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.

Indeed, since Iraq, I've heard many people making generalizations about Conservatives being warmongers, especially when, as Johnny does, using Conservative and Republican interchangeably. Slick trick.

And isn't it amazing that your 5 different qualified conservatives, etc., and Johnny's Extreme Conservatives, are a way to dissect the simple, supposedly "neutral" Conservative into whatever portion of conservatism you don't like and use the Qualified, Modified, Conservative as a pejorative so as to leave the sacred simple Conservative unsullied and still "neutral"? Another slick trick. AND TOTAL NONSENSE. It's all a pejorative use of Conservative and it is as constantly, if not more, used to denigrate Conservatives as Liberal is used to denigrate.

I don't have time this moment to answer this fully, but one misconception you have is that I "pretend to be semantically neutral." I hold contempt with both sides of the aisle, just a little more with the right than the left.

I don't hear this at all. I do hear specific people, or small groups of people (i.e. neo-cons) labeled as such, but never a big group like "conservative". Of course McCain wants to bomb Iran, he's a conservative etc... nope, don't hear it.

You're just making a circular argument here and are at risk of RIJIMMY's wrath :rotf2:

I wouldn't consider any of the examples of modified conservative to be used in the perjoritive, they are simply descriptions. Now I'm sure to some they could strike a negative emotion, but not among the general public, not usually at least.

-spence

The circularity is yours. You're the one who will dissect portions of the "big group like conservative" into its components and say that poking ill at various units is not doing so to the whole . . . Notwithstanding your plea that any examples of your "modified conservative" are "simply descriptions" not pejorative, though, you say " . . . I'm sure to some they could strike negative emotion."

In respect to the unmodified, pure "conservative," how about the long standing accusation that conservatives are "mean spirited?" The Black Community accepts "conservative" as synonomous with "racist." Hispanics, especially illegals, equate "conservative" with xenophobe. For Feminists conservative=sexist. Academia view conservatives as troglodytes, or worse. Anti-war factions see conservatives as war-mongers. Environmentalists view conservatives as enablers of planetary pollution and climate destroyers. Do Dems throw "conservative" around like Repubs do "liberal?" Maybe not quite, but they don't have to. Each special "liberal" group can wink and nod at what they really feel about conservatives. I may be wrong, again, not having your intuitive power, but I think that most people would be surprised to hear that "conservative" is a neutral term.

As far as your not "at all" hearing something, that might be more indicative of how tight your ear muffs are than what is buzzing all around you.