Rush Limbaugh's Four Words: I hope he fails

[Shirina]

I know that, I'm saying if they relied on people tuning in by choice, the liberals could not get their voices heard...thus we have the failure of virtually every liberal radio show, news show and talk show...think Air America and MSNBC...

People like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity have huge audiences because that's where many on the right receive their marching orders. I find it no small coincidence that the right-wingers posts always mirror something recently said on one of these shows.

It's truly amazing how every single conservative on another board simultaneously began posting threads about Saul Alinsky. Did a dozen people just happen to independently come across Saul Alinsky, read his ideology, make a comparison to liberals, and then launch into a thread-starting extravaganza?

Of course not. The most logical conclusion is that the right-wingers are receiving their information from some centralized source. Even if they received the information third-hand from a blog or right-wing website, the information still bubbled up from one singular place. Sure enough, with 30 seconds of searching, it was discovered that the usual conservative talking heads were preaching about Saul Alinsky.

Same thing happened with George Soros.

Just the other day, I busted a conservative poster for comparing Obama with Mussolini. Within 5 seconds, I found a video where Beck was, wait for it .... comparing Obama with Mussolini!

Most of these people are cut 'n paste gurus, saying little in their own words, and when they do, the stupidity displayed is almost unfathomable.

Liberal radio and television shows have far smaller audiences because, by and large, we do not connect to the hive mind to find out what we should be thinking or who we should be talking about. One of the conservatives there even posted an article from some website with step-by-step instructions on how to discuss abortion with liberals. It even told the conservative which words to use and which to avoid.

I got a big chuckle out of that.

So I wouldn't be overly proud of the huge listenership of Limbaugh and Friends because those shows have severely undermined the conservative ability to think for his or herself.

[Shirina]

Again, I am not surprised to hear internet crickets chirping in response to my earlier question. It will NEVER be answered, because the 100% accurate FACT is that the vast majority of Rush Limbaugh critics haven't listed to the show at all, or not long enough to form an informed opinion.

No one is correct 100% of the time. Not even 96%. Anyone who believes that rubbish needs to re-think their own analytical skills. Limbaugh is not the Oracle at Delphi or Nostradamus.

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.)

The reason you hear a lot of internet crickets is because the amount of research necessary to find and document his mistakes would require too much time and effort for a message board. There is no incentive to do it, either, for it would only result in a chorus of "nuh uhs" from the Limbaugh fans or the thread will simply die as fans ignore or avoid the truth.

Here are a few of Rush's mistakes:

www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

[swamp]

"So I wouldn't be overly proud of the huge listenership of Limbaugh and Friends because those shows have severely undermined the conservative ability to think for his or herself"

Very telling that they refer to themselves as "ditto heads." Yeah, that's how I want to be known, someone who just parrots what someone else says.............

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

And unless you make an effort to hear voices outside the echo chamber of the mainstream media, you won’t have any inkling of what Limbaugh is all about or of how widely his reach and appeal extend.

Sorry, but if you have an audience in the hundreds of thousands, you're mainstream. Can't have it both ways. Didn't some kind of alarm go off when "outside ... the mainstream media" and "how widely his reach and appeal extend" came IN THE SAME SENTENCE?

If they were as inconsequential as their enemies pretend it would make a whole lot more sense to just ignore them.

Who are "they"? Darn you nonexistent libs!

from #30

People like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity have huge audiences because that's where many on the right receive their marching orders.

And with Palin talking about "death panels," we don't feel that way at all.

And to add another layer, we're supposed to believe these people have millions of viewers, but aren't mainstream. And because they have millions of listeners, we somehow find them inconsequential.

Yet more strawmen bowling where youse sets 'em up, then youse knocks 'em down.

In virtually all cases, the criticisms have been distortions, out of context quotes and outright lies.

Have a "virtual" piece of cake to celebrate your self-declared victory.

i.e. by having Obama appear on every TV network simultaneously, pre-empting all other programming by government order through the FCC.

