The alternative is an assortment of Country, Top 40 and Oldies music stations, all of which tend to put me to sleep while driving, a situation that irritates me and terrifies everyone else. For some reason, talk does not have this soporific effect, but then I’m down to either local talk radio, syndicated talk radio which has all the flaws of the other sort but adds producers who screen callers to make sure they’ll agree with the loudmouthed egotistical “star”, or sports radio. So, I go with what seems like the lesser evil.
On second thought, maybe I’ll just switch to the oldies station and crash into a viaduct while enduring my 1147th hearing of El Condor Pasa. It doesn’t sound all that bad given the alternatives.
Just because I disagree with someone is no reason to call them an idiot. Mr. Limbaugh, like most political folks, is a bit narrow minded and only thinks along traditional conservative/liberal lines. That doesn’t mean he’s an idiot. A good many intelligent people make the same mistake.
You dissing poets?
Actually, I’d not blame you. We can be a little, shall we say. . . different. However poetry readings on the White House lawn would be cool.
Just because I disagree with someone is no reason to call them an idiot. Mr. Limbaugh, like most political folks, is a bit narrow minded and only thinks along traditional conservative/liberal lines. That doesn’t mean he’s an idiot. A good many intelligent people make the same mistake.
I didnt call him an idiot because I disagree with him. Oh, wait. Yes I did.
No, he’s saying that that “entertainment” claim is just a cop-out.
Ask yourself: if Limbaugh tells you that some liberal said XYZ, do you think, “that’s really funny, but I guess that guy probably never actually said XYZ, because this is just entertainment and thus these facts are just made up.” ??
This is the Rush Limbaugh show, not the Onion, not the horoscopes page. People believe the stuff he says because stuff he says is presented as fact, in all seriousness.
No, he’s saying that that “entertainment” claim is just a cop-out.
Ask yourself: if Limbaugh tells you that some liberal said XYZ, do you think, “that’s really funny, but I guess that guy probably never actually said XYZ, because this is just entertainment and thus these facts are just made up.” ??
This is the Rush Limbaugh show, not the Onion, not the horoscopes page. People believe the stuff he says because stuff he says is presented as fact, in all seriousness.
Yes!
Sometimes I know how I feel and what I want to say but can’t find the right words. That’s exactly how I felt. Thank you.
OK, I see where I got thrown off, you and Cranberry are focusing on ScottStewart’s comment that Limbaugh considers himself an entertainer. While that’s true, he has also consistently said that his show is a combination of political opinion, discussion and entertainment - a description which I think is accurate. He does not pretend to be unbiased and consistently admits that he is a conservative.
When you speak of facts being made up, since facts are generally verifiable then if Limbaugh was consistently inaccurate he would be called on it and lose credibility. If Limbaugh says a liberal “says X-Y-Z” I can verify that through other sources (actually he uses sound clips a lot which although might be taken out of context are easily verifiable). Opinions are another story - if I am understanding you and Cranberry correctly you feel that a large number of Limbaugh listeners are intellectually lazy or gullible and unable to separate opinion from fact. That seems to be a fairly common claim but it is condescending and judgemental, as it would be if I made a similar claim about readers of Al Franken or Michael Moore.
A lot of the Limbaugh show is entertaining, a lot is valid and a lot is BS. Give people credit for being able to tell the difference.
And a bit of licking to the “charming” French guy (now Jacques La Pew is charming–votes ARE getting dear, this winter :roll:)
and a bit of reminding “hey, see the Prez is a man in full, now HE keeps it within the holy bonds” (see “verse” 3)
When the private life has been for long one major issues in the elections,
and the first lady an instrument in polls, ever since Camelot at the very least,
do some still believe a president’s wife is not a spin doctors’ remodelled loudspeaker?
Btw, what was that movie cast in the future, where Sylvester Stallone learns a) every Restaurant is a Pizza Hut, b) the President is Schwarzenegger? Peripatheprophetic…
That was obviously posted by someone who hasn’t listened to his program much.
On the contraire, would an idiot be as sucessfull as he? I think not. It requires intelligence and tons of research to pull off a radio program like his, discussion with intelligent people who both agree and disagree with him.
The exception are the calls from the liberal agenda callers who resort to name calling rather than discussion. Hey, that description fits Cranberry’s post exactly, doesn’t it?
Cranberry, I think you would get more respect for your post by posting something factual rather than just resorting to name calling, which is the admission that you have no valid response, just anger.
As far as the pain drug story is concerned, I have seen no evidence yet that would point to any illegal activity by Limbaugh, or investigations of him, even though he hasn’t flat out denied it yet.
Consider the sources, felons both, I believe. The Enquirer isn’t the best source of the truth, IMHO. I believe he is just following advice of council to say nothing until you know what is going on.
Now, I thought Gauvain was the Breton, not Lancelot? As for the latter, I’m sure I wouldn’t have felt comfortable either, being Arthur and having Richard Gere in me back…
Whatever–you know I alluded to the other Camelot, with Jacky… Rats–wasn’t she kinda French on the edges?
Since when has commercial success been a proof of intelligence? Particularly on a medium like radio or television, which have been the largest contributors to the dumbing down of America? Howard Stern is VERY successful. Does his show promote intelligence? “Survivor” is very successful? Does that promote intelligence?
It does not require “intelligence and tons of research to pull off a radio program like his”. What it requires is a reliance on the fact that a majority of its audience will take what it says at face value. Because that’s what it WANTS to hear. This is not a monopoly of conservatives (although they are quite talented at it): Michael Moore tends to do the same at times, and so does Al Franken.
That is why, most times, I like Bill Maher. I don’t see him as being partial to any side. He just gets mad at lies and stupidity, whatever side they come from.
