Liberal/moderates have a new talk show champion to compete with Rush...

[glenn1]

The Lionel Show

This guy is freakin' hilarious... sounds just like Joe Pesci too

 

[daniel1113]

Compete with Rush? Yeah right. There are not 20 million Americans that will listen to this guy.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Compete with Rush? Yeah right. There are not 20 million Americans that will listen to this guy.

Yeah, but that's just because you need an IQ higher than room temperature to understand him.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

10PM-1AM? Wow he gets to complete with "love songs from the 80's" Pretty tough slot he's got there

CkG

 

[daniel1113]

Wow... you just proved my next point. I disagree with your IQ attack; however, either way, you make conservatives sound good. Rush, Sean Hannity, and the other conservatives in the media want the majority of thier listeners to understand what they are saying. After all, that is the point of a radio show. If it was all about IQ, Stephen Hawking would have a daily radio show in which he discussed the latest findings in regards to anti-matter and more advanced physics.

So, do you really believe that 20 million Americans have an IQ below room temperature and that you, and other liberals, are above them?

Man, it's just not like liberals to believe that they are better than someone else.

So much for fighting for the common man... after all, his IQ is probably below room temperature, so why waste your time on him?

 

[Engineer]

They "ALL" are spin doctors. Both sides spin it they way that they "Think" it should be!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wow... you just proved my next point. I disagree with your IQ attack; however, either way, you make conservatives sound good. Rush, Sean Hannity, and the other conservatives in the media want the majority of thier listeners to understand what they are saying. After all, that is the point of a radio show. If it was all about IQ, Stephen Hawking would have a daily radio show in which he discussed the latest findings in regards to anti-matter and more advanced physics.

So, do you really believe that 20 million Americans have an IQ below room temperature and that you, and other liberals, are above them?

Man, it's just not like liberals to believe that they are better than someone else.

So much for fighting for the common man... after all, his IQ is probably below room temperature, so why waste your time on him?

Half of all people are dumber than average. Blow-hards like Limbaugh pander to them. But it's really an issue of ignorance rather than intelligence. Ignorant people believe Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS. Informed people dismiss him as a clown ... a popular clown, but a clown nonetheless.

 

[0roo0roo]

when a pundit spends his time telling blatant lies to his audience, and the audience just takes it, somethings a tad wrong with the audience.

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wow... you just proved my next point. I disagree with your IQ attack; however, either way, you make conservatives sound good. Rush, Sean Hannity, and the other conservatives in the media want the majority of thier listeners to understand what they are saying. After all, that is the point of a radio show. If it was all about IQ, Stephen Hawking would have a daily radio show in which he discussed the latest findings in regards to anti-matter and more advanced physics.

So, do you really believe that 20 million Americans have an IQ below room temperature and that you, and other liberals, are above them?

Man, it's just not like liberals to believe that they are better than someone else.

So much for fighting for the common man... after all, his IQ is probably below room temperature, so why waste your time on him?

Half of all people are dumber than average. Blow-hards like Limbaugh pander to them. But it's really an issue of ignorance rather than intelligence. Ignorant people believe Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS. Informed people dismiss him as a clown ... a popular clown, but a clown nonetheless.

So can you give some examples of his dishonesty and hateful BS, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because conservatives 'who have' block all attempts to improve the life of those 'who don't have' on the inner and innate feeling that there is only so many goodies to go around and this will mean less for them, conservatives have succeeded in creating a world of misery in which there really is only little to go around. This means that the vast majority of people have nothing and are seething with anger about it. In this near permanent state of rage and need, the average person is ready and willing at all times to lash out at anything and everything that promises a feeling of getting even. This is why the hate mongers and blamers that infest the Conservative side enjoy such immense popularity. They offer a cheep catharsis and emotional pressure valve for the suffering masses. The deeper analysis and psychotherapeutic understandings coupled with the work that will be required to change the system to bring economic justice and the real growth of the total pie are matters that require both reason and educational development. In other words, the Conservatives offer a cheep thrill where only a sustained and intelligently directed effort can suffice to bring a real cure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rockhound

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wow... you just proved my next point. I disagree with your IQ attack; however, either way, you make conservatives sound good. Rush, Sean Hannity, and the other conservatives in the media want the majority of thier listeners to understand what they are saying. After all, that is the point of a radio show. If it was all about IQ, Stephen Hawking would have a daily radio show in which he discussed the latest findings in regards to anti-matter and more advanced physics.

