Example of benefit of listening to Rush Limbaugh

[Ibanez]

I was expecting your shortest post ever.

That's an example of why the normal process is not to say that you found out about something by listening to him. There has been an extremely successful effort to demonize and discredit him. And the reason for that effort is because if people DO listen to him he is a threat to liberalism/progressivism.

He does find stuff. And he does routinely expose the absurdity of liberalism/progressivism. That's why it's important to make sure that people think there is something "wrong" about listening to him.

He's a threat to common sense. He routinely exposes his own absurdity. He is a joke.

[Chizzang]

Rush Limbaugh is paid millions and millions of dollars to provide a blanketing discredit of all things Liberal
(Period) That is his primary function over-riding all other functions

Rule # 1) Discredit all things Liberal (regardless of truth or otherwise)
Rule # 2) See rule Number 1

This does not mean he isn't smart - in fact you could easily argue he's damn clever
Clever enough to be seen as:
A reliable dependable source... by those seeking to reenforce what they already believe
He isn't a "bad guy" nor is he unpleasant, he is simply a smartly applied tool designed to "stir up the crazies" and embolden those who already are on board

[Chizzang]

Here's an example of my previous ^ post...
Ford motor company admitted a while back that their entire FORD TRUCK advertisement campaign was designed to make those who already purchased a FOR TRUCK feel stronger about their purchase...

!!! To reenforce what FORD TRUCK owners already believed !!!
Ford isn't advertising in a fish trolling exercise for new customers, they are interested in empowering the existing fan base and strengthening it - uniting it -this is what Rush Limbaugh's primary function is

Limbaugh is there to reenforce Conservatives feelings that they are right (always)
and that Liberals are wrong (always) and not only wrong but kind of stupid and misguided on top of that

The idea that Limbaugh is uncovering "new and useful information" in the war for truth is as absurd as the idea that a car company wants you to make a completely objective decision about your next purchase


POINT: If we can't agree on this ^ basic observation... we really can't have an adult conversation

[JohnStOnge]

A reliable dependable source... by those seeking to reenforce what they already believe

That is true. And he makes no pretense about his bias. I've heard him directly state that he practices it.

But he is nevertheless a useful source. I didn't exercise due diligence in using the example I did in that I just Googled it, saw a bunch of Google hits, and linked the first one. It turned out that in that case the problem wasn't solved. I simply got ad hominem attacks against the source I cited then the evolutionary biologist proposing that thick ice is making life difficult for polar bears instead of ad hominem attacks against Limbaugh.

But he does find stuff. Then you can look it up, see if it's useful, and if it's useful you cite the sources you found when you looked it up instead of the source (Limbaugh) that initially made you aware of it. Usually I like to find a source such that there is no way anybody is going to claim "right wing" bias. If possible I like to find a source that most people might perceive as having a "liberal" bias.

[Chizzang]

A reliable dependable source... by those seeking to reenforce what they already believe

That is true. And he makes no pretense about his bias. I've heard him directly state that he practices it.

But he is nevertheless a useful source. I didn't exercise due diligence in using the example I did in that I just Googled it, saw a bunch of Google hits, and linked the first one. It turned out that in that case the problem wasn't solved. I simply got ad hominem attacks against the source I cited then the evolutionary biologist proposing that thick ice is making life difficult for polar bears instead of ad hominem attacks against Limbaugh.

But he does find stuff. Then you can look it up, see if it's useful, and if it's useful you cite the sources you found when you looked it up instead of the source (Limbaugh) that initially made you aware of it. Usually I like to find a source such that there is no way anybody is going to claim "right wing" bias. If possible I like to find a source that most people might perceive as having a "liberal" bias.

John I could say basically what you've just said (in reverse) about Bill Mahr...

The old expression: "The finger pointing to the moon, is not the moon" comes to mind here

[JohnStOnge]

Nevertheless this is the typical approach of the left. First they say that "Scientists all agree with the global warming thing." Then when some scientist says something that puts a fly in the ointment, they immediately set about trying to discredit that scientist. Ad hominem attacks.

You do realize you started this post complaining of ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack on the left, right?

You know, I thought about this while I was away from the board a few days and what i typed is not an ad hominem attack. It can be criticized because I wrote that the argumentative approach I described is "typical" of the left and I don't really have the data to say it's "typical."

But what I wrote after that is attacking their argumentative approach.

If I say, "They make use of ad hominem argument" that's not an ad hominem attack. The statement is attacking their arguments. Ad hominem argument is attacking the person making the argument in hopes of dismissing their argument based on some personal characteristic. Like if I say, "They are leftists who don't like industry" or "They rely on scaring people in order to get research grants." Things like that.

