Now that his most visible primary targets will be gone from the scene, how low will he go to satisfy his addiction to pathological lying? Don't underestimate how low he will go, he can go very, VERY low. My guess is he will soon be slandering handicapped senior citizens, or babies born with birth defects.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Answers

anything,type one statement Rush made that was not true.I thought so.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

LOL! You've GOTTA be joking! Help yourself Rocketman...

http://rushlimbaugh.com/

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Rocketman?:

Rus h versus Reality

Rush Limbaugh RARELY [if ever} states what is true.

More importantly, Stephen Poole...you mentioned something recently about most of us being friends. Your forum has moved in a direction wherein I don't know more than five of the posters, so how can I agree with that?

Politically, I think it's time for us all to move on [if we feel earnestly about it] to endeavors that support US. Personally, I don't feel a need to engage Flint in discussion anymore. I don't feel a need to engage CPR in discussion anymore. I don't feel a need to engage YOU anymore.

My plans include getting the voting records of the incumbents of the House and Senate to the people. The methods of voting seem to be in good hands at this time, but I'll wait and see if anything is REALLY done. 2002 is NOT that far away.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Anita,

If this means you plan to stop reviewing this forum, I hope you will reconsider. You would be sorely missed. Your matter-of-fact presentation and intelligent response is much appreciated. You may not know many of the current posters, but quite a lot of us lurkers and old timers remember you well.

Sincerely, Uhhmmm...

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Anita,

What kind of an endeavor would support us?

I'm all ears.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Stephen:

The kind that don't revolve in ONE direction, but address OUR needs as individuals. YOU were satisfied with this election because the Supreme Court annointed your favorite candidate the presidency. Those of us left of you need to work to ensure that the Congress in 2002 consists of people who will not accept the "Scalia and Sons" decision, nor the "Thomas and wife" decision."

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Hey Anita, don't let the screen door hit you in your liberal ass.

And take Droolie (Paulie) and the Meathead (Patricia) with you too.

OK?

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Easy guys. Anita, maybe just skip the political posts if they bug you. They're not going to go away and you shouldn't either.

As for Limbaugh, this same question was asked when Clinton was elected. The thought being that Limbaugh's in your face brand of conservativism would die on the waves in the wake of a 43 percenter blessed with goodtimes. As long as there is ONE liberal left standing old Rushbo has an effective target that will make A-Rod feel penniless. Try boycotting his sponsers. Just try.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Anita somehow conveniently forgets Justice "your guy and our guy" Breyer. She somehow forgets that the USSC was agreeing with Judge Sauls, and merely correcting the activism of the FSC (which overruled TWO lower courts in Florida, and had the USSC reject both rulings).

Sometimes I think Anita really *likes* the thought of government (at all levels) controlling the allocation of about half the GDP. But from my viewpoint, the damage is long since done. It's WELL past time to start correcting it, NOT making it worse. We have tried Big Government running our lives, and it does not work.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Guess,

What a philosopher are you. You certainly changed my mind.

Carlos,

Are you saying that Rush does not fib? I thought that Anita's site was pretty conclusive. Perhaps you could point out several instances where Anita's site was in error.

Or are you just agreeing with the original poster who noted that Rush would do anything to please his sponsers and maximize their ROI?

Regarding Clinton, most people did not know that Rush existed prior to Clinton's 1992 election. I listen to Rush only once a month, but he almost always spends a great deal of the show beating up on Clinton or someone in the Clinton admin. I think it a fair question to ask who of national importance will fill the minutes, hours, and days of the Rush showtime with Clinton gone. Surely you agree that it will be very difficult for Rush to fire the hearts of a national audience with a diatribe directed at some liberal of only local importance.

Finally, what does 'A-Rod' and 'penniless' have to do with 'target' and 'effective'? Or is it 'Rush' and 'effective'? I am pretty tired, and so perhaps cannot see the analogy/similarity/contrast.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Flint,

Far be it for a lurker like me to argue with your august personage. You are a legend from the long Y2K battle. I must note, however, that Anita's site offered proof (if we may presume it true) that the size of the govt has decreased in almost every year of the Clinton admin. Has not Clinton reduced the size of the govt? Could you be using a Rush discredited arguement in a misguided attempt to discredit Anita?

Wondering,

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Take a nap Uhmmmmmmmm. We can talk another time.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

"We have tried Big Government running our lives, and it does not work."

And yet, we're coming out of eight straight years of the most amazing prosperity this nation has ever seen.

?????

Rush will simply continue with the Junior Senator from New York, whose name also happens to be Clinton.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

And yet, we're coming out of eight straight years of the most amazing prosperity this nation has ever seen.

To what or whom would you credit for that prosperity, Patricia?

If you think Clinton was responsible for our prosperity what specific things did he do to cause it?

I'm really curious to know.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Carlos...

I have been trying to e-mail you but it keeps kicking back. E-mail me with an alternate addy if you have one.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

There were a number of factors, not least of which could probably be attributable to a "cyclical" thing, but when you have a moderate -- in this case -- Democratic President, who doesn't screw around with things too much, things tend to *work*.

No, I don't think he was solely "responsible", but I think many of his policies (that were enacted in conjuction with the Congress) went a long way towards NOT derailing or hindering the progress.

