Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio

[MarcATL]

The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.

If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"

Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.

I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.

Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.

I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.

Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.

Unfortunately.

Can you give an example or two? I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them. They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.

I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly. William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago. Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well. She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot. I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley. And there are a few others.

The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.

 

[edthecynic]

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response. Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.

And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.

If you noticed, when the lying coward Stuttering LimpBoy challenged Obama to a debate, knowing Obama would be too busy to do it, he required Obama to come to his studio where his crew could feed him his lines on his monitor and through his bionic ear just in case Obama decided to take him up on the challenge.

If Obama had been smart enough to send me in his place, LimpBoy did leave the door open for that, MessiahRushie would have crapped his pants even knowing he had his crew to help him.

Rush to the President: Debate Me
March 4, 2009
RUSH: I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios.* If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.* I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it.*

 

[DiveCon]

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response. Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.

And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.

a lack of response is usually a sign of you are not worth the effort because you are nothing but a fucking IDIOT

 

[Meister]

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response. Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.

And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.

a lack of response is usually a sign of you are not worth the effort because you are nothing but a fucking IDIOT

Exactly, I won't waste the effort with the doofus. Rush is right nearly all the time, and he takes the one that he isn't and blow it up like it's front page news. Why doesn't he do the same with his messiah, obama? He lies more than Rush

 

[edthecynic]

I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.

Unfortunately.

Can you give an example or two? I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them. They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.

I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly. William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago. Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well. She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot. I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley. And there are a few others.

The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.

You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.

Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"

Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."

Opening Monologue Sets the Table
October 15, 2008
RUSH: The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone? Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain. Where is there any anger whatsoever? And the sharply personal attacks on Obama. What sharply personal attacks? All they are is people telling the truth about the little squirrel. What personal attacks? "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there." No, no, no, no. Not a personal attack, himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears. What's the big deal?

 

[sitarro]

The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.

If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"

Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.

I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.

Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.

I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.

Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.

Proof your post boy and check out what your friends from the left of the aisle had to say about Saddam.......

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[ozzmdj]

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response. Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.

And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.

If you noticed, when the lying coward Stuttering LimpBoy challenged Obama to a debate, knowing Obama would be too busy to do it, he required Obama to come to his studio where his crew could feed him his lines on his monitor and through his bionic ear just in case Obama decided to take him up on the challenge.

If Obama had been smart enough to send me in his place, LimpBoy did leave the door open for that, MessiahRushie would have crapped his pants even knowing he had his crew to help him.

Rush to the President: Debate Me
March 4, 2009
RUSH: I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios.* If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.* I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it.*

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.

Unfortunately.

Can you give an example or two? I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them. They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.

I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly. William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago. Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well. She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot. I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley. And there are a few others.

The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.

You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.

Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"

Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."

Opening Monologue Sets the Table
October 15, 2008
RUSH: The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone? Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain. Where is there any anger whatsoever? And the sharply personal attacks on Obama. What sharply personal attacks? All they are is people telling the truth about the little squirrel. What personal attacks? "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there." No, no, no, no. Not a personal attack, himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears. What's the big deal?

When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context, why should I take you seriously about anything? So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.

When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.

Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response. Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.

As impressed as you are with yourself it's obvious that you have never really listened to Rush Limbaugh with anything but preconceived notions of who he is, what he is going to say and who is feeding him with talking points. You aren't any kind of judge of character, you are a joke and pathetic in your attempts to paint millions of people with a very large brush. I would say "GO FUCK YOURSELF" but I doubt even you would have sex with a dildo like you.

Well, you have my permission to say, "GO FUCK YOURSELF" since you've already written it. Very declasse, but maybe not in Texas.
I wonder though, do you feel tough and manly calling someone names and using sexually perverse language while hiding behind your keyboard?
It's only my opinion, but my judgment of your character - based on your post - is you're a coward and a sexually repressed ignoramous.

 

[Big Fitz]

The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.

If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"

Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.

I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.

Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.

I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.

Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.

The amount of projection here is just incredible. Willful blindness at it's best.

 

[Foxfyre]

The amount of projection here is just incredible. Willful blindness at it's best.

Oh gawd, you just had to use the 'p' word didn't you. Now we'll have 14 more pages of dubious efforts trashing you and straining at gnats to prove to you how you used it incorrectly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.

If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"

Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.

I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.

Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.

I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.

Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.

Proof your post boy and check out what your friends from the left of the aisle had to say about Saddam.......

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

And your point? The same argument might be made for Iran and N. Korea - do we invade and occupy them now? And why didn't we invade and occupy N. Korea? Why Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. How much in lives and limbs and treasure has the Iraq adventure cost our nation?
Don't give me guotes from members of congress - D or R; ask a Democrat in the street, most will say the congress got taken by the hysteria created by 9/11 and the fear mongering of the neoconservatives.

btw, Jets 24, Texans 0 (Mea Culpa, Jets 27, Texans 0)

 

[DiveCon]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

 

[Meister]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

I think that sums up everything wry has to say. That is too funny.

 

[DiveCon]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

I think that sums up everything wry has to say. That is too funny.

it definitely shows how out of touch with reality he is

 

[Wry Catcher]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs. And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas. Understand now?
Now apologize.

 

[Meister]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs. And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas. Understand now?
Now apologize.

Damage control, huh?

 

[DiveCon]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs. And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas. Understand now?
Now apologize.

Damage control, huh?

TFF isnt it

 

[DiveCon]

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron

And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs. And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas. Understand now?
Now apologize.

you fucked up. admit it, moron