The right does do that too. Especially the thing allegation about drumming up concern over climate change in order to keep getting research grants. But my perception is that the left does it more. I know of two "left" sites, Sourcewatch.org and ExxonSecrets.org, that make extensive use of ad hominem approaches. Perhaps there are sites that single out scientists who support the general "climate change we have to do something" outlook and incorporate ad hominem attacks in their discussion of them as individuals. I'm not aware of them if there are, but I'm guessing that somebody on this site is going to show one or more to me if they are out there.

[JohnStOnge]

He's a threat to common sense. He routinely exposes his own absurdity. He is a joke.

Honest question: Do you think you have listened to him enough to make judgements like that?

I ask that because I think there are people out there who make their entire judgement about him based on what others in the media say and short snippets.

Having listened to him pretty much, I think you are absolutely wrong about the common sense part. He has a lot of common sense. In fact that's probably a big part of his appeal.

A lot of what he says is tongue in cheek. From the time to time he notes that he likes to "Illustrate absurdity by being absurd." So it's no surprise that people are able to play audio or video snippets of him saying absurd things.

[kalm]

You do realize you started this post complaining of ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack on the left, right?

You know, I thought about this while I was away from the board a few days and what i typed is not an ad hominem attack. It can be criticized because I wrote that the argumentative approach I described is "typical" of the left and I don't really have the data to say it's "typical."

But what I wrote after that is attacking their argumentative approach.

If I say, "They make use of ad hominem argument" that's not an ad hominem attack. The statement is attacking their arguments. Ad hominem argument is attacking the person making the argument in hopes of dismissing their argument based on some personal characteristic. Like if I say, "They are leftists who don't like industry" or "They rely on scaring people in order to get research grants." Things like that.

The right does do that too. Especially the thing allegation about drumming up concern over climate change in order to keep getting research grants. But my perception is that the left does it more. I know of two "left" sites, Sourcewatch.org and ExxonSecrets.org, that make extensive use of ad hominem approaches. Perhaps there are sites that single out scientists who support the general "climate change we have to do something" outlook and incorporate ad hominem attacks in their discussion of them as individuals. I'm not aware of them if there are, but I'm guessing that somebody on this site is going to show one or more to me if they are out there.

Let's start with an example from sourcewatch. They tend to post where an advocacy groups funding comes from...

[JohnStOnge]

Let's start with an example from sourcewatch. They tend to post where an advocacy groups funding comes from...

I'll post three. But first let me say that posting the funding stuff is ad hominem argument. It's saying "you can't trust what this guy says because he gets paid by ..."

The first is their article on Richard Lindzen. You'll see the funding thing in there. I also consider their reference to his thoughts on the link between smoking and cancer. The idea there, I think, is to say, "You can't trust what he says on climate change because look at what he says about smoking and cancer."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_Lindzen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The second is on James Hansen. Just providing that for contrast. James Hanson is a leader of the movement to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change. Note the difference in tone:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Hansen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The third is actually also linked in the Lindzen article. It's an article on climate change "skeptics." I'm providing it because I think that any objective reader can see based on that article what the orientation of the organization behind the Sourcewatch.org site is. This is not an "even handed treatment of both sides" site. I realize that's not unusual. But it's clearly a left leaning site.

Also, there is a lot of ad hominem attack in the article:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cl ... e_sceptics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Let's start with an example from sourcewatch. They tend to post where an advocacy groups funding comes from...

Through the looking glass...

http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Me ... ite_note-9



Stop wasting our time, Todd.

[kalm]

Let's start with an example from sourcewatch. They tend to post where an advocacy groups funding comes from...

Through the looking glass...

http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Me ... ite_note-9



Stop wasting our time, Todd.

Indeed…

GroupSnoop.org

GroupSnoop.org is a project launched in October 2011 by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to critique reporting by sites like the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch (this site) and GreenPeace's ExxonSecrets.org. Both SourceWatch and ExxonSecrets have tracked funding by oil companies like Exxon for public relations and disinformation campaigns, such as Exxon's funding of climate denial. Both have noted that NCPPR, which advances climate denial claims, has also received funding from Exxon.

GroupSnoop is the latest effort by NCPPR to smear groups working in the public interest to connect the dots between corporations like Exxon and so-called experts, think tanks, and other ways such companies attempt to affect public opinion and public policy.

NCPPR has a controversial history of suspect activities, as documented below.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/GroupSnoop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OL FU]

If Rush or Hannity or Maddow or whoever else entertains you by all means listen to them. I am not going to say that occasionally they won't enlighten but as chizang said, only if it fits their entertainment model.

[Ibanez]

He's a threat to common sense. He routinely exposes his own absurdity. He is a joke.

Honest question: Do you think you have listened to him enough to make judgements like that?

I ask that because I think there are people out there who make their entire judgement about him based on what others in the media say and short snippets.

Having listened to him pretty much, I think you are absolutely wrong about the common sense part. He has a lot of common sense. In fact that's probably a big part of his appeal.

