Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio

[Foxfyre]

I don't know how you define neo-con and doubt you would answer when asked any more than you've honestly answered the other questions to you, but I'll answer yours.

1. I learn that there are radio commentators who have done their homework and can competently articulate a point of view independent of any personality. I have yet to find a liberal radio commentator who can do that or at least who does do that.

2. I get a lot of data, statistics, and key words to check out and follow up with research and almost invariably these are verifiable from other sources. I don't get that from liberal commentators either.

3. I am affirmed that I am not alone in my opinion about many things.

4. Occasionally I hear a perspective I had not thought of before and can either research it or think it through and come to a conclusion that may or may not agree with the commentator. Liberal radio commentators are so inept at articulating any kind of reasoned perspective that this happens extremely rarely on liberal programs.

5. Probably nothing on any of these programs is not available somewhere else--the hosts have to get their information from somewhere--but they frequently cite their sources which is helpful. And I personally find it helpful to have somebody else's staff scouring the news of the day and background information and pulling key points together for perusal. And while I generally visit at least ten or twelve information sources on average every day, the hosts have better resources than I do to do this and will almost always find something that I missed.

That's probably sufficient to answer your question.

I'll respond, in earnest, to your answers.

1. Subjective. What liberal commentators have you actually listened to? The ones I listen to have actually done their homework as well.

As I stated earier in this thread, I used to listen to Alan Colmes frequently - his entire program several days in a row. I listened in on Air America for about a week to see if there was possibly anything of substance there. There wasn't. I listen to PBS quite a bit, especially if they are broadcasting something going on in Congress, and there isn't a truly conservative commentator on their staff. I listen to local liberals in Amarillo, Albuquerque, Dallas, and Denver.

2. Again, subjective. I was really asking for SPECIFICS. I could have said the same thing about the liberal radio-hosts I listen to as well.

There isn't enough band width to list all the specifics. But I get poll results, verifiable elsewhere, I get employment figures, verifiable elsewhere, I get GDP numbers, stock market trends, troop strengths, direct quotes from various figures, analysis of various legislation working through Congress, names, dates, references to lawsuits, activities of various groups around the country. The same stuff you would be getting if you actually listened.

3. So what? Ditto for me and the radio hosts I listen to. Nothing special there.

No doubt. But I am affirmed in my beliefs that the Constitution is more than a dead and flexible document, that our Founders were more than a bunch of pinheads spouting platitudes, that mom, apple pie, and morality are still important, that respect for God, flag, country is not something to be ashamed of, that government charity is immoral and corrupting, that human rights, freedom, and encouragement to reach for our dreams is far preferable to any scheme dreamed up by socialist minded politicians.

I imagine you are being affirmed in something quite different.

4. New perspectives? *yawn* Me too bub, I get interesting angles everyday from LW radio. Nothing special there.

Again no doubt.

5. They frequently site their sources eh? Hmmm...I happen to listen to RW on occasion, and thats at least once a day for at least a half hour to an hour, including various shows on various stations and I don't hear much sourcing...other than the regular RW sources. aka Lewellyn (sp) Group...which is a well-known GOP-supported and financed branch.

If you aren't hearing sourcing, you aren't listening. I have yet to hear Rush or Hannity or any of them cite facts and figures without providing a source for where they got them. So I don't believe that you are listening.

Dude, you have wrote a lot and yet have wrote nothing of substance...all subjective and not unique to you or your side or persuasion.

Let me tell you some things I get from LW radio and talking heads that I don't get in MSM, useful information about Blackwater, the RW religious group The Family, the truth about the ACORN smear campaigns, the truth about RW dirty political tactics. Also, unlike RW radio who can find no wrong in anything the GOP does, I also find out lots of information about Democrats in office thats not very endearing to them. In other words, a healthy dose of critisicm of Dem policies and goings-on WHILE they are in office. Not after. I can go on, but these are but a FEW of the types of information I get from LW radio.

If you can verify what they're telling you about all this stuff and do, from something other than a leftwing hate site, then good for you. I suspect you are just swallowing it all hook line and sinker without following up on your own. When I have checked out some of their stuff, it doesn't jive with the full story. I do follow up information and verify from credible sources before deciding what I will believe. I think most conservatives do.

Again I ask you.....WTF do you "learn" from RW radio?

Be careful lest you be branded as dim as some of your leftwing cohorts here. I'll allow you to withdraw that question.

 

[MarcATL]

No neo-con...it was from last summer...09, the self-proclaimed Tea-Baggers expressing their so-called "outrage" to Obama's policies.

Try again.

 

[MarcATL]

I haven't listened to Alan Colmes on radio, but I've watched him for over a year damn-near daily on Hannity's show and he was the best thing on that show. He IS quite well prepared to deal with the constant barrage of RW lies and propoganda and talking points that he had to deal with every minute while on that show from his co-hosts and guests. Even though he was supposed to be kinda the "librul laughing stock" he got his shots and facts in despite the obvious attempts to minimize his role and voice on the show.

I do listen to RW radio, as I drive to work and I watched FOXNews almost exclusively for more than a year, I stopped all-together some months back after the hate-mongering and fear-mongering got too much for me to stomach any longer.

Can you say the same for LW media?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...

Too funny!

ROTFLMAO!

actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago

moron
during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly

And I think it has been pretty well discredited as a prank or fake demonstration etc. And from the date on the website linked, it goes at least all the way back to 2003.