So, do you really believe that 20 million Americans have an IQ below room temperature and that you, and other liberals, are above them?

Man, it's just not like liberals to believe that they are better than someone else.

So much for fighting for the common man... after all, his IQ is probably below room temperature, so why waste your time on him?

Half of all people are dumber than average. Blow-hards like Limbaugh pander to them. But it's really an issue of ignorance rather than intelligence. Ignorant people believe Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS. Informed people dismiss him as a clown ... a popular clown, but a clown nonetheless.

So can you give some examples of his dishonesty and hateful BS, I'd love to hear it.

How about Ann Coulter and Liberals are traitors. Calling Americas greatest patriots, those with a real capacity to understand the true meaning of patriotism, the unwavering search for truth at any price including a willingness to critique oneself, is actually more treasonous than what she charges. We are commanded by God to know the truth. Conservative just try to block the Way.

 

[Rockhound]

Obviously Moonbeam you chose to ignore the main person being discussed here and that is Limbaugh. So I ask you once again, can you give examples, REAL examples of his dishonesty and hateful BS??? I don't hear him calling liberals traitors.

Also, your other argument seems to dwell on the old and very, very tiring notion of the haves and have nots. What you are indirectly proposing is Communism, where everyone is on an equal level and nobody has more than the other guy. Well we all know where that ended up. Down the toilet because it doesn't work. Funny how there are only a few places left in the world that practice this form of governance, North Korea, Cuba, etc. And we all know what state they are in. They are falling apart.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rockhound
Obviously Moonbeam you chose to ignore the main person being discussed here and that is Limbaugh. So I ask you once again, can you give examples, REAL examples of his dishonesty and hateful BS??? I don't hear him calling liberals traitors.

Also, your other argument seems to dwell on the old and very, very tiring notion of the haves and have nots. What you are indirectly proposing is Communism, where everyone is on an equal level and nobody has more than the other guy. Well we all know where that ended up. Down the toilet because it doesn't work. Funny how there are only a few places left in the world that practice this form of governance, North Korea, Cuba, etc. And we all know what state they are in. They are falling apart.

The old and very, very tiring notion of the haves and have nots? You're not trotting out that old tired argument, are you?

What you are indirectly proposing is Communism? And you know this how?, because your mind is a machine that processes information by associations rather than logically? This is the halucinate and regurgitate phenomenon.

Answers are always a third way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Limbaugh debunked

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are commanded by God to know the truth.

yet you say

No President should ever have been exposed to the Jones witch hunt funded by Richard Mellonhead Scapegoat Scum.

out of the other side of your spew hole.

So which is it Moonbeam? Do we allow people to find/know the truth - or was Clinton "above" the truth? There was an accusation against Clinton, the truth was being sought.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are commanded by God to know the truth.

yet you say

No President should ever have been exposed to the Jones witch hunt funded by Richard Mellonhead Scapegoat Scum.

out of the other side of your spew hole.

So which is it Moonbeam? Do we allow people to find/know the truth - or was Clinton "above" the truth? There was an accusation against Clinton, the truth was being sought.

CkG

Quit the clown act, Caddy. The search wasn't for truth, the intention was to smear the President of the United States out of political hate, jealousy, and envy by small fry egotistical and country destroying scum whose placed their own interests above those of the Nation. Try to see things in perspective instead of reacting like a yo yo on a string. You make the most absurd associations because you aren't grounded anywhere, damn it. Get real.

 

[daniel1113]

That's odd... not a single person here can provide a single example of "Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS". Interesting.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
That's odd... not a single person here can provide a single example of "Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS". Interesting.

