Rush fesses up! - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

2wolves · 10-14-2003, 05:52 AM

Thirty day rehab's work one in six times.

Limbaugh waited until the last possible moment on a Friday to 'out' himself.

It's a standard legal tactic; the 30 days to cool the media, the limited mea culpa to show remorse. If he is doing this because his legal team is pushing for it he's probably going to fail.

Now, $40 million per annum is a bunch o money and Limbaugh will be able to lay his hands on any script drugs he wants when he gets out. We'll see if hubris and ego will dominate survival.

2Wolves

prb · 10-14-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
Thirty day rehab's work one in six times.

Limbaugh waited until the last possible moment on a Friday to 'out' himself.

It's a standard legal tactic; the 30 days to cool the media, the limited mea culpa to show remorse. If he is doing this because his legal team is pushing for it he's probably going to fail.

Now, $40 million per annum is a bunch o money and Limbaugh will be able to lay his hands on any script drugs he wants when he gets out. We'll see if hubris and ego will dominate survival.

2Wolves

This is why I visit "Tilted Politics" - - so I can read 2Wolves' posts.

My money is on hubris and ego.

Astrocloud · 10-14-2003, 07:59 AM

Ha Ha Ha, Rush is in Tears

All these years of calling enviromentalists and everyone else a "crybaby" and here he is... who's crying now, MORON?

Superbelt · 10-14-2003, 12:25 PM

Here is a new fun Rush lie that we can now use to show he is someone that noone should ever listen to.

Rush has said since he lost his hearing, that his hearing loss was due to Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease "according to doctors at the ear clinic" that fitted him with his cochlear implant.

We now know that the habitual use of Vicodin is what did him in for the hearing loss, so for what, 2 years he lied to his listeners about his hearing loss? What else did he lie and manipulate about to everyone to further his own agenda?

And I want to know why he didn't mention in his "I'm a victim" speech, that he enjoyed getting fucked up off these drugs. Because I have known people who took OxyCotin for back pain and even though they upped their doses over time, they never got anywhere near 30 pills a day. The most I have heard is 100mg every 8 hours. Taking 30 pills was for one reason, to get high.

He should be getting 20 years for this. He had enough drugs on him to qualify himself as a dealer, that constitutes much stiffer fines than just buying as a user.

Peryn · 10-14-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Rush has said since he lost his hearing, that his hearing loss was due to Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease "according to doctors at the ear clinic" that fitted him with his cochlear implant.

We now know that the habitual use of Vicodin is what did him in for the hearing loss, so for what,

How often do you see rush as a patient, and where did you get your medical degree? We know vicadin CAN cause hearing loss, but you have absolutely NO authority to make a judgement as to what the real cause of his hearing difficulties are. You are just a keyboard nobody who is angry with a man's personal beliefs.

But its good to know you are around, and such a damned good doctor that you can properly diagnose the problem AND its cause without ever attending med school OR seeing the patient. I bow down to you master medical man ...

2wolves · 10-16-2003, 03:46 AM

Where is the FCC in all of this?

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/antidrug.html

More than enough to get his license pulled.

2Wolves

Superbelt · 10-16-2003, 06:50 AM

There are two possible causes of his deafness.

__________
1. The drug caused his deafness.
-The drug can cause deafness. The chances rise exorbitantly under extreme illicit abuse of the drug.
-Rush was abusing this drug to such a dangerous degree.
-Rush had been in the middle of his drug haze when he told his listeners about his deafness.

__________
2. Ear disease.
-Getting it is like winning the lottery
-It just so happened to coincide with his extreme use of hearing damaging drugs.

Occam's Razor.
(google it if you don't know)

But you can go on believing him if you want. We're all just 'keyboard nobodies'.

filtherton · 10-23-2003, 06:09 AM

From the onion:
http://www.theonion.com/3941/

Quote:

Limbaugh Says Drug Addiction A Remnant Of
Clinton Administration
WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Frankly discussing his addiction to painkillers, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday that his abuse of OxyContin was a "remnant of the anything-goes ideology of the Clinton Administration." "Friends, all I can say is 'I told you so,'" said Limbaugh, from an undisclosed drug-treatment facility. "Were it not for Bill Clinton's loose policies on drug offenders and his rampant immorality, I would not have found myself in this predicament." Limbaugh added that he's staying at a rehab center created by the tax-and-spend liberals.

I think this whole situation just reaffirms my belief in some sort of karma.

matthew330 · 10-24-2003, 11:46 AM

do you have any idea what the onion is filterton...uggghhh

floonine · 10-24-2003, 11:57 AM

I hadn't heard of oxycontin/oxy cotton before Rush came clean. Thank ya mass media!

matthew330 · 10-24-2003, 07:30 PM

sickening - the hatred liberals feel towards a conservative talk show host. Bear in mind we live in a free country, Rush never made any bones about what his show was and what he meant it to be. But because he wasn't liberal, you thrive off of him admitting addiction to a pain killer. You're hatred for a different philosophical opinion in a democratic society supercedes that for some third world fucked up bunch of freaks that will kill upwards of 3000 of us and threaten the society we live in. Be honest with yourselves - everything you've said points to one thing, if you had your way - you'd rather see rush limbaugh stoned to death than Osama Bin Laden put in jail.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 07:56 PM

MY big problem with Rush has always been his saying " I am just an entertainer". He and Moore use this as a means to spread lies, half lies and mistruths. Either you are a pundit, or you are an entertainer. Pick one, and dont use the "E Card" when called on a lie. So if he is Just an Entertainer, why should anyone listen to him, and say not Ruth Buzzy. He is clearly a pundit. And he, like Moore, hide behind that excuse, and to me, neither have any crediblity.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-24-2003, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
But because he wasn't liberal, you thrive off of him admitting addiction to a pain killer.