Flint said it much better on the other thread, and I agree (well, maybe except for that "socialized medicine" thing, but that's another conversation entirely):

The economy did will on his term, and he didn't rock the boat. We were lucky that the socialized medicine never got off the ground, but Clinton didn't WAY overspend his revenues the way his predecessors did, and he can take some responsibility for reforming welfare.

And I'll tell you what bothers me an awful lot about a Republican administration (among a number of other considerations): If DeLay's words ring true, we're going to go through yet another serious downturn. He was quoted as saying something to the effect that they (the Republicans) will now "undo EVERYTHING Clinton did". He explained that if they (the Republicans) had their way, they would remove every act that the Clinton Administration implemented and put back the ones that would do right by the Republicans. If I can find the reference, I'll post it, but I don't have it handy.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

MSFT warns about earnings. Dow down 240 today. Gotta be a Bush under that bush somewhere. Right!

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Well, I said I've been happy with Clinton on the whole. His general approach is a bit left of what I'd prefer, but with a strongly Republican legislature holding his worse impulses in check, and with his willingness to compromise (which I believe Bush and Gore both share) he made a good President. Conversely, people like DeLay scare me a bit. They are too intransigent.

I wasn't aware the government had shrunk during Clinton's terms. Do you have a reference? Do you mean shrunk relative to GDP (which I can believe) or in absolute terms (which is a bit harder to swallow)?

And Patricia, you have morphed over the last 6 weeks from someone able to see the merit in both sides, to someone hysterically committed to a highly questionable viewpoint. This is a bad direction. In your posts, Bush has changed from a Tweedledee centrist clone to the evil incarnation of the devil himself, a drooling idiot being run by monsters from an imaginary horrible past. Weird. I'd really hoped you'd be a moderating influence on Doc Droolie, and the reverse has happened, to the serious detriment of both of you.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

There were a number of factors, not least of which could probably be attributable to a "cyclical" thing,

I would say that played an *immense* factor, IMHO. :^)

...but when you have a moderate -- in this case -- Democratic President, who doesn't screw around with things too much, things tend to *work*.

I would argue that he didn't screw around because the Republican Congress *wouldn't* let him screw around - and visa versa(sp?) for that matter.

If DeLay's words ring true, we're going to go through yet another serious downturn.

It's looking more and more like it's alreading starting. But Mr. Clinton is *still* in office so what went wrong there? If we give him credit for our prosperity can we then blame him if the economy does go into a recession now?

As for the Republicans helping the downturn along... You may be right - my gut feeling agrees with you. With Bush in office I would have preferred a Democratic Congress (to balance things out a bit) but that didn't happen. Oh well.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Uhhmmm:

A clarification here. Anita's link shows the size of the Federal government in terms of the total number of Federal non-military employees. This isn't what I (or Rush, for that matter) was talking about.

I was referring to the percentage of total GDP, in dollars, collected in taxes, fees, etc. by governments at all levels. I believe Rush Limbaugh was talking about this as well, since the "size" of government is usually measured in money and not people.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Wall Street always prefers divided government. A stone fact, confirmable by merely reading the WSJ.

Another point - agree or disagree with it, it doesn't matter, the PERCEPTION of this event overseas has not been good.

It is a sure thing that many techs who were thinking about applying for one of those high tech visas, won't. Good for me, probably bad for the overall economy.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Anita,

YOU were satisfied with this election because the Supreme Court annointed your favorite candidate the presidency.

I am NOT "satisfied" with this election; anything but. I would have preferred a clear winner, one way or the other.

And just for the record, my contention was that the courts should have stayed out of it (except for clear cases of fraud or denial of rights -- ie, enforcement of existing laws). Once it had become obvious that the election result was closer than the system was able to resolve, it should have been given to the legislature for a decision, as provided by the Constitution.

Those of us left of you need to work to ensure that the Congress in 2002 consists of people who will not accept the "Scalia and Sons" decision, nor the "Thomas and wife" decision."

If you're convinced that Scalia and Thomas really had a conflict of interest that violated federal statues, you should also agitate for their impeachment and removal from the bench. Of course, Bush would probably just appoint Robert Bork and Larry Klayman to take their places, but there you go ...

(That was a JOKE.[g])

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Flint, wherever did you get the idea that I saw "merit" in GWB? Sorry, but from Day One (when I questioned why McCain wasn't on the ticket) I have been steady in my (very low) opinion of him. I do see some "merit" in some traditionally conservative policies, but I don't really know anyone who doesn't.

I have always though Gore is a much better statesman and that he would have kept the nation on its present course. All of that seems to be out the window, thanks in no small part to the vindictiveness of certain well-placed members of the Republican Party.

I have never been a big Gore "supporter" and have made no secret of that. I looked at ALL of the candidates, and the only logical choice for me was Gore. Hagelin had some interesting ideas, but who the hell is he? So it was Gore.

I made no secret of the fact that back in the late Spring, I stated that this would be yet another year that I'd be voting the "lesser of two evils".

I'm still kind of curious (though in all honesty, it doesn't keep me up at night) as to why you think the Bush Family Heritage that I've alluded to (including the "advisors") is questionable. Your choice, I suppose, but if I were you, I'd remove those "bi-partisan blinders" you're wearing and do a little background research.