You mean just like every other President since they've been on TV (and radio before that). OMG!!!! yet another thing that Obama can't/shouldn't do, but other Presidents did/could. Anyone got a good explanation?

the liberals could not get their voices heard...thus we have the failure of virtually every liberal radio show, news show and talk show think Air America and MSNBC...

MSNBC seems to be up and running. Also what about that "mainstream media" (well that mainstream media that isn't Fox, etc.). So, in reality, "virtually every" means "one" in Ed's dictionary.

Did you ever notice how he is never shown in a negative light.

Hyperbole infinitely much?

I ask for a specific example of a mistake of any consequence that Rush has made and either he keeps pushing it, OR, he hasn't owned up to it and corrected it.

And should it also be on a second Tuesday of a Month that has an "M" in it and it can't be about someone with an "S" in their name? You put so many qualifiers in it, the challenge is silly, especially the "keep pushing it." Why would someone need to keep pushing a statement they already made, and if they're wrong, it's easier to just drop it and people will forget about it.

But why not? Can you justify Rush imitating the Chinese President?

because the 100% accurate FACT is that the vast majority of Rush Limbaugh critics haven't listed to the show at all, or not long enough to form an informed opinion.

It's a 100% accurate FACT that the capital of the United States is Jupiter. Sorry, FACTS capping doesn't make it so.

Not only is unsubstantiated, but if the vast majority of Hitler critics never heard him, etc. does that exonerate him? Nope.

If people fallaciously try to disprove him, that doesn't make him wrong or right, and their arguments are just thrown out. It's like a "'Disproof by Fallacy' [fallacy] if a conclusion can be reached in an obviously fallacious way, then the conclusion is incorrectly declared wrong." www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fallacy

he amount of research necessary to find and document his mistakes would require too much time and effort for a message board.

After the mistakes are documented, they mindlessly dismiss the source (in other words, only Fox News or Rush is a valid source). Saying even a biased source is false is just as fallacious as saying it's true.

[ed1066]

Message deleted due to insulting language to another poster.
Deminmaine- Moderator

[marjar]

Feb 4, 2011 15:01:09 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I believe the pres of the US has the privilege of getting air time to make a speech or something or other. Has nothing to due with the current prez.

I know that, I'm saying if they relied on people tuning in by choice, the liberals could not get their voices heard...thus we have the failure of virtually every liberal radio show, news show and talk show...think Air America and MSNBC...

So the "liberal media" doesn't exist?

[swamp]

Apparently not...................

[safeharbor37]

The "liberal media" does indeed exist [alive and well and living at Huffpo, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, NYT, etc.].
It's just that it doesn't do well in a free marketplace, but only when they achieve a virtual monopoly [fairness doctrine].
When the people are free to choose, they tend to choose "fair and balanced" over "all the news we want you to have."
The real problem with "liberal" is that it's inbred. No alternative allowed. Do as you're told and think what we tell you to think. I'm always reminded of the "popular kids" in High School [Jr. & Senior]. We determine what is acceptable and, if you want to join, you must accept whatever we say ~ then we'll decide if we want you. By the time someone achieves "acceptance," he/she's brain dead. But that is the maturity level of "liberal." No questions allowed. Stay on message, the party line.

[ugonow]

I don't know how anyone could possibly believe any sources other than those that lean right,but that's jmo.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 7, 2011 16:10:36 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

The "liberal media" does indeed exist [alive and well and living at Huffpo, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, NYT, etc.].
It's just that it doesn't do well in a free marketplace, but only when they achieve a virtual monopoly [fairness doctrine].
When the people are free to choose, they tend to choose "fair and balanced" over "all the news we want you to have."
The real problem with "liberal" is that it's inbred. No alternative allowed. Do as you're told and think what we tell you to think. I'm always reminded of the "popular kids" in High School [Jr. & Senior]. We determine what is acceptable and, if you want to join, you must accept whatever we say ~ then we'll decide if we want you. By the time someone achieves "acceptance," he/she's brain dead. But that is the maturity level of "liberal." No questions allowed. Stay on message, the party line.

