Of course he is. I'm sure he'd be ok with you spending 100%.

I don't watch Fox News so I don't know about its School or if it does what you say, but the method of overwhelming an opponent with "facts" (whether they are actually facts or not) then moving on, and not answering questions, even actually changing the subject when the questions are too much to the point . . . this method of argument has existed long before Fox News, or its School, existed. Actually, my liberal friends as well as liberal media commentators are quite adept at using the method.

I love that!!! You're right, he has figured out a way to reverse slavery!
Soon enough the light will turn on for the masses, when they too realize that we are all indeed slaves to Obama's tax man. To keep up his proposed spending if (God forbid) he has 8 years of it, he'll have to take 50% of all the wealth in the US in taxes, just to break even.

http://www.mathewyoung.com/RushLimbaugh.jpg

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!

You are saying that they are not guilty of Drive by media.

if you hail those 4 and especially Savage, it is VERY telling about you there cool beans... new name for your boat... 'Right-wingnut :D:D'

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

I've always been curious about this one, "who are the hero's of liberalism?"

and I concede the point, Savage is a bit out there on a few things....

I don't know...FDR seems to be highly regarded.

But the numbers of people who would consider themselves a "liberal" is really very small in this country, perhaps well under 20%.

What's interesting is that typically 50+% of people will consider themselves to be "conservative". Does this mean that there are more conservatives? Not really...everything from evangelicals to libertarians are lumped together as "conservatives" even though they often share few values.

The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.

-spence

and FDR is famous for what? taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.

There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.

Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.

The breadth of ignorance does amuse me though.

You must have been sleeping through history class. You're not serious are you?

It's funny how most (not all I agree, but most) have given praise to FDR for his handeling of the Depression for the past 50 years, yet it's not until we have another liberal President and a bad recession that had Reagan been in charge things would have cleaned themselves up right quick!

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.

-spence

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself. So how do you feel about the rest of the media who make loads of money? Are they also part of THE consistent theme? Amazing how the most CONSISTENT criticism of the Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. crowd is that their in it for the money. Very little of actual engagement and debate about their IDEAS, which are, actually, their consistent theme.

I believe the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism refers to killing the bearer of BAD news not FALSE news. Rush's "Drive by Media", in his opinion, is full of strawmen, slander, and other untruths.

So why did the Bail Out Bill get passed? Most Americans opposed yet, the All Knowing, All Caring Obama and a Democrat Congress and Senate passed the stupid thing.

When we were already in over our head in debt, we take out a huge loan, so we can make it all better. Kinda like getting 5 new credit cards, because your Sears card is maxed out...

I just get frustrated with the way most in government think. If we ran our household like that, we'd go bankrupt and lose the house and the boat........

Is an "extreme conservative" extremely neutral?

Nope, neither is a true liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.

I don't see your point.

Ya, forget about finding ways to cut your budget first, just spend your way out of debt. :rolleyes:

Economics 101.

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

There are plenty of fiscal conservatives in both parties, they are just not very influential or spineless.

-spence

That is dead wrong, again JD. You liberal you:btu:

Of those that I've listened to, Savage might be the closest to your description. To me, the others, especially Limbaugh, are engaging the "conflict" of ideas. I don't expect the selfessness of altruism to be a factor in such a conflict (debate?). Everything your are and believe should be employed. To me, they seem to take their ideas seriously, and, to me, much of the ideas make sense. Perhaps I'm naive or just lack your intuitive powers to know that their ideas are simply a vehicle and do what they do simply as: "entertainers . . .ego . . .dollars first and foremost." How do you know this, and why is it important? Entertainment makes truth more pallatable, ego is necessary, without the dollars there are no shows. But how does that diminish what they actually say and in what way does it prove that their ideas are not sincere?

BTW, I've seen more ugliness and hatefulness in these threads than heard on Limbaugh.

Good thing we can agree that Savage is a zenophobic hatemonger :humpty:

Personally I don't even find him entertaining, and I like some pretty whack things.