So, uh, where's this great "metamorphosis" I'm supposed to have gone through? I have, of late, been pointing out blatant hypocrisies on the part of many so-called Bush "supporters", but as you're not one of them by your own admission, this doesn't apply to you, now does it?

Terribly sorry I don't seem to be living up to your standards; that's two people in as many days. Shame on me.

You have a way with words, Flint; you should write fiction.

Oh wait a minute.....nevermind.

"No one", I don't know the reasons "why" we are beginning a downturn -- cyclical? Decker could probably answer that; I don't pretend to be an economist. So many tech stocks have been so overvalued for so long -- could that contribute? Probably. A lot of big M&As are beginning to result in what seems to be a large number of "consolidation layoffs". Another factor? Could be.

Wish I could speak more intelligently on this, but I can only relate what I've read in different places. And it's not as much as I'd like.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

(((Meathead)))

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Carlos...

I got your mail but can't send you a message in return...

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

(Carlos, do you ever check your other email addy?)

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Flint,

Again, I hope you will bear with me. I will soon return to lurkerdom. I only ventured forth to lament Anita's possible departure.

Based upon my understanding of Anita's site, you and Rush seem to be thinking of different things. In his topic of 6/13/2000, Rush seems to be discussing the non-military portion of the federal govt, while you seem to be thinking of all levels of governmental spending. So I will choose what to research...

A quick glance at the GDP vs the total federal expenditures indicates that the GDP has been rising faster than expenditures. Thus the ratio of expenditures to GDP would seem to be decreasing. By at least some measurements, government has gotten SMALLER during the Clinton admin.

http://www.bea.doc.gov

The real issue is - did Rush fib. In this instance, if taken literally, Rush seemed to imply either that 1) more people work for the government now than before, or that 2) the government is spending more now than is has ever spent. Obviously, the first implication results in a fib. The second implication is meaingless because, as you seem to sense, government spending as a statistic is useless except for comparison - and Rush offers none. So his statement in question is either a fib or it is meaningless.

Our discussion so far just seems to furhter illustrate the basic quandry Rush must face... who will he slander now? Is there a person, someone with a national stature, a foil to the Rush wit, a person whose slanderous destruction might entertain and enthrall a national right wing audience?

I do not think Hillary will fill the hours of Rushtime after she is out of the national spotlight. No, there will be weeks and weeks where we hear nothing from Senator Clinton. Who, then?

Wondering,

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Mail is clearly screwed up. Got a new puter at the store w/ free ISP through Frontier. cybertime guys assured me riffraff and riffraff1 would still work. Don't look like it. Call me Bob

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

And to anyone in particular:

When Rush first started in the 80's, his show was funny and outrageous -- really more of a conservative "politically incorrect" than anything else. I never took his show THAT seriously (he himself stated at the time that it was conservative *entertainment*) and didn't consider him the font of all wisdom. I caught him in a few mistakes myself, even way back then.

But given that his show was essentially *entertainment*, I took it as such. I realized that he engaged in hyperbole ("exaggeration," for you folks in Palm Beach County) to make a point or to inject humor.

(Sort of like my infamous remark about "all two computers in Afghanistan. That was pure humor, not intended to be taken as a factual comment about the number of computers in that country.)

Some of the examples at Rush V. Reality would fall into that category; Limbaugh was engaging in hyperbole. Some of the other examples are cases where Rush was simply misunderstood or misquoted. (The "size of government" thing, for example; I heard him explain this in quite some detail on one show, and he was NOT referring to the number of federal employees.)

Then again, there have been times when he's made flat, outright mistakes, too. Just as the major networks have.

Actually, I noticed a shift in Rush's approach somewhere between 91 and 92, when he became more "serious," a spokesman for the Republican party. That's when I began listening to him less. By the mid-90's, every single show had become a 3-hour attack on the Clintons and I had basically switched to other channels. I listened to him maybe once every few weeks or so just out of curiosity (and to see if he'd gotten over it yet).

(And by the way, yes, he probably WILL devote most of his airtime to attacking Hillary Clinton in the coming year.)

But by the early 90's, I had discovered Online Country. I started on Prodigy, then began working the forums at Compuserve, and eventually began posting to forums on the Web. At that time, I had been in a car accident and had hurt my back, so I was out of radio for a few years; I became hooked on the Web. :)

Now that I'm back in the bid'ness, I listen to more radio than most people because I want to ensure that my stations are loud, proud and competitive-sounding. I drive Sandy crazy; I flip from one signal to the next without warning. :)

But defend Limbaugh? No defense is necessary. He has his opinion, he's entitled to express it, I don't always agree with it, he's better when he sticks to entertainment rather than serious commentary, but there you go.

For what it's worth.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Oh, boy, Stephen.

So it's okay because Rush is/was "misunderstood" and "misquoted" and "engaging in hyperbole" ..... I can't BELIEVE you just typed that.

Let's take examples from his very own web site; this particular section is rather oddly named "Pearls of Wisdom":

October 3: * The Internet, the Oil Reserves and every other Gore lie is because he's got a problem with self-esteem.

Which is it here -- "misunderstood", "misquoted" or "hyperbole"?