Reminds me of the 2011 CPAC convention and for some reason not wanting GOProud to participate.

At least Sarah Palin and a few others have it right:

"Sarah Palin, one of the most prominent leaders of the conservative movement, says that boycotting the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference because of a group of gay conservatives participating in the event can hinder helpful debate.

"It's like you being on a panel with ... a bunch of those liberal folks that you've been on with," she said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "You provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed for people to gather information to make up their own minds on issues. I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information people have, the better."

Several conservative organizations including Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council and figures such as Sen. Jim DeMint have decided to skip the annual event because of the inclusion of gay organization GOProud."

www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?Section=1&ID=26630

[marjar]

I used to run a message board, many years ago, called: The Topic is Rush. Used to listen to his show, post daily transcripts, and prove or deny his assertions. It was entertaining.

[safeharbor37]

CPAC is a good example. The group [which doesn't necessarily represent all conservatives] is pretty inclusive. Those who have objections are free not to attend. The fact is that CPAC is dealing with a leadership crisis and an embezzlement scandal and DeMent, although not participating, did not specify that the inclusion was the reason. It's not surprising for the CWA and FRC which are primarily religious organizations.
Sarah had it right. Those not attending were invited and chose not to attend. Seems to me that CPAC is sufficiently inclusive. They don't require attendance or participation, but even they would have the right, even the responsibility, to exclude those who would unduly disrupt the convention.
The big point is that CPAC is just an organization, not the conservative movement.

[safeharbor37]

Back to Rush:
My observation is that those who attempt to discredit Rush tend to call Rush's opinions lies. I remember a list of "lies" that I bothered to read and not a single one could be accurately classified as a lie ~ but, of course, the compiler of the list disagreed with Rush's take ~ so called them all "lies." Each attempt I've seen since fell into the same category. It isn't that Rush isn't wrong on occasion or that he admits being wrong all the time [I've heard him weasel on some issues], but all the lists of his "lies" that I've seen have been pure crap.

[verrip1]

Little known factoid. Well known, syndicated, radio doctor on the air and strong liberal Dr. Dean Edell was instrumental in helping get Rush L. syndicated.

Carry on.

[Shirina]

When the people are free to choose, they tend to choose "fair and balanced" over "all the news we want you to have."

No, they tend to choose the show that reinforces the opinions they already have.

[Shirina]

We determine what is acceptable and, if you want to join, you must accept whatever we say ~ then we'll decide if we want you.

Really? So have the liberals instituted a "liberal litmus test" to see if you're liberal enough for ... I don't know ... the Coffee Party?

I cannot fathom why conservatives have an obsession of projecting their own shortcomings onto liberals, but watching them incessantly polishing their halos and fluffing their angel wings is becoming quite nauseating.

[vonnie6200]

Feb 7, 2011 19:03:59 GMT -5 Shirina said:

When the people are free to choose, they tend to choose "fair and balanced" over "all the news we want you to have."

No, they tend to choose the show that reinforces the opinions they already have.

So then there are many more conservatives in this country than liberals?

[EVT1]

Depends on the definitions of conservative and liberal- going by this board and the absurd views of what a liberal is there are only about 7 or 8 liberals in the country. I think the hive mind comment is apt- the 'conservatives' derive their power from being unified, a borg collective running on misinformation and you are either with them or against them (a liberal). The 'liberals' they speak of actually encompass the majority of the country- they tend to have differing opinions on issues (i.e. their own), have no united front, no spokesperson, no official news channel, they get their information from various sources and draw their own conclusions. They may vote D,R,I or not vote at all. As far as the 'conservatives' go, it should be interesting as they continue to tighten up on the membership, purging their own party members who dare to compromise or fail to toe the line. 2012- not a chance they way they are going. It's a good thing though- the GOP needs to have that giant wedge driven in hard and go ahead and let the fringe weirdos run with things for a while. Once the damage is done- which will be far worse than GW's train wreck, we will be through with them forever and a more centrist GOP will emerge- who knows, maybe we can become a top country again rather than a deadbeat debtor nation that treats its own citizens like crap so it can subsidize the ruling class.