The fact that you recognize you lack my intuitive powers is a good indication that you are not at all naive.

I know this because Rush has nearly said as much himself, that his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors. This is marketing and sales after all and you don't hold premium radio and TV airtime unless you're generating advertisement revenue. This is Beck's appeal, he may in fact be an idiot, but he's a fresh idiot.

It's important because, well, you do the obvious math.

No, entertainment makes "it" more entertaining, then we get to debate what the meaning of "it" is :hihi:

I'm not going to argue that everything that comes from a pundit from either side is invalid simply because they have a conflict of interests. In fact, if they didn't stike a resonant chord here or there their messages would have no meaning and they woudn't ever find success.

That being said, they are, in my opinion, more than likely to be contrary simply because it triggers a response that people will pay attention to either because it's A) like candy or B) a train wreck you can't look away from. This supercedes their idiology.

Those that are very successful are able to ride the lightening, inflaming and exacerbating tension to tweak emotion while still providing enough substance (often fed through a little tube) to maintain a sense of validity.

Ultimately it's like a meal that you believe tastes great but has no nutritional value. You've been duped, and the sponsors have their air time.

I've listened to Rush extensively for years and don't agree.

-spence

Thanks for your lengthy, entertaining opinion, spiced with your usual finesse, panache, and cutting (yet still affable) wit. Unfortunately, the length does not make up for the brevity of substance. The closest you come to saying anything relevent is "Rush has nearly said as much himself . . .his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors." NEARLY is not quite close enough. And he did say it was his JOB. Again, doing his job does not, not even nearly, mean he is dishonest. Because he must attract viewers for his sponsor doesn't mean he doesn't fervently believe what he says to attract those viewers. Everybody in the electronic and most in the printed media has the JOB to attract an audience. Not many do it for altruistic reasons. So are they all duping us? So, in your opinion, Rush is merely an entertainer . . . a rather crude one at that. You haven't shown me that for you it is nothing more than opinion. So we can agree to disagree . . . unless you wish to dispute some of his ideas.

I don't have the time to write a paper disputing his ideas, he is a demagogue after all...you do agree at least that he's a demagogue don't you?

As for everybody in the media duping us...perhaps to some degree. Even the most objective news is still guilty of highlighting the negative over the positive because is sells better. When we talk about entertainment pundits they're just taking things to the extreme.

What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought. The Internet only exacerbates this...and it applies to all sides.

-spence

I'll disagree that he is a demagogue.He's not. I'm not a Rush fan. I used to like listening to him when Clinton was President. I would say that 75% of what he says is right on. Alot of what he says I think that most people would agree with.

Many of those that hate him never listened and only hate him because the Democrats have painted him out to be a hate monger.
What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought.

I'd say he is far less of a demagogue than many of our political so-called leaders. The latter, when it comes to moving the masses, are far more prone to appealing to emotions and prejudices than Rush is. Rush, actually, though I doubt you would think so, appeals to reason far more than he does to emotion. If anything, that would be his mantra--reason over emotion. He often berates "liberals" for voting and governing by emotion, that they act with their heart. And he often extolls "conservatives" as acting with reason. Of course, that may all be oversimplistic, for purposes of discourse. What's refreshing about Rush is that he is, as he claims, "equal time." For the longest time, there was so little available in the media that spoke to a large segment of the population on things political--opinions to the, far enough, right of center. Now there are many. I rarely listen to Rush anymore because in his time slot in my area, another "right wing" radio host, Dennis Praegur (I think that's how his name is spelled) is on the air. His motto is "clarity over agreement." I like clear, reasonable, thinking. He is all that. It would be a shame if the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is re-instated. We need voices from all sides of the spectrum in order to fully inform a democratic form of government.