Same day: * Congrats goes to Gore for even higher energy prices this winter. Prices soared 4% on Monday.

Again, A, B or C?

Still the same day: * Americans love to hear promises, but for Clinton/Gore have taken no action for 8 years. Gore will pretend to care.

A, B or C?

October 5: * Gore did not go to Texas to inspect fire damage... he went for fund raisers! (Gore admits that his story was not true) (and yet Rush doesn't tell us the story...go figure)

A, B or C?

Same day: * Unlike Gore, GWB is not a credit hog. (Uh, so who WAS it that told the nation how "well" Texas was doing under him?)

A, B or C?

Need I go on here?

There's that old double-standard again.

Sorry, but you DID just "defend" him; you just "defended" the man who makes light -- AS A MATTER OF FACT -- of some rather serious situations. The man who spouts LIES and NEVER CORRECTS THEM.

Kind of like alot of the Y2K nonsense, eh?

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

@$%^&*() OFF?!?!

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Uhhmmmmmm,

You entirely miss the reason for Limbaugh's success. You keep thinking he needs a specific target. The Clinton's offered a gorgeous banquet of targets but it's vain to think that they MADE Limbaugh or are necessary for the sale of Bose radios. It's a consistent mistake liberals make about conservatism. No Virginia, there isn't a Santa Clause (on purpose) that will save you or other liberals from scrutiny and that's Limbaugh's message.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Geeze, talk about walking into a gunfight with just a pitchfork.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Trish,

So it's okay because Rush is/was "misunderstood" and "misquoted" and "engaging in hyperbole" ..... I can't BELIEVE you just typed that.

You shouldn't, because I didn't. Or, rather, that's not what I meant and you shouldn't take it that way.

I place Rush in the same class as an Alan Colmes or Art Bell: opinionated, often wrong, better as entertainment than as hard news. And did I not say that that his attempt to become more "serious" hasn't worked all that well? :)

BUT ... I do believe that he has a right to his opinion, just as anyone else does -- even if that opinion is wrong or based on error.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Stephen,

You must know that there is quite a diference between private opinion and public opinion, between opinion and fact, and between fact and falsehood. When a media master seeks to sway public opinion by the dissemination of carefully fabricated falsehoods, the operative word is propaganda.

A falsehood related once to an audience will at first convince only the most gullible. If the audience is large or the falsehood is repeated, the audience itself will begin to reinforce the lie. If the audience may be selected for a particular trait or belief, if the lie can be crafted to reinforce a prejudice associated with the trait or belief, then the lie will eventually convince a majority of the audience. Some in the audience will even become obsessed with the lie as truth and will alter their entire belief system so that the lie becomes for them the Truth.

While such techniques have been eschewed in the past, we have today an entire subculture dedicated to the manipulation of public opinion and desire. Rush is just another example of a successful Pepsi ad campaign at one exteme; a more modern example of a Julius Streicher at the other.

I was watching the news the other day, and a commentator familiar with both democrats and republicans working in groups noted that republicans seemed to consider liberals and Al Gore as EVIL while democrats think of conservatives as merely misguided or, in the case of Bush, dim. This dichotomy and the republican cast of liberals as demons seems to argue for Rush's propaganda campaign leaning toward the Julius Streicher end of the spectrum.

As a self-professed media man yourself, you must know these things. Perhaps you have a degree in Journalism? You even mentioned that Rush became the 'spokesman' for the Republican party. Was your last post regarding 'opinions' made in jest?

Really trying to exit - stage left,

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Ummmm,

OK, since you insist. But be warned that this is going to be lengthy.

This reminds of the arguments that we had over at the old Poole's Roost prior to the election (and which I had become profoundly tired of): Bush's supporters insisted that Gore was pond scum, Gore's supporters insisted the same of Bush. I was given any number of links (both at the forum and privately, by email) to various Web sites which proved -- proved, mind you -- that this was the case.

For me, all of the garbage cancelled out and I decided to go for Bush because I liked a few of his policies (things like his tax plan and ending our participation in Bosnia). There seemed to be more Gore supporters at my forum, and I was bombarded with link after link to anti-Bush sites.

I did NOT, with a couple of exceptions, respond by posting tons of links to the zillions of anti-Gore sites, because the truth was, I didn't trust EITHER OF THESE SITES. I considered them ALL biased and unreliable.

ALL of them. From World Net Daily to the most virulent anti-Bush site.

Re-read that about a dozen times. I cannot make it more plain than that.

(And PLEASE don't respond by saying, "no, you're wrong! MY side is right, and I can prove it with THESE links! Go read!" You have NO idea how tired I am of that. I make my decisions based on articles from respected, reasonably unbiased sources, not little fly-by-night Web pages that have a clear agenda. On EITHER side.)

So with the media. Gore's supporters are convinced that the media was biased in favor of Bush and Bush supporters feel the opposite. I have also received links to sites proving each contention to their author's/maintainer's satisfaction(s). Gore's supporters are convinced that there was a vast Republican conspiracy to deny him the election; Bush's supporters think that the Democrats very nearly got away with "stealing" the election.

Once again, I took the middle ground.