Limbaugh's dishonest, hateful BS

September/October 1994

Limbaugh's Inaccurate Responses to Charges of Inaccuracy
Rush Limbaugh has tried to defend a few of the dozens of inaccuracies FAIR documented in "Limbaugh's Reign of Error" (Extra!, 7-8/94). Unfortunately, his responses to charges of inaccuracy were filled with the same sorts of inaccuracies that our original report documented.

Limbaugh's most extended response was made on his July 5 radio show, where he took issue with four of FAIR's 42 items. In a July 14 USA Today column, where he referred to us four separate times as a "far-left media attack-dog group," Limbaugh defended one other item and repeated his response to another. The other "charges will be refuted in due course," Limbaugh promised.

As EXTRA! went to press, here's all that Limbaugh had to say in defending his errors.

1. Congress vs. the United States
FAIR quoted Limbaugh from his TV show talking about the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." We pointed out that both houses of Congress had voted to authorize use of force in the Gulf.

Limbaugh singled this out on his radio show as "an example of what they've done in this report": "They claim that I said the only institutions who did not support George Bush in the Gulf War were the United States Congress, the United States House and Senate.... I did say that, and when I said it, it was true."

Good answer--except it's a lie. Limbaugh made the remark on April 18, 1994--more than three years after Congress voted to authorize force.

2. The World's Best Health Care
In his book See, I Told You So, Limbaugh issued this invitation: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." When we compared the U.S. with other industrialized nations--life expectancy and infant mortality--we found that the U.S. ranked near the bottom on both counts.

Limbaugh felt this was unfair. "Those two areas, those stats have almost nothing to do with the quality of American medical care," he remarked. "All the stats reflect is the epidemic of low-birth weight babies born to teenage and drug-addicted mothers, as well as the large numbers of homicides in American cities and drug-related deaths."

The comment shows how little Limbaugh knows about health care. Infant mortality, far from having "almost nothing to do" with the quality of health care, is closely linked with the availability of prenatal care. The mortality rate for infants whose mothers received little or no prenatal care is almost 10 times that of mothers who received frequent prenatal care, according to figures from the National Center for Health Statistics.

And the Centers for Disease Control estimate that homicide lowers U.S. life expectancy by about three months--which would do almost nothing to improve our rank. (The CDC did not calculate the effects of "drug-related deaths," but since illegal drugs kill far fewer people than homicide, they have even less impact on life expectancy.)

3. The Vanishing Forest Statistic:
Limbaugh seemed irate that we corrected his claims about forestland. "Then they try to claim I'm wrong about the amount of acreage of forest land in this country," he said on his radio show. "They're wrong. I mean, I'm--we're in the process of researching it, all this, and it would take me from now 'til when the program's over to read some of this stuff. Here are the current facts. In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land; in 1987, the number had climbed to 731 million acres."

This is a good example of Limbaugh trying to change the subject when he knows he's wrong. Here's what he said on his Feb. 18, 1994 radio show: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?"

The Constitution was not written in 1952, but in 1789. "We have about two-thirds of the forest area we had then," Douglas MacCleery, a historian with the U.S. Forest Service, told FAIR.

4. Chelsea's White Guilt
Limbaugh tried to pass the buck on his claim that students at Chelsea Clinton's school had to write an essay called "Why I Feel Guilty Being White." It's a silly claim, given that 28 percent of the students at the school are not white. "My source for this story is CBS News," he had originally said. "I am not making this up."

In response to FAIR's report, Limbaugh said, "They say I'm wrong, it never happened, and that I made it up. But my quote was--my source was a CBS News fax, CBS News Service, that was sent to WABC radio in New York, which alerted me to this alleged incident. CBS cited Playboy magazine's February article, 'Unbearable Whiteness of Being,' and Playboy had cited Heterodoxy magazine, September of 1993."