Was the "Moran" guy a prank?

 

[DiveCon]

No neo-con...it was from last summer...09, the self-proclaimed Tea-Baggers expressing their so-called "outrage" to Obama's policies.

Try again.

wrong again, dumbfuck
or are you lying

 

[DiveCon]

"Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...

Too funny!

ROTFLMAO!

actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago

moron
during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly

And I think it has been pretty well discredited as a prank or fake demonstration etc. And from the date on the website linked, it goes at least all the way back to 2003.

Was the "Moran" guy a prank?

wow, nice find
clearly it was from before 2006 and i was wrong as well
but dont look for dumbass to admit he was wrong

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks DC. You weren't entirely wrong though because it resurfaces on leftwing sites every now and then as testified by other dates found on the site I linked.

But I learned something tonight, i.e. what a moran is.

 

[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

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)

First, I don't give a fuck about team sports, never have. I certainly don't identify with any teams, don't want to be a team player, I'm an individual.

The quotes were an answer to the accusation that "con"(misused term by many here) listeners were easily lead by talk radio about the dangers present to the U.S. and it's allies by allowing that scumbag Saddam to remain in power. The only major politician that isn't quoted is that punk ass Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack Hussein Obama........ he was too busy having no opinion and voting present.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,

 

[txlonghorn]

i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them

I think you're confusing that with Air America...wait, is it still around?

 

[txlonghorn]

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.

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,

I'm reading all of this and wondering to myself...did any of you EVER listen to Al Franken??? Talk about personal attacks!!! JESUS!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,

Well apparently you don't understand the concept of context, and I simply don't have the patience to teach it to you tonight. Do have a good evening.

 

[sitarro]

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.

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,

I'm reading all of this and wondering to myself...did any of you EVER listen to Al Franken??? Talk about personal attacks!!! JESUS!!!

Of course there is that sweet, decent girl named Randi Rhodes.......
[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960Qq3pupa4&feature=player_embedded"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960Qq3pupa4&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

or Mike Malloy, I heard him wish for President Bush's death one night.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,

Well apparently you don't understand the concept of context, and I simply don't have the patience to teach it to you tonight. Do have a good evening.

All you have is CON$ervative arrogant condescension.

You certainly have no context beyond the quote LimpBoy himself chose to post as one of his "pearls of wisdom." If it is out of context, then blame him for not saying more.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think a lot of conservative talk radio analysts have a core belief that our government is a corrupt body of lawyers and other scoundrels who have completely ruined our nation at the expense of our people. They refuse to be slaves to poor government because they actually care about the welfare of our nation.

I remember when Wry and liberals spoke words to that effect, but now feel that conservative talk radio analysts are the reason our nation is screwed.

That about sums up Wry and liberals.

Slaves to a poor system.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

How's the change going?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think a lot of conservative talk radio analysts have a core belief that our government is a corrupt body of lawyers and other scoundrels who have completely ruined our nation at the expense of our people. They refuse to be slaves to poor government because they actually care about the welfare of our nation.

I think you've pretty well zeroed in on the heart of it here. When I listen in on Rush from time to time, he strongly objects to Republicans who vote liberal, but he's still hanging in there with the Republican Party as he is convinced that it is a newly awakened GOP that will save us from the reckless socialism the current administration advocates.

Hannity is far more likely to take on the GOP head on and is much less of a politican than Rush is.

Both advocate solid conservative values and both want our country to again focus on those core principles that have made us the great nation that we are. Both are convinced that the current administration, Democrats and a few Republicans, are trying to dismantle that.

Michael Savage rants and raves about everybody and everything and despises his fellow conservatives because they aren't conservative enough. Also after he has trashed them again and again and has never, at least when I've listened in, defended them in anything, he resents that they don't rush to his defense when he is attacked. Nevertheless, if you get through the rants and raves and listen to what he is actually saying, he is right a lot of the time and he does not deserve the rep for 'hate speech' that he gets.

Laura Ingraham is probably most like Rush in her approach and philosophy but without using as much humor and, alas, the sometimes poor taste humor that Rush uses. But she doesn't pull anywhere near the ratings that he does.

Glenn Beck is a relative newcomer, but he isn't afraid of the kook label and therefore bravely plows into theories and concepts that the others won't touch. And, because he is so well researched and has turned out to be right so often, he has been judged as valuable for that reason. He has Rush's flair for being entertaining too.

And I've listened in on local hosts and other syndicated conservative lesser well knowns (Medved, Reagan, Hedgecock, Liddy et al) and all have their plusses and minuses, but each one obviously loves and respects his country and advocates solid conservative principles.

Conservative principles can be articulated, defended, and can be shown to work. Very few liberal principles can. And that is why conservative talk radio is far more successful than liberal talk radio.

 

[MarcATL]

"Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...

Too funny!

ROTFLMAO!

actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago

moron
during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly

I think you're right.

The point, however, is that the far-rightwing nutjobs are ignorant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

you fucking LIAR

Not a liar, I simply made a mistake. Of course the Jets played the Bengals, and the loss by the Bengals eliminated the Texans.
I was wrong. As for me being a liar, why? I suppose a coward who hides behind a keyboard gets off writing, "you fucking LIAR"; it must make them feel manly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true? Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.