My point is that you had previously used the phrase Extreme Conservatives in a negative context in your Marijuana thread--gratuistously tying them to "law enforcement" and against Marijuana decriminalization, against what you say is their "founding principle" of "less government, less regulation." Does the latter refer to the Founding Fathers and is that really their founding principle? Now, in this thread you claim that Conservative is a neutral term and that Liberal is used by Republicans as an insult. Actually, Conservative IS often used as a pejorative--as in Neo-Con, as in this quote in a major newspaper: "the Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned Conservative into a pejorative" . . . as in Helen Thomas on George Bush speaking with a disapproving frown "his CONSERVATIVE views on everything" and what else should a reporter be but a Liberal? and implying that conservatives are not thinking or caring people--which is a widely held view of liberals.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

When I stated "Conservative" is a neutral term, "neutral" was not intended to mean "politically neutral." It was meant to mean, "Neither insulting nor complimenting."

In general political discussion, be it on the news, in the print or watching Congress on CSPAN, the word "liberal" is thrown around by Republicans to mean "Any person that leans even slightly to the left and disagrees with my opinion." Also, because of the context the word "liberal" has been used in for so long, it has taken on a derogatory connotation. On the other hand, use of the word "Conservative" does not take on the same connotation.

When I talk about "Extreme Conservatives," I'm referencing people on the absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum. Of the Law Enforcement Officers that I am friends with or have met, a large percentage of them fit in the "Absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum" category.

None of it has anything to do with the Founding Fathers. It has to do with the Founding Principle of the Republican/Conservative Party - the principle of less government is always better than more regulation.

I do find it a bit silly that you're harping on 6 words that I put in a parenthesis.

No, extreme is often seen as a negative in any political arena and as such is a perfectly acceptable modifier.

People often describe religion in a similar way. There may be no issue with evangelicals, but a fundamentalist evangelical could be seen as a negative.

JohnnyD brings up a good point and one that I've made many times.

The word Liberal is used quite liberally by some to denote a common set of beliefs that most people don't really completely associate with. I've seen numbers that show only about 15% of Americans would even consider themselves a "liberal" while 50% would consider themselves "conservative".

You rarely hear people making generalizations about conservatives all being warmongers for instance, yet if the Liberal label is used the person is assumed to be a pacifistic. Usually there's some modifier put on the conservative, evangelical conservative, isolationist conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian conservative, Goldwater conservative etc... so someone actually know which of the conservative flavors you're really talking about.

Neo-con is another label that applies to a very small number of people, and it's mostly seen as a negative due to the recent policy blunders their leadership helped to create. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what one was.

To say that neo-con is using conservative as a perjorative isn't really in the same spirit, in that it's just a way to call out liberal values held by someone who pretends to be a conservative, and not placing a negative on what most would consider mainstream conservative values.

It is interesting though how so many who would consider themselves conservatives readily embrace neo-con principals when they think they are conservative principals. Not all conservatives do this of course, but a lot of people I've known have.

It just goes to reinforce the notion that labels only apply to the extremes and most all of us live somewhere in the middle.

-spence

Neither was I speaking about "politcally neutral". I also mean pejorative.

I don't see what is pejorative about saying a liberal is any person that leans to the left (even slightly) and disagrees with my position. It sounds like a personal definition/description of positions from a given point of view. BTW, how do you know what Republicans "mean"? Is that a direct quote from some Republican lexicon or one you made up? And left of what? Would it be derogatory if a Democrat said"a conservative is someone that leans (even slightly) to the right of my position and disagrees with my position? Or would that just be a discription? The idea that Republicans/Conservatives use the word liberal strictly as a pejorative and never as a descriptive, and that, conversely, Democrats/liberals always use the word Conservative as a neutral description and never a pejorative is ridiculous. Conservative has OFTEN been used as a put-down.

And the founding principle of the "Republican/Conservative" party was not "less government is always better than more regulation." The Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery. The name was supposed to reflect the idea of a Republic dependant on civic virtues and "the people" as opposed to the upper class.

And I "HARP?" not on six words but your demeaning tone when referring to "Republicans/Conservatives" while pretending to be semantically neutral.

Very Well Stated.