Major criticisms of Rush
Cal J. Eustaquio
the smoke create by the conflagration burning in this net.
IMHO, Rush L has you all in his pocket, both the ones who hate his guts
and those who love him like a brother.
It has been said, the opposite of love is apathy (not hate, as currently
thought of in this vogue world). And this group certainly has no shortage
of positive and negative criticisms of Rush Limbaugh. When I suscribed,
there were nearly 300 plus posting about the man. This is certainly more
than I'm use to.
But here's my point:
No matter how you look at Rush, he has catapulted to a near deity-like
status. The millions of fans and the additional millions of critics
should keep him employed for a long, loooooonnggggg time. And he has 'em
hooked for an entire three hour period. How many churches would give
their right arm just to get their followers to do the same? He has played
effectively on the hearts and minds of all his listeners (no matter the
political stripe). And the amount of contempt put forth by his opponents
is amazing. Yes, even Al Franken has benefitted from the book that
lacerates Rush. Doesn't that tell you something? Even the opponents of
Rush need a feel good book that would bouy them, especially after the
inherent amount of name-calling, feminist-bashing, and acerbic humor that
he has to offer on his shows. It must be pretty effective. Never have I
seen a talk show host have such encumbering effects on a person. At my
place of work (where the majority of the folks I work with are basically
left of the political spectrum), it is mandatory that the radio be shut
off so that the work-day can be more harmonious and productive.
Most importantly is the political effect that he seems to have. I'm
convinced that Rush had a deleterious effect on the DNC and their hold on
power during the '94 election. Such a feat is unprecedented. The only
other thing that I can equate with the same magnitude is the Fall of the
Berlin Wall back in '89. No, I'm no super fan of Rush. As of late, I'm
somewhat filled with a slight amount of ennui that I find in the show. I
do, howeveer, occasionally tune into the show and find out what he has to
say. But whatever you think about the man, Rush is a constant thayt I
don't think will go away anytime too soon. The opposition is still
reeling from his blows even to this very day. Flame suit on. I think I
smell smoke! CJE.
Steven Scott Stephens
happen. Nice work.
Limbaugh is indeed amazingly influential-- probably the most effective
propagandist since Goebbels. Same basic message, too. Blame everyone
"different" and embrace "solutions" that no one thinking rationally
could really believe. It's hard to tell him from Patrick Buchanan.
If you're interested in Limbaugh's success, you should study Goebbels. I
bet he has.
Frank R. Hipp
Expecting individuals to be responsible for their actions sure sounds like a
good solution to me.
For an explanation of billy and hilly's methods one only needs to read Marx
and Lenin. The similarities are quite frightening to say the least. Have
they (billy and hilly) studied the writings ? The similarities suggest that
they have and the writings were probably mandatory reading in their socialist
circles in college. Hmm, isn't their daughter a member of the 'young
socialists' ? They already have her brainwashed but hopefully when she gets
older she'll be wise enough to recognize the socialist socio-economic system
for what it is - a con and a sham.
Frank R. Hipp
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: In article <4kp0jp$r...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Steven Scott Stephens <scottstephens> writes:
: >Thoughtful commentary in a Rush Limabaugh context? Never thought it would
: >happen. Nice work.
: >Limbaugh is indeed amazingly influential-- probably the most effective
: >propagandist since Goebbels. Same basic message, too. Blame everyone
: >"different" and embrace "solutions" that no one thinking rationally
: >could really believe. It's hard to tell him from Patrick Buchanan.
: >If you're interested in Limbaugh's success, you should study Goebbels. I
: >bet he has.
: Expecting individuals to be responsible for their actions sure sounds like a
: good solution to me.
Sounds good to me too Frank. Too bad Limbaugh doesn't stick to that
message instead of lying about other peoples' motives and lying about the
facts whenever it suits him.
: For an explanation of billy and hilly's methods one only needs to read Marx
: and Lenin. The similarities are quite frightening to say the least. Have
: they (billy and hilly) studied the writings ? The similarities suggest that
: they have and the writings were probably mandatory reading in their socialist
: circles in college. Hmm, isn't their daughter a member of the 'young
: socialists' ? They already have her brainwashed but hopefully when she gets
: older she'll be wise enough to recognize the socialist socio-economic system
: for what it is - a con and a sham.
I'm going to call you on this one Mr. 38%. Show us these similarities.
Give us specific cites - no broad assertions. And when you get through,
I'll show you some similarities between Marx (I don't mean Groucho either)
and Limbaugh.