Here's the problem: the Web, in general, isn't reliable because there's no peer review in most cases. Rush isn't reliable as a source of hard information for the same reason; he gets to spout his opinion without check (save for phone callers, but considering how hard it is to get onto his show, that's dubious at best).

Therefore, I'm *NOT* going to defend Rush across the board. But I will say this: I have heard Rush make factual errors; when a caller does correct him, he will apologize and stand corrected. I have also heard him admit that he was wrong on succeeding shows, and I have heard him clarify things later on, too (as he did with the "size of government" thing: this guy picked up the quote where Rush made the mistake, and ignored his retraction/correction, made later. NOW who's being dishonest?[g]).

Now:

In case you've done what many people do to my admittedly-verbose posts (you've skipped through, not really reading everything that I've said), I'll summarize. The most important line in this post is the one about the Web, in general, being UNRELIABLE.

Period. There are exceptions, of course; there are a few good, balanced sites out there. But in general, it's unreliable. I include virtually ALL anti-Gore and anti-Bush sites in that, because they're ALL going to tell you what they want you to hear and conveniently leave out anything that would harm that viewpoint.

And "Rush v. Reality" is a case in point. Is Rush responsible? Define the term. He admits his mistakes when they're pointed out to him. Is he infalliable? Hardly. Do I consider him an objective, unbiased source of information? Hah! Gimme a break. Of COURSE not.

And anyone who does has only themselves to blame.

Is that clear enough?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

And following this same tone -- what should we make of someone whose political position is supported by an anti-Rush web site?

It has been my experience that this kind of website and others Stephen refers to do not *form* anyone's opinion, but merely reinforce it. When I engaged in the Creationism debates, I was bombarded with links to anti-evolution web sites. At first I responded with links to sites that carefully debunked all this nonsense, but it soon became evident that these people were not bothering to read any of it. When I asked why, I was told that they "already knew all they needed to, and didn't need to read lies". Now THERE is the reason why Anita knows of, and links to, an anti-Rush web site. When I gave her some links to other viewpoints, once again she didn't bother to read any of them! Sound familiar?

I've often wondered where these opinions come from in the first place, and I think it's multifaceted and subtle. But look at Patricia saying "I've always known Bush was dim" or words to that effect. HOW has she "always" known this, never having met the man? Roughly half the political web sites say otherwise, and even liberal sources concede that Bush won at least 2 of the debates. Dim?

This is why the truth is always the first casualty of war. The "enemy" must be demonized, whoever it might be. Bush's stupidity and Gore's meanness are media fabrications. Both candidates wish to populate their administrations with notables from their own parties, and YOUR guy is selecting the best and brightest, while THEIR guy is selecting old cronies. Uh huh. People fall for this because they WANT to.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Flint,

It has been my experience that this kind of website and others Stephen refers to do not *form* anyone's opinion, but merely reinforce it.

Well said. To be fair, I think we all do that (to a certain extent), but the first step on the road to recovery is admitting it. :)

My daily rounds typically include visits to MSNBC, CNN, NewsMax, FrontPage (for the hardcore right view) and Salon (for the hardcore left). That way, I feel like I might be able to form an opinion after having read ALL of them.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

No Virginia, there isn't a Santa Clause (on purpose) that will save you or other liberals from scrutiny and that's Limbaugh's message.

And just what makes him think either he or any of the new- found "compassionate conservatives" will be "saved" by a "Santa Clause"? That's what I wanted to retort, and then I remembered the Bush Family Heritage. Seems these guys really DO have a Santa Clause.

Uhhmmm seems to have hit the nail on the head (don't "exit" please!) -- and I'd be quite surprised if the Y2K reference wasn't resounding in everyone's heads right about now.

Flint, how many times do I have to clarify for you? I'm starting to wonder here..... One more time for you who seems to refuse to "hear" me:

Every time I have seen/heard GWB speak, I get the impression that every word is SCRIPTED; that he hasn't a CLUE what he's saying. That he makes even Dan Quayle look intelligent. His "speech" the other night (with his head bobbing around like a damn LAWN SPRINKLER) was a classic example.

Do you Get It now? I'm going to ask you one last time to PLEASE stop attacking my opinion, my intelligence level, ME.

Flint said: People fall for this because they WANT to.

Uh huh. And what makes you think you're above all that -- what makes you think YOU haven't "fallen" for the rhetoric, the "line"?

Stephen said: My daily rounds typically include visits to...

You say this as if you're the ONLY one who does this, Stephen. What makes you think no one else does this and comes to a DIFFERENT conclusion than you did?

Stephen, you defended Rush Limbaugh, a man who thinks (or at least SPEWS) that those DAMN EVIL LIBERALS are responsible for EVERY ILL in the world today, from teenage acne to Bin Laden (no, dear, the Republicans were responsible for THAT one).

And you defended him.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Patricia:

And you think Gore's speech was delivered extemporaneously? These guys are reading prepared speeches from teleprompters. I agree Gore is more skilled at making this LOOK like he's making it up naturally as he goes along. He provides more verisimilitude. But they are both reading scripts.

Now, if you really understand that they are reading scripts, why do you consider Bush "dumber" than Gore for doing so? Do you have ANY reason why you mock Bush as a "lawn sprinkler" other than his lack of skill reading a teleprompter? Are you now claiming this skill is an IQ test? Or are you claiming that it's a key qualification for President? Duhhh! You have decided to find something, ANYTHING, however irrelevant, and mock Bush about it. Can't you see this? Everyone else can.

