13
13
0
I hate to do this, as this is intentionally troll baiting. But, seriously, Rush Limbaugh? A 4 times divorced Viagra prescriber with no kids is who some of you listen to for conservative thoughts??? This is why I left the GOP 14 years ago. If people like Rush or Levin are who you listen to, you're missing out on a lot of reality. And this is why many of us are EX-republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 37
20
20
0
I suggest that you left the GOP because you disagreed with the messages, rather than the messengers. It is also possible that you felt the message of the GOP changed over time to something that no longer reflected your core beliefs. A further possibility is that your core beliefs changed. In any of these cases, the background of the messenger is irrelevant. Would you suppose you would have remained aligned with Limbaugh's ideals if he had been a paragon of personal virtue?
Regardless, it is the lowest form of debate to attack the messenger rather than the message, but then, I presume this is one of the faults you found in Limbaugh's delivery as he was (and is) rather quick to devolve to the personal attack even when his arguments have merit. In this, I agree with you. To me, Limbaugh is the Conservative equivalent of Wikipedia: Fine to draw ideas from, but professional poison to quote.
Recall back in the day before Rush became a caricature of himself there really was no "mouth of the conservative right" unless you could find Buckley on PBS with your rabbit ears early Saturday morning. Rush filled a void at the time and his continued success is largely a legacy of his early market domination.
In those dark ages of news, people had to wait until 6:00 at night to learn what had happened in the world. If you came home late, you had to wait until the morning paper to learn how bad the Cubs lost the day before.
Nowadays, the discerning public can get news in 140 characters or less 24 hours a day with hashtags, unless they have the patience to wait for the news to come on the Comedy Channel. People may still get their "entertainment" from Limbaugh, but they get their news from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, the last guy who texted them in broken txt spk, and memes.
Rush Limbaugh, an old dinosaur in the age of small furry mammals with short-attention spans exists more as an entertainer and hold over than as a mover and shaker of conservatism. And yet, despite the broadening of the entertainment base, Rush stubbornly continues to dominate his market space: a market space in an increasingly irrelevent medium.
I think this is the key objection to Limbaugh. There are bomb-throwing blowhards on both sides of the aisle. What is maddening to those on the opposite side of the aisle is not his ideas or delivery per se but rather the success he has had in employing them.
Would you agree that the tenor of public discussion has coarsened over the years? If so, would you suppose that Limbaugh, and others of his ilk are the cause of this degeneration of the art of debate, or are they mere symptoms of a wider extinction of that ancient value of civility?
V/R
Regardless, it is the lowest form of debate to attack the messenger rather than the message, but then, I presume this is one of the faults you found in Limbaugh's delivery as he was (and is) rather quick to devolve to the personal attack even when his arguments have merit. In this, I agree with you. To me, Limbaugh is the Conservative equivalent of Wikipedia: Fine to draw ideas from, but professional poison to quote.
Recall back in the day before Rush became a caricature of himself there really was no "mouth of the conservative right" unless you could find Buckley on PBS with your rabbit ears early Saturday morning. Rush filled a void at the time and his continued success is largely a legacy of his early market domination.
In those dark ages of news, people had to wait until 6:00 at night to learn what had happened in the world. If you came home late, you had to wait until the morning paper to learn how bad the Cubs lost the day before.
Nowadays, the discerning public can get news in 140 characters or less 24 hours a day with hashtags, unless they have the patience to wait for the news to come on the Comedy Channel. People may still get their "entertainment" from Limbaugh, but they get their news from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, the last guy who texted them in broken txt spk, and memes.
Rush Limbaugh, an old dinosaur in the age of small furry mammals with short-attention spans exists more as an entertainer and hold over than as a mover and shaker of conservatism. And yet, despite the broadening of the entertainment base, Rush stubbornly continues to dominate his market space: a market space in an increasingly irrelevent medium.
