posted
Thor, why do you do this? Just argue your points. Pointing out the hypocrisy in others doesn't bolster your position... it detracts from it by making you look rabid.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam, because it is. Thor has gotten a bit better at making points and then backing them up, but he remain in my opinion little more than a glorified troll when it comes to politics. If a conservative did this, he/she would get bashed right out of Hatrack.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, i *do* find it extremely ironic that Limbaugh has divorced as many times as he has and that he became addicted to a drug. However, as concerns any arguments concerning positions he holds, those ironies are largely irrelevant, just as Clinton's infidelities were as concerned, say, his foreign policy proposals. They are interesting subjects for discussion in and of themselves, but as a way of evaluating positions, they are useless and fallacious.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nit-picking concerning exactly how Limbaugh became an addict is mostly irrelevant in the overall context of his moral character. The fact of the matter is that no amount of explanations can overcome most peoples perception that a drug addict preaching against drug addicts is a bit hypocritical.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of a single time that Limbaugh has railed against drug addiction in recent years, and especially not since news of his addiction came out. If you find otherwise, please let me know.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, Bush is an elected leader. Rush, Moore, etc. are leaders in their own way but lead by being at the head of a like-minded group. Rush has lots of big Republican names on. Rush had GWB on in August or October of last year. Dick Cheney was on twice. I think having the #1 and #2 guy on your show is a pretty big deal. He has all sorts of other high ranking folks on throughout the year. If Rush told his listeners to honk their car horns at the same moment, most would do so. And we would hear it. That is leadership.
posted
Under your theory Dan Rather or Peter Jennings are leaders, as long as they get high ranking people on their shows and people watch they must be leaders. In reality it just comes down to how many people tune in as far as guests are concerned, and how many people tune in is largely determined by how well you grab attention, not by your leadership abilities.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, I haven't looked for any recent artcles, but if he has indeed changed his tune, then good for him. I think he needed a little humility.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Target: I agree. He still could use more. You know what they say... superiority complexes are typically compensations for feelings of inferiority (in Limbaugh's case, I believe it might be academic or intellectual inferiority).
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
David...some of us use our superiority complexes to mask our true intentions, so that we can more casually pursue our plans for world domination or to play cards...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, Jennings isn't really a leader. He isn't trying to sway people to a point. Rush clearly is doing just that. Howard Stern, to use your previous example, is out to only entertain. Rush posits an opinion and tries to compel people to believe that opinion. Jennings reads a teleprompter in an effort to share that day's news stories. Rush plays sound bites from things going on during the day and makes predictions on how Liberals will react to it. He is more akin to a preacher who leads a flock than a newscaster. You don't have to follow him to think he is a leader.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did? I didn't know that (oddly enough, I tune into Rush but never to Howard). Then Stern really does fit a sort of leader. I know he is leading the way to censor-free radio by making Satellite his new home in the near future (or has he moved already?). So yeah, I could see it if his mission changed...which is funny as it was only brought upon him not something he sought.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is Rush Limbaugh labeled a "Conservative leader" anyways? Last I checked he wasn't a senator, a representative, or even a city councilman. Michael Moore on the other hand was an honored guest at the DNC if I recall correctly.
After the 1994 Republican gains in Congress, Rush was feted by many top Republicans, including Congressmen, who thanked him for his part in their sucess.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure George Bush and a lot of Republicans thanked Karl Rove, Rove is not a leader, he's an advisor and an organizer. Being thanked by Republicans does not make one a leader. Endorsing a a candidate does not make one a leader. Having a large audience does not make one a leader.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
William Kristol is a pundit, Rush is a zealot. Kristol, who is pretty conservative, will generally admit to agreeing with many of the Bush policies and I generally don't see eye to eye with him. Yet, I find him very intelligent and he will call shenanigans on the Bush White House when he sees it. Rush is a zealot who will spin things to favor the conservative viewpoint regardless of evidence put in front of him. He is extremely loyal to the Republican Whitehouse, moreso since 9/11 when the "you are with me or against me" was the new White House mantra. Kristol has readers, Rush has "Dittoheads" who generally call to laud their leader, not challenge or discuss with him. Clearly a good portion of his 22 million listeners see him as a leader and a teacher, not an entertainer nor a pundit.
Also note, I am pretty sure in 1994, not only was he lauded he also spoke at a gathering of Freshman Republican Congressmen. This was more than an endorsement, this was him getting his first real whiff of the power he wields. He probably isn't doing as well as he did during the Clinton years as he still brings up Bill C. at least a couple times an hour. I tune in about 1 or 2 times a month and only for a short time and invariably I will still get a Clinton reference or two. Still, he leads with his voice and his ideals and people follow.
Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl? Is it a bad thing? Why? Or why not?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, that Stern article sounds right on to what friends of mine who listen regularly say. In fact, my Stern fans are starting to sound like Rush fans that I know...quoting him and becoming addicted to his anger and indignation.
The idea of a following creating a de facto leader sounds right to me. It makes me think of that scene in "The Life of Brian" when the followers corner Brian in his home. He tries to shoo them away from his balcony by saying something like "Go away. You are all individuals!"
They reply in monotone unison: "Yes, we are all individuals."
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there people who would call themselves "followers" "affiliates" or any other roughly synonymous term of Michael Moore? There are definitely people out there who agree with him, but people who "follow" him?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whether or not you like a person or the values they promote, an individual's own actions doesn't invalidate the rightness of what they preach.
No, but it does undermine their right to preach it.
A thief can say "stealing is wrong" and it is of course true, but coming from the thief, the worth of his words are minimal.
Same with me, or you or anyone. A parent can say "smoking is wrong," but if they smoke, chances are a child is not going to really, truly consider the message that comes from the parent, as valid.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, a "dittohead" is just someone who considers themselves a big fan of Rush. Clearly there are big fans of OSC here who who don't view him as a leader, even those who do agree with his political views.
quote: Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl?
Because he represents me in no way, too often when Rush does something stupid its lumped as "conservative" stupdity. For example, in this thread Thor made an attack on conservatives for being anti-drug abuse because Rush abuses drugs. Since I don't abuse drugs I'm not sure why I should be considered hypocritical for stance on drugs. The only things I share in common with Rush are my political affiliation and my state residence.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nfl, why redefine a definition you yourself supplied? You cited Michael Moore's being at the DNC convention to show he was a leader of liberals (presumably that was why you mentioned Moore), but when fil and I pointed out Rush has been treated similarily, indeed with even more fawning upon Rush by republican politicians, you dismiss that.
quote: Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl?
Because he represents me in no way, too often when Rush does something stupid its lumped as "conservative" stupdity.
I think what you mean is he's not your leader, and you are a conservative.
Many people consider him a leader, which makes him a leader.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m not sure I know of any of Rush listeners who consider him our leader. He is a source of information and entertainment. George W. Bush is our current leader. Rush even makes fun of the notion of his listeners being mind numb robots on his show. It takes a while to know and understand Rush. I’m curious how much of Rush you all have listened to and how much what you are saying is just hearsay?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was using Moore, someone who has been actually been put in a position of honor, someone whose endorsement of a candidate (was it Dean or Clark?) is treated as real news by the media, as an example as how he's not a leader of liberals. Moore is a filmmaker and a public speaker, I don't think he leads anyone.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