This is at least the second time I've seen you defend your "Bush is dim" statements on the grounds that he's less comfortable reading teleprompters. This is the best you can come up with? Sheesh.

As for Limbaugh, Stephen defended him as *entertainment*, and said he was a poor spokesman for the Republicans. He exaggerates, he makes some things up, his presentation is ludicrously unbalanced. But you carefully ignore this, and attack Stephen for something he never said. This is either dishonest or unintelligent, your choice.

I think neither you, nor I, nor Stephen is "coming to a conclusion" based on what we read. We filter what we read through conclusions we brought with us to whatever we read. This does make it difficult to properly interpret what's there. I think Stephen is more successful at overcoming this bias than I am, and probably sees more clearly as a result. But it's obvious that you do not WANT to see clearly, you want ammunition, a wooden stake to drive through the heart of the Great Foe.

You'd do better answering what he writes, than what you pretend he writes. This is a straw man.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

To Patricia:

The Republicans are responsible for Bin Laden? How do you figure that?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

GW wrote the intro to this book. He has said he holds Marvi n Olasky as a friend and personal advisor. That be enough for me to conclude GW better suited for private life, not the leader of the FreeWorld.

Puts the election business into a more understandable light for me when I understand GW and the current Republican Party more inline with a Gary North than traditional American values and tenets. I think this even possible because many actually will believe a Rush Limbaugh.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Can we agree here a major appeal of a GW is his hayseed factor? His appearance that he is honest by the fact he ain't no "Al Gore"? He ain't no polished politician?

So why would his handlers recommend the games? The teleprompters and the like? Beyond the obvious? Could it be so we don't get the honesty as before? That we don't get "there ought be limits to free speech", "that reporter can go f*ck himself"? I think this more the reason GW is being trained.

What do Americans want in their President? More than any other factor it is being candid. Unfortunately this is so rare these days the public missed the few times on record where GW was truely candid and in my opinion showed him to be what he is,,,a naive average yokel from the sticks, not Presidential timber.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Patricia,

Stephen, you defended Rush Limbaugh

I defended his right to state his opinion and I defended his right to engage in conservative *entertainment.*

Trish, but as a Christian, I am sometimes offended when I see comedians on television making fun of ministers and religious matters. But hey, I can always change the channel or click the thing off, and I will fight for their right to do it.

Just as I will fight for Rush's right to call liberal feminists "Feminazis." Or Paul Begala's right to call REPUBLICANS "nazis." Or Jesse Jackson's, or Wexler's or you name it's ...

a man who thinks (or at least SPEWS) that those DAMN EVIL LIBERALS are responsible for EVERY ILL in the world today

Hmmm ... no. He has certainly attacked them with great glee, but actually, since his Big Switch back in the early 1990's, he's been just as hard on Republicans who have strayed from the conservative path. He says they're JUST as much to blame.

For example, when Bush went along with that tax increase (the one that the Democrats later made a big deal out, because it made a lie out of his infamous "read my lips" pledge), he gave Bush daily corrosion for it for a couple of weeks, as I recall.

Bin Laden (no, dear, the Republicans were responsible for THAT one).

OK, I'm all ears. 'Splain.

And you defended him.

I defended his right to *speak.* I will continue to do so.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

And you think Gore's speech was delivered extemporaneously?

Uh, no Flint, never said that. I'm really starting to wonder about you ..... once again, we were discussing Bush not Gore.

Did you see the Bush speech? Well, I did. I got this picture in my head of my neighbor's lawn sprinkler, the way GWB was "bobbing" his head and apparently making sure he looked at every part of the audience instead of into the camera.

Clear enough for you there?

This is at least the second time I've seen you defend your "Bush is dim" statements on the grounds that he's less comfortable reading teleprompters.

By all means, Flint, do reference exactly where I've said that this is the reason I consider GWB shy of a full deck.

I think neither you, nor I, nor Stephen is "coming to a conclusion" based on what we read. We filter what we read through conclusions we brought with us to whatever we read.

Mark this date on the calendar -- finally, an admission of BIAS.

Certainly took you long enough.

Re Limbaugh: Yes, it would appear that I did overlook a couple of points that Stephen made -- my mistake. But it does not detract from the fact that he did write in his post: Some of the examples at Rush V. Reality would fall into that category; Limbaugh was engaging in hyperbole. Some of the other examples are cases where Rush was simply misunderstood or misquoted.

And that is where I have a problem. That reads to me as a defense of Limbaugh.

You'd do better answering what he writes, than what you pretend he writes.

You'd do well to take your own advice. Reference too-many-to- count of my recent posts that you've answered, including this one.

But it's obvious that you do not WANT to see clearly, you want ammunition, a wooden stake to drive through the heart of the Great Foe.

Refer back to your own advice above. While it may be "obvious" to you, it doesn't make it so. And no amount of me explaining my position or my opinion to you appears to be acceptable in your eyes.

Peter, that was an allegation I recently read (that he was quite possibly one of the "beneficiaries" in the Iran/Contra mess), so I must retract that statement.