Two can play this game. That is, if you don't go running off with your
tail between your legs.
--
Buddy K
Cy Stanton
>
> Thoughtful commentary in a Rush Limabaugh context? Never thought it would
> happen. Nice work.
>
> Limbaugh is indeed amazingly influential-- probably the most effective
> propagandist since Goebbels. Same basic message, too. Blame everyone
> "different" and embrace "solutions" that no one thinking rationally
> could really believe. It's hard to tell him from Patrick Buchanan.
>
> If you're interested in Limbaugh's success, you should study Goebbels. I
> bet he has.
Ok, so you don't like Rush. That's fine. But you are way off base when you
say he has the same basic message as Goebbles. You claim that no thinking
person could rationally believe in his solutions; then offer some workable
alternatives, it's a free country. By the way, Rush was not a supporter of
Pat Buchanan.
Cheers, Cy
Steve Emerson
: Limbaugh is indeed amazingly influential-- probably the most effective
: "different" and embrace "solutions" that no one thinking rationally
: could really believe. It's hard to tell him from Patrick Buchanan.
: If you're interested in Limbaugh's success, you should study Goebbels. I
: bet he has.
Limbaugh didn't have to study anything. The most powerful corporate
propagandist in the country already had the necessary opinions
to appeal both to the corporate media and to his angry white
audience of social conservatives. The trick is to package
corporate ideology in the wrappings of social conservativism and
appeal to the hatred and anger and intolerance of his listeners.
But conservatives aren't the only folks who are hateful and intolerant;
anyone who studies Hollywood's portrayal of Christian and Southern
folks can see this. There are hateful conservatives and hateful
liberals. The problem is the _practice_ of appealing to hatred and
prejudice.
No one really knows how successful Rush would be if the media
were truly democratic and the American public were exposed
to the full range of political and economic thought, rather
than some narrow selection of thought which serves the
interests of those who own the media.
One could find Rush Limbaugh on one channel, and Noam Chomsky
(or Michael Parenti or Ralph Nader) on the next, the refuting his
very premises and claims. At least Americans would benefit
from a real debate, and could make up their own minds with
the benefit of an authentic education.
--
seme...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
Jack Bowen
>(or Michael Parenti or Ralph Nader) on the next, the refuting his
>very premises and claims.
Rush, or his backers, made one policy that has greatly benefited him.
The policy of not having guests on his show.
Rush would have a hard time in debating many people on the other side
because he is rather shallow in his knowledge of any subject.
I'm not a Rush fan but I don't object to him. He is an entertainer with
the ability to jerk strings of a lot of people who, apparently, can' t
think for themselves. JB
Ralph G. de Leon
>No one really knows how successful Rush would be if the media
>were truly democratic and the American public were exposed
>to the full range of political and economic thought, rather
>than some narrow selection of thought which serves the
>interests of those who own the media.
Rush is on and popular simply because the public is literally hungry
for the conservative point of view. The main street media is in part
to blame for this, they spend too much time propogandizing on their
own.
>One could find Rush Limbaugh on one channel, and Noam Chomsky
>(or Michael Parenti or Ralph Nader) on the next, the refuting his
>very premises and claims.
By simply giving their own point of view? How is an alternate point
of view a "refutation". Now you are showing your bias.
> At least Americans would benefit
>from a real debate, and could make up their own minds with
>the benefit of an authentic education.
If you want Rush to disappear, encourage other conservative voices to
enter the fray (if that indeed is what you really want). Otherwise,
Rush is here to stay.
a gnome
KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
> I'm going to call you on this one Mr. 38%. Show us these similarities.
> Give us specific cites - no broad assertions. And when you get through,
> I'll show you some similarities between Marx (I don't mean Groucho either)
> and Limbaugh.
>
> Two can play this game. That is, if you don't go running off with your
> tail between your legs.
>
> --
> Buddy K
Surely, those corporation-oriented republicans who've read Marx wouldn't
be waving him around as Satan, seeing the points of his that various American
business has adopted lately.
Doubt he'll respond, as they don't llow reading or gum chewing at the
meetings. ;)
paul
Steve Emerson
: seme...@teleport.com (Steve Emerson) wrote:
: >No one really knows how successful Rush would be if the media
: >were truly democratic and the American public were exposed
: >to the full range of political and economic thought, rather
: >than some narrow selection of thought which serves the
: >interests of those who own the media.
: Rush is on and popular simply because the public is literally hungry
: for the conservative point of view. The main street media is in part
: to blame for this, they spend too much time propogandizing on their
: own.