Jenny kiss’d me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in;
Time, you thief, who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in!
Say I’m weary, say I’m sad,
Say that health and wealth have miss’d me,
Say I’m growing old, but add,
Jenny kiss’d me.
–James Leigh Hunt
Factoid: The eponymal Jenny was the wife of author Thomas Carlyle–how’s that for a good scandal-starter?
Howard Stern? I haven’t heard of him. What radio stations (on the internet since no stations I can get locally carry him) could I listen to him.? Apparently he isn’t near the success that Limbaugh is, as I can recieve two stations that do carry Rush.
Has his or the Survivor show (another I haven’t seen as I watch little TV) lasted over 15 years and consistently reach the audience that Rush does?
I find Rush’s audience aren’t taking what he says at face value because that’s what they want to hear. He gets called to task quite often by his listeners.
Methinks you haven’t listened too much to his show either. If you have, you should should be able to tell who is moved to the front of the call que on his program.
Discussion between people of identical views would soon get very boring and the listenership would drop and his would drop below the horizon if what you stated were true.
I believe the non-funny and bitter sounding Al Franken will soon drop from view unless he can start to make people laugh. Non-funny commedians don’t last nearly as long as the real ones such as Jack Benny or Bob hope.
Jenny kiss’d me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in;
Time, you thief, who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in!
Say I’m weary, say I’m sad,
Say that health and wealth have miss’d me,
Say I’m growing old, but add,
Jenny kiss’d me.
–James Leigh Hunt
Oh, thanks! A paradigmatic good bad poem.
A vulgar idea–being kissed spontaneously
by a pretty girl can make your day–
vigorously expressed. Touching, really
A good good poem:
In pity for man’s darkening thought
He walked that floor and issed thence
in Galilean turbulence.
The Babylonian starlight brought
A fabulous formless darkness in.
Odor of blood when Christ was slain
Made all Platonic tolerance vain,
And vain all Doric discipline.
Everything that man esteems
Endures a moment or a day.
Love’s pleasure drives his love away.
The painter’s brush consumes his dreams.
The herald’s cry, the soldiers tread
Exhausts his glory with his might.
Whatever flames upon the night
Man’s own resinous heart has fed.
Yet he is called on this stuff, and yet he doesn’t really lose credibility. Not with his audience anyway. Why should he? His listeners are not going to go check out some obscure web site or read back-issues of Nature in order to verify that things on the show aren’t made up.
Back in 1991, Rush shook up the scientific community by claiming (in his first book, so you can go verify this yourself) that volcanoes output way more ozone-layer-depleting chemicals than human industry ever could. He writes that one eruption of Mt. Pinatubo spewed hundreds of times more nasty chemicals than all of human industry.
Aside from being hogwash from a scientific standpoint (*), the factoid about Mt. Pinatubo was apparently completely made up. Several times he’s repeated the claim with different numbers, and no such eruption seems to have ever happened. So there’s one concrete example.
Caj
(*) Natural ozone-depleting chemicals simply do not compare to CFCs in terms the damage they can cause. They don’t even make it up to the upper atmosphere because they are soluble; the whole problem with CFCs is that very little can break them down, so they end up in the ozone layer, ultimately broken into cholrine etc by cosmic rays.
Rush’s argument is something like breaking a window with a baseball, and then claiming the window was broken by natural causes, in particular a stray speck of pollen. After all, there’s a huge amount of pollen in the air, way more mass than a single baseball.
I find this hard to believe. Howard Stern is in syndication all over the USA; he’s carried by Clear Channel, who owns more radio stations than any other company. You’ll hear his inane morning show on your local top-40 FM station. The one with 30 million commercials.
Howard Stern is just as famous as Rush Limbaugh; in fact, the two together were the subject of a Time Magazine cover-story one year.
I believe the non-funny and bitter sounding Al Franken will soon drop from view unless he can start to make people laugh. Non-funny commedians don’t last nearly as long as the real ones such as Jack Benny or Bob hope.
Al Franken was a writer for SNL, and is a very funny man. I laughed my butt off when Stuart Smalley interviewed Michael Jordan on an episode of “Daily Affirmations.” He just appears less funny when he’s writing books complaining about people, especially people that have a following.
You say Howard Stern is as notorious as Rush Limbaugh? I dissagree completely with that idea.
Hmm.. All I get on FM is country and western, top 40 crap, oldies that aren’t that old, I.E. the only on-air FM worth listening to in this area is NPR for some music and comedy shows, so I haven’t heard Howard Stern’s show yet. Again, I would need a net link to hear him.
I have a vague memory of seeing something on late night TV where somebody with long black hair and sunglasses had drunk women stripping for him on radio. I think it was some radio station in New York, or at least somewhere on the east coast. Is that Howard Stern?
Yes I agree Al Franken was very funny as Stuart Smalley. I had forgotten that. BTW, I blame the prednisone I was on for 10 years for most of my memory failures. I should have said, “unless he can start to make people laugh again”.
Well I like obscure web sites and found one, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, with this quote:
The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5°C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Niño or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93.
I could not find a site addressing the “100 times more” claim though , do you have a site with more specific info? I think we’re talking apples and oranges here. If you’re talking about SO2 and particulates I think there is some truth to Limbaugh’s claim Your point about CFCs being much hardier is well taken. Maybe you should call his show.
Still, your original post referred to Limbaugh misquoting liberals, not talking about volcanoes. Can you give some examples?
However poetry readings on the White House lawn would be cool.
Now, I thought Gauvain was the Breton, not Lancelot? As for the latter, I’m sure I wouldn’t have felt comfortable either, being Arthur and having Richard Gere in me back… 