Stephen, perhaps I misread you; then again, I don't think so as you did come back with "that's not what I meant".

I am not saying Limbaugh doesn't have the right to speak; but when he doesn't correct outright lies (and despite the three or so times you heard him do so, this isn't necessarily "the norm" for him) then he needs to be held accountable. Simply because he gave Bush Sr. "a couple of weeks" of grief doesn't soothe the constant bashing he's given anyone perceived to be to the "left" of him for the past eight years.

Re Bin Laden: See my comment to Peter above.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Patricia:

Here are your own words:

"I get the impression that...he hasn't a CLUE what he's saying. That he makes even Dan Quayle look intelligent. His "speech" the other night (with his head bobbing around like a damn LAWN SPRINKLER) was a classic example."

NOW here are your own words:

"By all means, Flint, do reference exactly where I've said that this is the reason I consider GWB shy of a full deck."

OK, consider it done. Or are you going to say that your impression that he's clueless and dumber than Quayle has NOTHING to do with the "classic example" of how he read the teleprompter? If these are unrelated, WHY do you use one to document the other?

Moving right along, I guess I need to point out that Bush and Gore both gave speeches. Both of them READ those speeches off of teleprompters. By laughing at "lawn sprinkler" Bush, you are (whether you are honest enough to admit it or not) drawing a COMPARISON between Bush and Gore on that basis. Saying "Gee, I wasn't talking about Gore" is a lie, just as surely as it's a lie to say that calling heads has nothing to do with NOT calling tails. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Mark this date on the calendar -- finally, an admission of BIAS. Certainly took you long enough.]

No, I've been admitting it all along. How about the post where I said my bias was better supported by the facts than yours? How about the posts where I've claimed to be supporting Bush? I've freely admitted to being an advocate from the beginning. Your claim that this is now a brand new thing is another lie. Can't you make your points honestly? Why not?

[That reads to me as a defense of Limbaugh.]

But this only means you are a victim of "all or nothing" syndrome. Just because I have caught you in a few lies here does not mean EVERYTHING you write is a lie. Some things you've said have been entirely correct. Similarly, it is possible to make accurate statements about Limbaugh which are nonetheless not critical of him. YOU may not be able to make such statements, but honest people can.

[While it may be "obvious" to you, it doesn't make it so.]

OK, where have you had anything good to say about Bush? I must have missed it. Where have you noticed that Bush was trying to win an election between partisan parties, and (like his opponent) rallying his troops to his support? I must have missed that too. All I've noticed is that every time I point out that Bush and Gore have the SAME goal and are using the SAME tactics to reach it, you repeat that Gore has nothing to do with this!

I don't know how to express this in terms simple enough for you, but I'll try again. If two people behave the same and you choose to find fault ONLY with one of them, you are gathering ammunition. You are NOT looking at what's happening with ANY effort to see clearly.

I prefer Bush, but I think he made some wrong decisions, I oppose some of his policies, and some of his fellow Republicans I consider screwballs. However, if you can find ANYTHING good about Bush, it never penetrates through your ranting and your lies. Even if you can't see this.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Trish,

That web page reminds me of the "gore is a liar" thingie that I posted (finally -- to provide a little balance to all of the anti-Bush stuff[g]) on the old Poole's roost.

Did Al Gore say those things? Technically, yes. But did they mean that he was a "liar?" That's what's not so clear. Misunderstanding what someone says -- particularly if you're listening to that person with a hypercritical ear (because you don't like him to start with) -- doesn't make them a "liar."

A "lie" is a deliberate untruth told by someone who knows it to be false to fact.

(Now, of course, someone will post a dictionary definition of the term "lie", which shows just how far this thread has deteriorated[g].)

(Call me a prophet.[g])

Rush v. Reality has done the SAME THING as that "Gore is a liar" site. Has Rush made statements which are false to fact? Sure he has. But this guy has taken them, ignored the multitude of cases where Rush has later clarified his statements, then twisted and spun them under the worst possible light to support a pre-ordained conclusion.

Just as the people who run the "Al Gore is a liar" site did. Just as the people who ran those "Bush is an idiot" sites did.

Rush is not the ogre that that web site makes him out to be, but neither is he the syndic of truth that his dittoheads imagine him to be. I strongly encourage people to listen to Rush with a healthy does of skepticism.

That's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get, isn't it? Proof of my bravery: I make such assertions *KNOWING* that those who stand in the middle of the road frequently get run over. :)

Trish, the bottom line is, Rush is conservative ENTERTAINMENT. I listen to him with the same filter that I apply to Bill Mahr or David Letterman when they're doing their monologues. Asking me to "defend" Rush is about like asking me to defend Letterman when he makes jokes about Clinton and cigars.

In all cases, my answer is "sheesh, lighten up, will ya?"

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Flint, I take it that "unintelligent or dishonest" is no longer my "choice" to make as you have made it for me. Very well; can I then assume that you will no longer be reading and/or responding to my posts?

Stephen, I think we're mixing up two sets of quotes. You originally attributed the "misquoted", "misunderstood" and/or "hyperbole" to the ones on the Rush vs. Reality site. The ones I posted above came from Rush's very own web site as I referenced. No chance anywhere that they were "spun" or taken out of context. Those were the ones I asked you about as to whether or not they were "misquoted", "misunderstood" or "hyperbole".