A lot of what he says is tongue in cheek. From the time to time he notes that he likes to "Illustrate absurdity by being absurd." So it's no surprise that people are able to play audio or video snippets of him saying absurd things.

I listen to him a couple times a week. Not just snippets. He's on before some equally ridiculous guy named Schmidtt, who last week was ballsy enough (for his show) to call out a caller as being a racist and saying he should respect Obama. Then, Schmidt, continued to call out Michelle Obama for her health initiative. Which reminds me, why aren't we trying to get NCLB repealed? Talk about a bad law.


In theory, I dislike all political pundits, regardless of political affiliation. They are entertainers. The main reason I like Colbert is b/c:
A) he doesn't disguise himself as some politico. Everyone knows he's playing a phony conservative who will call out the Reps and Dems.
B) He's a comedian on Comedy Central
C) He's ON COMEDY CENTRAL
d) Comedians, for the most part, provide social commentary with the goal of pointing out the problems, ridiculousness, etc.. of a situation. Lewis Black, for instance, will call out politicians on the whole as completely ridiculous. He may lean left, but he'll criticize them as well.

Black's best line is "Democrats are in the party of bad ideas and the Republican are in the party of no ideas. It's shit in, and shit out."

[Baldy]

Honest question: Do you think you have listened to him enough to make judgements like that?

I ask that because I think there are people out there who make their entire judgement about him based on what others in the media say and short snippets.

Having listened to him pretty much, I think you are absolutely wrong about the common sense part. He has a lot of common sense. In fact that's probably a big part of his appeal.

A lot of what he says is tongue in cheek. From the time to time he notes that he likes to "Illustrate absurdity by being absurd." So it's no surprise that people are able to play audio or video snippets of him saying absurd things.

I listen to him a couple times a week. Not just snippets. He's on before some equally ridiculous guy named Schmidtt, who last week was ballsy enough (for his show) to call out a caller as being a racist and saying he should respect Obama. Then, Schmidt, continued to call out Michelle Obama for her health initiative. Which reminds me, why aren't we trying to get NCLB repealed? Talk about a bad law.


In theory, I dislike all political pundits, regardless of political affiliation. They are entertainers. The main reason I like Colbert is b/c:
A) he doesn't disguise himself as some politico. Everyone knows he's playing a phony conservative who will call out the Reps and Dems.
B) He's a comedian on Comedy Central
C) He's ON COMEDY CENTRAL
d) Comedians, for the most part, provide social commentary with the goal of pointing out the problems, ridiculousness, etc.. of a situation. Lewis Black, for instance, will call out politicians on the whole as completely ridiculous. He may lean left, but he'll criticize them as well.

Black's best line is "Democrats are in the party of bad ideas and the Republican are in the party of no ideas. It's shit in, and shit out."

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

[Grizalltheway]

I listen to him a couple times a week. Not just snippets. He's on before some equally ridiculous guy named Schmidtt, who last week was ballsy enough (for his show) to call out a caller as being a racist and saying he should respect Obama. Then, Schmidt, continued to call out Michelle Obama for her health initiative. Which reminds me, why aren't we trying to get NCLB repealed? Talk about a bad law.


In theory, I dislike all political pundits, regardless of political affiliation. They are entertainers. The main reason I like Colbert is b/c:
A) he doesn't disguise himself as some politico. Everyone knows he's playing a phony conservative who will call out the Reps and Dems.
B) He's a comedian on Comedy Central
C) He's ON COMEDY CENTRAL
d) Comedians, for the most part, provide social commentary with the goal of pointing out the problems, ridiculousness, etc.. of a situation. Lewis Black, for instance, will call out politicians on the whole as completely ridiculous. He may lean left, but he'll criticize them as well.

Black's best line is "Democrats are in the party of bad ideas and the Republican are in the party of no ideas. It's shit in, and shit out."

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

Actually, Ibanez just listed several differences between the two, so no, audience size is not the only difference.

[Ibanez]

I listen to him a couple times a week. Not just snippets. He's on before some equally ridiculous guy named Schmidtt, who last week was ballsy enough (for his show) to call out a caller as being a racist and saying he should respect Obama. Then, Schmidt, continued to call out Michelle Obama for her health initiative. Which reminds me, why aren't we trying to get NCLB repealed? Talk about a bad law.


In theory, I dislike all political pundits, regardless of political affiliation. They are entertainers. The main reason I like Colbert is b/c:
A) he doesn't disguise himself as some politico. Everyone knows he's playing a phony conservative who will call out the Reps and Dems.
B) He's a comedian on Comedy Central
C) He's ON COMEDY CENTRAL
d) Comedians, for the most part, provide social commentary with the goal of pointing out the problems, ridiculousness, etc.. of a situation. Lewis Black, for instance, will call out politicians on the whole as completely ridiculous. He may lean left, but he'll criticize them as well.