How do you know what the public is hungry for? You can't take
the media content as a reflection of the public interest,
because they owners censor content they don't like. It's
obvious that there is a segment of the population that
likes anti-liberal content. But until we have a station
next door to Rush that explicitly spouts anti-conservative
content, then we don't know how popular this would be.
This complaint about anti-conservative propaganda has reached
mythical proportions and is truly overblown.
The only truly anti-conservative programs I can think of
are "Mash" and "All in the Family", and these come out
of the anti-establishment 60's era. There is nothing of
the likes of Rush's show on TV.
: >One could find Rush Limbaugh on one channel, and Noam Chomsky
: >(or Michael Parenti or Ralph Nader) on the next, the refuting his
: >very premises and claims.
: By simply giving their own point of view? How is an alternate point
: of view a "refutation". Now you are showing your bias.
Well...points of view AND refutation. Rush can tell us that
"Americans were worse off 15 years ago than today," and Nader can
refute it. Wages (on average) are worse, job security is worse, benefits
are worse...these are facts on which "points of view" have
no bearing. We can hear "points of view" on questions about
what kind of economy/society/government we ought to have.
: > At least Americans would benefit
: >from a real debate, and could make up their own minds with
: >the benefit of an authentic education.
: If you want Rush to disappear, encourage other conservative voices to
: enter the fray (if that indeed is what you really want). Otherwise,
: Rush is here to stay.
I don't want Rush to disappear. I want corporate control and
censorship of the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves to disappear.
Mitchell Holman
}Ralph G. de Leon (rde...@ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
}
}: Rush is on and popular simply because the public is literally hungry
}: for the conservative point of view. The main street media is in part
}: to blame for this, they spend too much time propogandizing on their
}: own.
How does the "hunger for the conservative view" explain the
popularity of Howard Stern?
(and Baywatch, and 60 minutes, and PBS, and Letterman....)
Mitchell Holman
"I could take this home, Marilyn. This is something teenage
boys might find of interest."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, when purchasing a South American
Indian Doll that, when lifted, displays an erection, 3/11/90
mark edward balcom
>This complaint about anti-conservative propaganda has reached
>mythical proportions and is truly overblown.
>
>The only truly anti-conservative programs I can think of
>are "Mash" and "All in the Family",
Apparently you don't watch the network news.
Mark
Jack Bowen
> popularity of Howard Stern?
>
> (and Baywatch, and 60 minutes, and PBS, and Letterman....)
>
>
>
> Mitchell Holma
The American public is not "hungry" for any point of view. Most of the
public is to concerned with 'making it day by day' to worry about Rush,
Howard 60 minutes, etc.
The idiots who think that the 'liberal media' is in charge of our
country, telling us how to vote, and see a liberal behind every bush
remind me of the 50's and Tail gunner Joe. Commie were taking us over....
.. Hollywood was the center of the Commie world........... And on and
on and on.
The public is a hell of a lot smarter that the dittos who seem to know
what everybody should think.
I'll give Rush credit. He is smart enough not to debate any 'liberal' in
public.
Think for yourselves. You don't have to be Lib or Con - there is some
good and bad in both. JB
Mitchell Holman
You mean the network news that told us all about Paula Jones
and Gennifer Flowers and troopergate and Waco and Clinton's
draft letter? THAT "liberal" network news?
Mitchell Holman
"I'm glad you asked me that. This gives me the perfect opportunity to talk
about the problems with this Congress"
-- Vice President Dan Quayle responding to reporters' questions about his
use of Air force 2 to go on golf trips at the cost of $26,000/hour.
mark edward balcom
>
> You mean the network news that told us all about Paula Jones
> and Gennifer Flowers and troopergate and Waco and Clinton's
> draft letter? THAT "liberal" network news?
> Mitchell Holman
Yes, that liberal media. The one that presented those complaints as
though they were totaly without merit and it would be ludicrous to
believe that such claims could be anything else.
Mark
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
4lcm4o$n...@newshost.cyberramp.net> <4m688c$f...@goodnews.wv.tek.com>
: Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
mark edward balcom (mark.edwa...@tek.com) wrote:
: > You mean the network news that told us all about Paula Jones
: > and Gennifer Flowers and troopergate and Waco and Clinton's
: > draft letter? THAT "liberal" network news?
: Yes, that liberal media. The one that presented those complaints as
: though they were totaly without merit and it would be ludicrous to
: believe that such claims could be anything else.
I.e., the realistic media.
Where's my statistical assistance, mark edward?
--
Buddy K