I think this is the key objection to Limbaugh. There are bomb-throwing blowhards on both sides of the aisle. What is maddening to those on the opposite side of the aisle is not his ideas or delivery per se but rather the success he has had in employing them.
Would you agree that the tenor of public discussion has coarsened over the years? If so, would you suppose that Limbaugh, and others of his ilk are the cause of this degeneration of the art of debate, or are they mere symptoms of a wider extinction of that ancient value of civility?
V/R
(20)
(0)
SSG Mike Angelo
I dont follow Limbaugh, he sounds too much like Howard Cosell's halftime highlights; sensationalism. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkyvki_howard-cosell-s-halftime-highlights-week-6-1971_sport
Howard Cosell's Halftime Highlights Week 6, 1971 - Video Dailymotion
"The tragedy of Chuck Hughes" as it was mentioned on the telecast was this: Hughes, a wide receiver for the Detroit Lions, collapsed on the field after running a route. It was originally thought that he was faking a injury to stop the game momentarily, however Dick Butkus of the Bears starting flailing violently to get the attention of medical staff on-hand. As it turns out Hughes had suffered a fatal heart attack, and to my knowledge is the...
(2)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Respectfully sir, the Party took a radical change when Southern Christian Democrats took it over in the 1960's and has only been worse because of it. Tolerance and coming to the middle for anything by either party is thing of the past. With Progressive liberals hijacking the Blue Dog Dems, and SCD's all but destroying the Party of Lincoln, what is left for is who do not support either radical view?
(0)
(0)
Susan Foster
My objection to him is that what comes out of his mouth is idiocy, inflammatory, most often wrong, and he doesn't want to get confused with facts. He's a pundit, not a journalist. When someone tells me they take him seriously, it tells me something about them. This sounds "judgey" and it doesn't mean I don't love them (many in my own family), but I don't worry about having a serious discussion with them on issues either.
(0)
(0)
19
19
0
Sir,
Your stating that Rush Limbaugh is the mouth of the GOP is like my stating that Howard Stern is the mouth for you non-Republicans. The fact that sensationalist media types lean a certain direction does not make him that group's spokesperson.
If anyone could be considered my spokesperson, it is John Andrew Boehner.
Your stating that Rush Limbaugh is the mouth of the GOP is like my stating that Howard Stern is the mouth for you non-Republicans. The fact that sensationalist media types lean a certain direction does not make him that group's spokesperson.
If anyone could be considered my spokesperson, it is John Andrew Boehner.
(19)
(0)
CPT Richard Riley
I agree with you to a point SGT (Join to see) I have know John Boehner for a very long time. What I can say is that John has evolved over that time - some for the better, some not-so-much - but he is different now than he was in the early eighty's.
(1)
(0)
17
17
0
Major Dews.
Uninformed conservatives probably get their "thoughts" from Rush and others, just as uninformed liberals get theirs from Chris Matthews and other liberals.
For those of us that are informed, as you have stated, form our own views based on our own values and beliefs. reality is the key... that is why i believe there are as many ex-democrats as there are republicans.
These days to really be informed one has to dig and look beyond the rhetoric to find enough truth to have an informed opinion.
I do totally agree with what you are saying. Talk radio is just that, it is not news it is the opinion of one person. Those who base their beliefs on someones rhetoric, well, they deserve what they get.
Uninformed conservatives probably get their "thoughts" from Rush and others, just as uninformed liberals get theirs from Chris Matthews and other liberals.
For those of us that are informed, as you have stated, form our own views based on our own values and beliefs. reality is the key... that is why i believe there are as many ex-democrats as there are republicans.
These days to really be informed one has to dig and look beyond the rhetoric to find enough truth to have an informed opinion.
I do totally agree with what you are saying. Talk radio is just that, it is not news it is the opinion of one person. Those who base their beliefs on someones rhetoric, well, they deserve what they get.
(17)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
I would also add, that i am not a republican either. I consider myself a conservative and try to avoid the politics of party affiliation.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google