Rush and Pat Robertson

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

he da Raz berry man

And he's pretty damned good at it! I was a fan of Archie Bunker, and every time TDF sticks it to ya, I see his avatar speaking. Even though he jabbed me, I had to love it--sort of like "thanks, I needed that!" But he should've let Spence and me duke it out. I was curious about "potential truth" and what was "really bothering" me. Could save on "potential" shrink payments. But, then, I see his point--it can be annoying to see two idiots yakking at each other. Then again, it could be good for the ratings. The numbers for the thread kind of support that.

[Jim in CT]

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been. It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been.

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?

The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

Buckman didn't smear Rush with inaccurate epithets.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.


You say that most of his work is making fun of people and claiming that he is always right (actually only 99 point something % right), that's not true (there you go again.) The making fun is collateral to what he does and is meant to get under your skin, which he seems to do quite well.

Then you say his work is making money for his sponsors. Which is it? Making fun or making money for sponsors? Oh . . . right, one of the main reasons we work is to make money. So, you can, say, play baseball for the Red Sox, or take appealing family photos, or make furniture, and thereby be called an athlete, or a photographer, or a carpenter, or, by your description, we can all simply be called cash cows.

And, so, you don't like Rush making fun of people. That's understandable, although his fun has some humorously logical basis. But doing the same thing to him, especially in a baseless smearing way (porn merchant), certainly makes you no better than him.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?
The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.
A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

There you go again. I didn't accuse RIROCKHOUND of anything. I was implying that a third party had employed the "tactic" for the purpose of disseminating "negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit" Rush.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
-spence

Calling Rush a porn merchant, fathead, etc. that followed in this thread is actually there. I didn't take any of it out of context. There is no further context beyond this thread, as there are many hours of context, vis a vis Rush that is left out of cherry-picked quotes attributed to him.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.


-spence

Damn Spence, I'm touched

[The Dad Fisherman]

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...

Absolutely correct. Porn has a great tradition that requires physical attributes which Rush, ponderously, lacks.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

He doesn't actually read your posts, you're just now realizing this???

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

"almost never"???....I almost never hit the wrong key

"fairly consistent" ??

hey, apparently the Global Warming Scientists "almost never" f&*% around with the data and are.... well..."fairly consistent"....with their assumptions

22, 2010
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.
Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

[Duke41]

2 knights of the keyboard do battle. This is entertaining. rush is a "big fat idiot". there,is my two cents. These jackasses that use a public forum (not you guys, Rush and Pat) to spew forth hatred and racism are deplorable. Let them use their great minds and oratory talent to bring the world together not pull it apart.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Duke41

Let them use their great minds and oratory talent to bring the world together not pull it apart.

Where's the money in that?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Where's the money in that?

-spence

Are you suggesting that there is no money to be made in pulling the world together, but the profit is really in being "a big fat idiot" who "spews hatred and racism"?

And if Rush is a big fat porn merchant idiot who spews hatred and racism, how has he managed to stay on the air? Don Imus was fired for using a racial term as part of his schtick--a term that is freely used by members of "the community" that was most offended by his remark. Trent Lott was forced to step down for a salute to a colleague that was interpreted to be racial. Rush continues on.

I understand that the epithets used in this thread against Rush are not meant to be factually correct. He may be fat--I don't know--he's been on and off diets I hear and had, at least one time, slimmed down, but I doubt that anyone here is actually condemning him for his weight. He is certainly not an idiot. He is not a racist--he has had black hosts do his show when he's been on vacation. One of the Snurdleys he has had as a producer is black. He has praised various CONSERVATIVE blacks. Though he is acerbic, politically incorrect, full of ego, it has not been shown that he spews hatred, nor has he been brought up on any charges of hate speech. I understand that his humor can irritate. When I have listened to his show, I would often cringe at his jokes, just as I do often when watching Saturday Night Live. But I understand that it is schtick. But it is a mistake to think that for Rush it is only schtick. The abrasive humour is only a method to deliver his ideas. Be honest, Spence, don't you find it difficult to remain neutral, polite, when arguing against what you consider ignorant, even stupid? Don't you often resort to sarcasm, name calling? Doesn't it feel good to do it? Isn't it part of your repertoire?

What I have referred to as the "tactic" of discrediting Rush by cherrypicking occasional remarks out of context is not being used as a "tactic" by most of those who repeat the quotes. If a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. Most people sincerely believe what they are repeating, and it is easy, then, to slip into the political verbiage and even that, as it is repeated, is believed.

What he has done, and why he is successful, is provide an alternative relief from what was perceived as a constant left slanting media, and has helped create a media environment that has grown into many syndicated talk radio shows and may have even contributed to the possibility of a Fox News Channel.

It is understandable that those who lean left would hate him for what he has done. And I understand that their epithets are not meant to be factual, but are just personal political verbiage. Politics has always been, and will probably always be, dirty. Just be aware, that when you engage in this type of name calling, you're no better than who you smear.