[safeharbor37]

As has been pointed out, libertarians are not necessarily conservative, but libertarians frequently choose to associate with conservatives and Republicans because conservatives and Republicans are, in general, more tolerant of diverse ideas than liberals and Democrats [this has been true for some time, but not necessarily always].
Many groups, particularly religious groups, tend to conservative/Republican association also because conservative/Republicans are more tolerant. Some on this board suggest that because some of the subgroups who have associated with conservative/Republicans choose to sever that association, it reflects on the inclusiveness of conservative/Republicans. That of course is counter to logic, but whoever said [with any justification] that liberal/Democrats were [practically] logical.
Actually many conservative/Republicans are "liberal" in many respects. The "liberals" to which those outside the "party" refer are those who are close minded to any other ideas than those promulgated to the faithful. There is, in other words, a difference between holding "liberal" beliefs" and being a "liberal." There are indeed few real "liberals," but they exert an undue influence based on their numbers ~ very much like the influence of the Bolsheviks in the development of the Soviet Union. In fact, modern American Liberalism has more in common with the Bolsheviks than any other group that comes to mind.

[ed1066]

I just find it ironic that the conservative line around Obama seems to be "I hope he fails", while the liberal line around Bush was "I hope he dies"...very telling.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 4, 2011 15:04:07 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Besides Rush.com

On second thought , not that funny, sorry..... hows a ;D

[floridayankee]

Feb 8, 2011 12:51:26 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

the liberal line around Bush was "I hope he dies"...very telling.
Funny, I don't recall that.
Impeached, Charged for criminal behavior, reviled in general, yes. But I don't recall people on here wishing he would die.
Especially given who would replace him.

Well, maybe not here, but you cannot deny it was out there on the streets.....

[verrip1]

So odd that some people will only focus on people who repeat things heard from Rush or Beck, yet ignore others popping in with some allegation from ThinkProgress, HuffPo or DemUG.

Then, of course, they take a giant leap in concluding that since some conservatives simultaneously argue a single point, that ALL conservatives get EVERYTHING they write about as a knee-jerk to a Beck or Rush quote.

I guess that generalizing about generalizations leads to conclusions of fact in some peoples' minds.

[EVT1]

Feb 4, 2011 15:04:07 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Besides Rush.com

Please be careful- rush.com is sacred. Home to the only Rush that has talent and matters.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2011 9:04:43 GMT -5 swamp said:

"So I wouldn't be overly proud of the huge listenership of Limbaugh and Friends because those shows have severely undermined the conservative ability to think for his or herself"

Very telling that they refer to themselves as "ditto heads." Yeah, that's how I want to be known, someone who just parrots what someone else says.............

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the vast majority of Rush's critics have NEVER listened, or haven't listened long enough to get any context.

20 years of the most successful radio show in history, single handedly reviving a radio band, and even propelling liberal shows into the spotlight by his very existence- creating the forum- is an accomplishment.

So, let's inform YOU, shall we?

"Dittos" was a way to save precious radio time- it encapsulates the phrase, "I really like listening to this show, great show, etc" - it's shorthand. So, a "Dittohead" is a person who likes the show, but does not necessarily agree with the Rush. Faithful listeners to the show know that it is a mistake to think that "ditto" means that the caller agrees with Rush Limbaugh's opinions.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And really? Nobody remembers Bush Derrangement Syndrome (or are some of you just sufferers)?

It doesn't take but half a second to search it:
www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS332US332&q=Bush+death+threats+posters+effigee&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1259&bih=571

[floridayankee]

Feb 9, 2011 11:28:43 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well that has about as much class as Yankee's Suck tee shirts. And I'm no Yankee fan either.

Let's clarify something here....it's NY Yankees that suck....not the FL Yankees

[ugonow]

So, let's inform YOU, shall we?

Thanks for informing them. I don't want people thinking I am a ditto head if I am a Rush fan.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I'm a dittohead, AND a Rush fan.