only created as a way for ugly women to enter the mainstream of society. You have to admit that some pretty stupid shit, and it hardly represnts what mainstream conservatives believe. Rush is simply another splinter group just as the religious conservatives before him were, but with only one third of the following that the Jesus folks had.

rulemylife -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Well, I wish you had read all of the responses because it might have helped explain. But to summarize, Limbaugh has become more than just another radio/tv personality. He has been legitimized by the Republican party, to the point he gives speeches to the party faithful and even has the RNC chairman apologizing for criticizing him. When you can have someone who spouts half-truths and exaggerations on a daily basis, for his own economic gain, become such an influence on a major political party that becomes scary. I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. He tried really hard to get McCain sacked and bypassed in the run up to the nomination and look what happened. He was critical of McCain and his tactics through the election and McCain changed nothing to suit him. I think the Democrats see him as larger than life and are afraid of him, but I have no earthly idea why. My own politics as a registered Independent do tend toward the moderate side of conservative, but I am not at all influenced by the man. No one I know is. I mean....he was not-so-invisibly attacking Bush the last year as well. Well to address the last point first, of course he was attacking Bush the last year. The man makes his money on ratings. Bush's popularity polls dropped to new lows. Do you think Rush wanted his ratings to follow? He panders to whatever can create the most controversy. No, you yourself are not influenced by him, but many others are. So many others that the RNC chairman was forced to retract his statements. Judging by that, I think it is the Republican party that is more afraid of him than the Democrats.

TreasureKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:59:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY A good many people do enjoy listening to him and agree with his core conservative ideas... that's why his show has been on for over 20 years and is still going strong. But Rush doesnt remotely possess core conservative ideals. He posseses "his" conservative ideals. He has achieved what he has by capturing the "anger crowd". That hardly represents mainstream conservatism. In a nation with 300 million people that associates slightly more right of center, he represents only 20 million out of 150 million who identify as conservative or republican. He only really appeals to those fringe 20 million with limited education and 'malleable minds', who actually buy into stupid shit like when Rush said feminism was only created as a way for ugly women to enter the mainstream of society. You have to admit that some pretty stupid shit, and it hardly represnts what mainstream conservatives believe. Who said he had to represent mainstream conservatism? He appeals to the people he appeals to. It doesn't make any difference if it is a small percentage or large percentage... it doesn't make any difference if it is the fringe or mainstream. The fact remains that a great many people do listen to him, enjoy what he has to say, and agree with him. Get over it. You can try all you want to marginalize the people who agree with Rush by calling them "angry", "undereducated", and saying they have "malleable minds". You won't win them over and they'll continue to believe as they do, laughing all the while at your discomfiture with their very existence. Life is good. [;)]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 12:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. Perhaps not, but the fact remains that he obviously wields enough power that the Chair of the Republican Party feels compelled to apologize to his listeners for calling him an "entertainer" and not paying him proper respect as a "party leader." That sounds to me like a hell of a lot of power for some guy with a radio show.

TreasureKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. Perhaps not, but the fact remains that he obviously wields enough power that the Chair of the Republican Party feels compelled to apologize to his listeners for calling him an "entertainer" and not paying him proper respect as a "party leader." That sounds to me like a hell of a lot of power for some guy with a radio show. I wouldn't say that it is Rush that has the power. It's more like Steele recognized the power that the listeners of Rush hold? That's a pretty large conservative base of listeners for the GOP to go insulting and marginalizing. Rush's vote alone can't make or break any GOP elected official... all those people who believe in those "incendiary" and "ugly" ideas that Rush espouses, however, can.

Owner59 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: WomenDontRule I don't believe for a moment that Limbaugh wields any power even remotely close to that. Perhaps not, but the fact remains that he obviously wields enough power that the Chair of the Republican Party feels compelled to apologize to his listeners for calling him an "entertainer" and not paying him proper respect as a "party leader." That sounds to me like a hell of a lot of power for some guy with a radio show. Technically,Don Corleone didn`t hold office or any official position. You still kissed the damm ring of the God Father,or else. Steele kissing boss Rush`s ass, errr emm ,ring said everything.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY You can try all you want to marginalize the people who agree with Rush by calling them "angry", "undereducated", and saying they have "malleable minds". You won't win them over and they'll continue to believe as they do, laughing all the while at your discomfiture with their very existence. You know, I seem to recall the religious conservatives laughing in the same manner, only to get their asses handed to them along with a bus ticket out of town. Will you be laughing when things here are socialized as a result of the inability to win an election? You know what they say, poverty (political or economic) re-invents itself.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I wouldn't say that it is Rush that has the power. It's more like Steele recognized the power that the listeners of Rush hold? That's a pretty large conservative base of listeners for the GOP to go insulting and marginalizing. Rush's vote alone can't make or break any GOP elected official... all those people who believe in those "incendiary" and "ugly" ideas that Rush espouses, however, can. And I'll tell you what, if the Rushies dont want to be marginalized, how about acting in a way that doesnt lead the leader of their own party, and the rest of the world, to that conclusion? Sounds like a good plan, and their destiny is even in their own hands.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:41:33 PM)
*~ Fast Reply ~* This is important or worthy of 8 pages, so far, of discussion? Rush is a 'star'. A failed baseball announcer, a former 'liberal' commentator; there just wasn't any money in it. (See 'Air America'). He found his 'niche' assisted by having good timing to launch his show at a time when music was dying. He became a franchise copied by the likes of Don Imus, who gave up his cocaine influenced music show to become a political commentator. Rush is of the same caliber of any Hollywood actor. Many who called for failure of government policy and specific administrations. In the case of Jane Fonda, going so far as to champion the deaths of US soldiers. So what? Is his and their opinion more valid, or representing anyone's opinion greater than Michael Moore? Republican's seeking his endorsement live with the knee-jerk anti-Rush crowd. Democrats should be overjoyed. The weak minded always prefer someone else to represent their opinions. Ideally they are equally distributed and cancel each other out. The 'sin' here is allowing it to distract from the real issues facing the country. Meanwhile, since January, $3 Trillion dollars of wealth and assets have been 'lost' with no end in sight under this Administration. I don't know what Rush is hoping for, but that, to me, represents FAILURE most profound. Is he hoping for "failure" or just "more failure"? Hell, 'failure' is a ideal to be striven for isn't it? Must be, because its the one sure path to getting government money. I'll concede that to this Administration 'failure' is regarded as a success; another tally to be marked of those on the government dole. Considering some of the 'spin' I've read, applying it similarly in the case of what Rush said could be interpreted as congratulating the administration in so quickly accomplishing their goal of total daily government involvement in lives of the general public. See there, depending on how you look at it - Rush actually is a major supporter of the goals of the Administration. Rush is another attempt at distraction; obviously a good one. How many so far have been provided by the 'Ministry of Truth', I mean the White House press office?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Limbaugh's latest attacker: RNC's Steele (3/4/2009 1:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I think the older, less educated audiences who tune into these types of shows ... And here is another of your assumptions, which I've already dis-proved, but you insist on continuing to believe and use in your defense. Please tell me how when no show in that list gets 50% or more of an audience with a college education, just how have you "disproved" my assumption that they all are shows that aim for the uneducated? Lets see your magic. :) You seem to consider "math" as "magic". The answer to your question, good sir, is in a question I posed earlier to you, but which you either have not the time to investigate, or the desire to see the answer, or the inability to clearly think. To wit: quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY In direct response to your latest strawman attacks, have you considered determining the percentage of college degreed individuals in the general population versus the percentage of college degreed individuals are who listen to Rush? Or to any of the news programs under discussion? No? Look those up, and post your conclusions. Firm

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625