Black's best line is "Democrats are in the party of bad ideas and the Republican are in the party of no ideas. It's shit in, and shit out."

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

Well, yeah. But the reason you don't like Colbert is b/c he does lean left.

But audience? Ok. Yes, Hannity has approx. 500k more viewers than Colbert. 46% of Hannitys viewers are aged 35-64. Those people aren't tuning into Comedy Central any time of day. Comedy Central has a different audience than Fox News, so that's not all surprising. However, you're not comparing shows at the same time. Hannity is on 10-11pm. Colbert is 1130-1200am. You're better off comparing him to Bill O'Reilly, with his 1,296M viewers last week compared to Colberts 1,193M and Stewarts 1.5M.


The main difference between Hannity and Colbert is that Colbert doesn't believe the shit that spews out of his mock conservative mouth.

[Chizzang]

If Rush or Hannity or Maddow or whoever else entertains you by all means listen to them. I am not going to say that occasionally they won't enlighten but as chizang said, only if it fits their entertainment model.

Ha Yes... The times I have listened to Maddow I actually laughed
She is a perfect example of what I'm talking about

She'll spin a half truth into a devastating condemnation (See Rush as the master) and get he audience - who are already predisposed to agree whipped into a frenzy

[Ibanez]

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

Actually, Ibanez just listed several differences between the two, so no, audience size is not the only difference.

[Ibanez]

So, I drove over to base and tuned in Rush Limbaugh.He spends 4 minutes recounting the 2 minutes he spent cleaning up his spilled coffee. Then he goes through all the weird grunts he does before talking about how the left aka the media, don't understand or respect him, specifically someone at NPR. I didn't hear the rest b/c I arrived at my destination.

His soundbite before the show is something to the effect of, "I think. You listen." There's something missing there but that's the essence of it. That's an interesting soundbite that gets played often on the show. " hey, listen to the show, don't think about it and draw your on conclusions. Listen to me and parrot everything I say."

[Baldy]

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

Actually, Ibanez just listed several differences between the two, so no, audience size is not the only difference.

Generally speaking, they are the same thing, Dingleberry.

Give it up Jizzfan, you're not bright enough to play dumb.

[Ibanez]

Actually, Ibanez just listed several differences between the two, so no, audience size is not the only difference.

Generally speaking, they are the same thing, Dingleberry.

Give it up Jizzfan, you're not bright enough to play dumb.

A 1 hour, traditional news broadcast hosted by a real conservative vs a 1/2 mock news broadcast hosted by a fake conservative....not really the same thing.

[Baldy]

...and because he's from Charleston.

Hannity is the douche and Colbert (kol-BERT) is the nozzle.
Two peas in a pod as far as what they are. The only difference is Hannity has a much bigger audience.

Well, yeah. But the reason you don't like Colbert is b/c he does lean left.

But audience? Ok. Yes, Hannity has approx. 500k more viewers than Colbert. 46% of Hannitys viewers are aged 35-64. Those people aren't tuning into Comedy Central any time of day. Comedy Central has a different audience than Fox News, so that's not all surprising. However, you're not comparing shows at the same time. Hannity is on 10-11pm. Colbert is 1130-1200am. You're better off comparing him to Bill O'Reilly, with his 1,296M viewers last week compared to Colberts 1,193M and Stewarts 1.5M.


The main difference between Hannity and Colbert is that Colbert doesn't believe the shit that spews out of his mock conservative mouth.

I don't like Colbert because he isn't very funny, Stewie Liebowitz is.

As far as Colbert vs. O'Reilly, you're comparing an O'Reilly rerun to a first run show. That's not very accurate, either.

[Baldy]

Generally speaking, they are the same thing, Dingleberry.

Give it up Jizzfan, you're not bright enough to play dumb.

A 1 hour, traditional news broadcast hosted by a real conservative vs a 1/2 mock news broadcast hosted by a fake conservative....not really the same thing.

Like Colbert's show, there's nothing traditional or newsworthy about Hannity's show. Both are opinion. One is satirical and not funny, the other is neither satirical nor funny.

[Grizalltheway]

Actually, Ibanez just listed several differences between the two, so no, audience size is not the only difference.

Generally speaking, they are the same thing, Dingleberry.

Give it up Jizzfan, you're not bright enough to play dumb.

No, generally speaking, Hannity and Maddow is a much better comparison. Who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

[Ibanez]

A 1 hour, traditional news broadcast hosted by a real conservative vs a 1/2 mock news broadcast hosted by a fake conservative....not really the same thing.

Like Colbert's show, there's nothing traditional or newsworthy about Hannity's show. Both are opinion. One is satirical and not funny, the other is neither satirical nor funny.

Hannity is on a legit news channel. The other is on the channel that gave us Crank Yankers.