Sorry about the mix-up.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Trish,

Confusion indeed. Rushonline.com is not Limbaugh's Web site; if you do a whois, you'll see that it's owned and operated by some guy in California.

Rush's Web site is www.rushlimbaugh.com.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Trish (part II):

Precise control of the Website matters because there's a world of difference between a Rush fan selecting quotes and a site controlled directly by he and his staff. But now that we have that cleared up ...

October 3: * The Internet, the Oil Reserves and every other Gore lie is because he's got a problem with self-esteem.

Re-read my definition of a LIE, above. This is an opinion, not a lie.

Same day: * Congrats goes to Gore for even higher energy prices this winter. Prices soared 4% on Monday.

Political hyperbole, hardly a "lie."

Still the same day: * Americans love to hear promises, but for Clinton/Gore have taken no action for 8 years. Gore will pretend to care.

What was he talking about? I'd need to know the context before I could comment.

October 5: * Gore did not go to Texas to inspect fire damage... he went for fund raisers! (Gore admits that his story was not true) (and yet Rush doesn't tell us the story...go figure)

And,

Same day: * Unlike Gore, GWB is not a credit hog. (Uh, so who WAS it that told the nation how "well" Texas was doing under him?)

You can't see that you're picking nits here?

Need I go on here?

No, because to be honest, there's nothing here. These are opinions. A LIE would be saying something that is a direct, unambiguous statement of falsehood. Example: "Gore said that he wasn't from Tennessee."

Sorry, but you DID just "defend" him; you just "defended" the man who makes light -- AS A MATTER OF FACT -- of some rather serious situations.

It's called 'yumor. See what I said about that above. ENTERTAINMENT, remember? :)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Guess it wasn't enough that I apologized.

You seem to be glossing over the atrocity that is "Rush Limbaugh", which, as far as I'm concerned, says alot more than I think you may have wanted to say. Or maybe not.

Whatever.

But I will point out that you once again missed the hypocrisy in all of this. You've "explained away" Limbaugh as "entertainment" with the terms "misquoted", "misunderstood" and "hyperbole", completely ignoring his wide-reaching audience and his popularity, and the fact that his show is not exactly presented as "entertainment".

Yet, during the entire Presidential campaign, that was the Bush camp's anti-Gore strategy. And that seemed to be just fine with his so-called "supporters".

Whatever.

I'm sure Flint will chime in here to point out more of my "lying".

Whatever.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

To many people, Rush Limbaugh _is_ the news.

Better and more accurate than what they get at 6pm on television.

That's the problem.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Patricia,

No apology is needed from you; you know that. But correct me if I'm wrong: I think the problem is, you're waiting for me to say something like, "Rush is a reprehensible liar" ... right?

No, I won't do that, because I don't believe he is. He is a man who expresses strong opinions, using humor, with whom I often disagree. Just as I disagree with Jesse Jackson, but unlike some other people here, I'm not going to call him a "reprehensible liar," either.

There's a world of difference between an opinion -- even an opinion based on a false assumption -- and a deliberate, outright LIE.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Pam,

That is indeed the problem. If you listen to ANY one person to the exclusion of anyone else, you're going to have a warped view of reality.

Look at what Flint said above; he nailed it. Most people listen to and read those people who REINFORCE what they have already decided to believe. Y2K was a case in point: my word, you had (last time I checked in about Sept of 99, as I recall) over six million(!) Web sites on the subject, the vast majority of which insisted that it was going to be a Bad Thing.

In fact, toward the end, this was taken as an article of faith; the argument was about just HOW bad it would be. With a few exceptions -- my site, Doc and Paul's discussion forums, Brad Sherman and Co. in CSY2K, CPR's efforts via email and public post -- most of the information available about Y2K online was uniformly bad.

And, in retrospect, 99% of it was flat WRONG.

So with these Web sites (and stories taken therefrom), from Rush v. Reality to "Gore is a liar" to the one posted here last night about Gore's ties to Occidental and Armand Hammer to the one posted here earlier about Bush's grandaddy being in the Nazi's pockets. Most of them are garbage. They are slanted, because they're written by people with a preordained result in mind.

Hey, I'll bet I could "PROVE" that YOU are some sort of fringe wierdo radical. Let me go through here and the other forums and carefully sift out some quotes from you that'll "prove" this. I'll just ignore the stuff that proves my assertion wrong.

(I'm speaking tongue in cheek; surely my point is obvious.[g])

To find "truth," one must read EVERYTHING about an issue and make up their own mind. Anyone who listens to Rush exclusively is a dum-dum, but they certainly have the right to do that. :)

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Stephen do you actually think you are believable? You are a guy in the radio business, would you call it balanced? Limbaugh is but one of hundreds spewing the same extremist views with very few if anyone as balance.

Come on

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Doc,

Go get yer eyes checked and re-read what I wrote (at length) (in too much detail) above. I never said Rush was balanced. In fact, I said the opposite.

What's going on here? I must admit that either Rush is 100% wondermuss and beautiful and never makes a mistake, or that he's a reprehensible lying snake with no redeeming features whatsoever?

Hey, didn't you used to call that "binary" thinking? :)

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000