He refined this explanation in his USA Today column, where he now described his source as "CBS Morning Resource, a wire service for radio talk shows run by CBS's radio networks." "Playboy, Heterodoxy, and CBS may well have been wrong," Limbaugh wrote, "but I quoted the story accurately and accurately cited my source."

But the source he had originally cited was CBS News--not CBS Morning Resource, an "infotainment" service. "CBS News never reported such a story," CBS News Vice President Larry Cooper wrote in a letter to USA Today (7/20/94). "Limbaugh's source was actually Playboy magazine. The story, crediting Playboy, was distributed to radio stations via the CBS Radio Morning Resource.... Morning Resource is not associated with CBS News."

Limbaugh reported a false claim and misidentified his source. But to hear Limbaugh tell it, quoting an inaccurate source somehow means that you are accurate. What it really means is that you failed to check out your source.

Heterodoxy, a right-wing tabloid, cited no source for the story, and couldn't remember where they got it from when we called them. But the first reference seems to be a story on Sidwell Friends in City Paper, a D.C. weekly (7/16/93). After rechecking with his (anonymous) source--a parent of a Sidwell student--reporter Paul Gifford now says that the actual title of the essay assigned to one class of 7th and 8th graders was "Should White People Feel Guilty and Why."

5. Discouraging political activism
After FAIR debunked Limbaugh's denials that he encourages political activism by his listeners, he came back with this in his USA Today column: "I don't have 'troops.' I do not encourage listeners to call anybody. In fact, I do just the opposite."

He discourages listeners from making political phone calls? That's not what he did last July 16, when he urged listeners to call the Democratic National Committee to ask who told Hillary to say she tried to go into the military. Or on June 30, when he twice read through a list of U.S. representatives who hadn't signed on to a Limbaugh-endorsed deficit cutting plan, adding coyly: "If you heard your congressman's name--you heard your congressman's name."

Day after day, Limbaugh organized opposition to the pro-Clinton health care caravans. Here he is on July 27: "The new location, for those of you in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex is the Arlington Convention Center. Sometime tomorrow, the health security express will show up at the Arlington Convention Center and have their rally. Now, you know what to do.... Why don't a bunch of people get together and offer for sale home remedies?... And keep in mind that the real snake oil is on these buses. The health security express, due in to the Arlington Convention Center tomorrow."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with media figures encouraging people to get involved politically--as long as commentators across the political spectrum are allowed to do that. But why does Limbaugh have to lie about it?

Anyone catch back in 1992 when Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton the "white house dog"? That's not hateful?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quit the clown act, Caddy. The search wasn't for truth, the intention was to smear the President of the United States out of political hate, jealousy, and envy by small fry egotistical and country destroying scum whose placed their own interests above those of the Nation. Try to see things in perspective instead of reacting like a yo yo on a string. You make the most absurd associations because you aren't grounded anywhere, damn it. Get real.

Care to answer the question? I guess not - since you had to resort to trying to incite a reaction No again - please answer the question. Is Clinton above the "truth" you say God commands us know?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quit the clown act, Caddy. The search wasn't for truth, the intention was to smear the President of the United States out of political hate, jealousy, and envy by small fry egotistical and country destroying scum whose placed their own interests above those of the Nation. Try to see things in perspective instead of reacting like a yo yo on a string. You make the most absurd associations because you aren't grounded anywhere, damn it. Get real.

Care to answer the question? I guess not - since you had to resort to trying to incite a reaction No again - please answer the question. Is Clinton above the "truth" you say God commands us know?

CkG

Hijacking another thread I see. The Clinton witch hunt was a search for the "truth" in the same sense as the McCarthy hearings, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch hunts were searches for the truth. Moonbeam is exactly right. You yourself have acknowledged that they were excessive.

I see that doesn't get in your way when changing the subject to dodge responsibility for the BS from the right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quit the clown act, Caddy. The search wasn't for truth, the intention was to smear the President of the United States out of political hate, jealousy, and envy by small fry egotistical and country destroying scum whose placed their own interests above those of the Nation. Try to see things in perspective instead of reacting like a yo yo on a string. You make the most absurd associations because you aren't grounded anywhere, damn it. Get real.

Care to answer the question? I guess not - since you had to resort to trying to incite a reaction No again - please answer the question. Is Clinton above the "truth" you say God commands us know?

CkG

Hijacking another thread I see. The Clinton witch hunt was a search for the "truth" in the same sense as the McCarthy hearings, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch hunts were searches for the truth. Moonbeam is exactly right. You yourself have acknowledged that they were excessive.

I see that doesn't get in your way when changing the subject to dodge responsibility for the BS from the right.

Ah yes - Bowfinger making accusations - go figure

Excessive? sure - but unwarranted? No. An accusation was made(it wasn't unfounded either) - the truth was being sought but during that pursuit - Clinton directly LIED. Sure I don't agree with all the tactics, but that isn't the question here. Is Clinton above the "truth" which moonbeam says God commands us to know? Now take your whining elsewhere Bow - moonbeam should be able to handle this himself...if he has the balls to do so.

Now I don't see where you get off saying that I'm changing the subject - there is a point being made here - you are just choosing to ignore it

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Personally, I think Limbaugh's just pretending to be a moron in order to cover up for being a jackass. Just my opinion though....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Compete with Rush? Yeah right. There are not 20 million Americans that will listen to this guy.

Yeah, but there's at least 261,421,906 who DON'T listen to him. Thank god the majority knows what's what.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quit the clown act, Caddy. The search wasn't for truth, the intention was to smear the President of the United States out of political hate, jealousy, and envy by small fry egotistical and country destroying scum whose placed their own interests above those of the Nation. Try to see things in perspective instead of reacting like a yo yo on a string. You make the most absurd associations because you aren't grounded anywhere, damn it. Get real.

Care to answer the question? I guess not - since you had to resort to trying to incite a reaction No again - please answer the question. Is Clinton above the "truth" you say God commands us know?

CkG

Hijacking another thread I see. The Clinton witch hunt was a search for the "truth" in the same sense as the McCarthy hearings, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch hunts were searches for the truth. Moonbeam is exactly right. You yourself have acknowledged that they were excessive.

I see that doesn't get in your way when changing the subject to dodge responsibility for the BS from the right.

Ah yes - Bowfinger making accusations - go figure

Excessive? sure - but unwarranted? No. An accusation was made(it wasn't unfounded either) - the truth was being sought but during that pursuit - Clinton directly LIED. Sure I don't agree with all the tactics, but that isn't the question here. Is Clinton above the "truth" which moonbeam says God commands us to know? Now take your whining elsewhere Bow - moonbeam should be able to handle this himself...if he has the balls to do so.

Now I don't see where you get off saying that I'm changing the subject - there is a point being made here - you are just choosing to ignore it

CkG

Yup, there's a point, all right, at the top of your head.

 

[sandorski]

Conservative or Liberal doesn't matter. These types of shows have no constructive purpose other than being a Daily attack ad for the side supported. They are not concerned with Truth, only in making the other side look bad. For those that agree with them(at least on a basic philosophical level) it is quite entertaining and keeps their attention, the risk is in how the Host becomes a spokesperson for that philosophical bent. As time goes on a segment of the audience becomes absorbed(Ditto Heads) by the Hosts' vitriol and Half Truths.

I was a full blown Conservative back when Rush first appeared on Late Night TV. I remember his countdown of the Clinton Admin and how he railed constantly on every little thing Clinton did or was accused of doing. I remember how Rush carried on as if the World was about to end and it was all Clintons' doing. For many months I was quite entertained and in agreement with Rush, but thanks to level headed friends I soon began to see that Rush was full of shat.

People don't need crap fed to them, it is destructive to Democracy. If one can't provide Logical arguements as to their position(s), then they have nothing to say. Sensationalism, appeals to emotion, and a state of "rightness" are signs of danger, not trustworthiness. The Nazis used these methods with great "success".