Actually, it wasn't the fact that he wasn't liberal, it was the fact that he is a big fat arrogant white man who said on his show that drug abusers should go to jail AT THE SAME TIME that he was popping pills like no tomorrow. And the fact that he was committing felonies while picking up a few more vicodin in the denny's parking lot after a big stack of pancakes.

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. Al Franken said it years ago, now we have proof. It's fun to say "See, I told you so." to all his fans. I do it as much as possible these days.

Quote:

if you had your way - you'd rather see rush limbaugh stoned to death than Osama Bin Laden put in jail.

Can I choose both?

2wolves · 10-25-2003, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
sickening - the hatred liberals feel towards a conservative talk show host.

You reap what you sow.

2Wolves

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 04:44 AM

Actually, anyone who has ever sown anything is fully aware of the fact that you also get a lot of weeds no matter what you sow.

Those who feel justified in any way shape or form in hating someone because they accuse the object of their hatred of being someone who sows hatred are no better than the object of their hatred, are they?

It would be a far better world for everyone if when we feel justified in hating someone we step back and think a moment about the implications of sowing hatred ourselves.

Statements such as the one above do not in any way justify hate.

filtherton · 10-25-2003, 07:20 AM

Quote:

do you have any idea what the onion is filterton...uggghhh

No, tell me what the onion is, besides damn funny.

Quote:

sickening - the hatred liberals feel towards a conservative talk show host. Bear in mind we live in a free country, Rush never made any bones about what his show was and what he meant it to be. But because he wasn't liberal, you thrive off of him admitting addiction to a pain killer. You're hatred for a different philosophical opinion in a democratic society supercedes that for some third world fucked up bunch of freaks that will kill upwards of 3000 of us and threaten the society we live in. Be honest with yourselves - everything you've said points to one thing, if you had your way - you'd rather see rush limbaugh stoned to death than Osama Bin Laden put in jail.

What's sickening is how you seem to think that only liberals have a problem with rush limbaugh and his hypocrisy. I think you're kind of hysterical to claim that anyone on here would rather see rush stoned than bin laden. Why don't you just admit that rush is a hypocrite. It's allright, everyone is a hypocrite. Not everyone tells national radio audiences that drug abusers should be locked up all the while abusing drugs themselves, but everyone is hypcritical in atleast some small way.

Honestly, i hope he gets his shit together, because i know many people whose lives are really fucked right now because of drug abuse- it is not something to be trifled with. I still have no problem calling him out(like he actually cares) on his lack of compassion for people who he, of all people, should have been able to relate and empathise with.

Astrocloud · 10-25-2003, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton

... would rather see rush stoned ... [/B]

Rush would rather be stoned... hahahaha

2wolves · 10-25-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Actually, anyone who has ever sown anything is fully aware of the fact that you also get a lot of weeds no matter what you sow.

Those who feel justified in any way shape or form in hating someone because they accuse the object of their hatred of being someone who sows hatred are no better than the object of their hatred, are they?

It would be a far better world for everyone if when we feel justified in hating someone we step back and think a moment about the implications of sowing hatred ourselves.

Statements such as the one above do not in any way justify hate.

Would you feel more comfortable calling it karma?

2Wolves

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 05:58 PM

Let's be as clear as possible here, since we're discussing one of the most vile emotions humans are capable of. If the implication is that Rush preaches messages of hate, that would be unsupportable. He may broadcast messages and ideas you hate, but that's a different thing, entirely.

I believe there are a very few figures in human history that have actually and literally broadcast hate messages - and it should be clear to a discerning mind that Rush is not in that category.

So, why engage in or even entertain such a hyperbolic form of discourse? Why ramp up the rhetoric to the point where someone who is rather mild on the scale of vitriolic sentiment is accused of hate speech? I just don't think see how we get anywhere with that sort of exaggeration.

Probably what is being expressed is something closer to the fact that people who are on the other side of the polarities of political expression from him hate his ideas. And they make the common logical fallacy of arguing ad hominem (The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself).

When we persistently pursue tactics like this - we end up with many of the types of problematic exchanges we see on this Forum.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-25-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I believe there are a very few figures in human history that have actually and literally broadcast hate messages - and it should be clear to a discerning mind that Rush is not in that category.

I respectfully disagree. When Rush, for example, called Chelsea Clinton, the innocent daughter of Bill and Hillary, a dog, how could that not be broadcasting a hate message?

Here is what he said:

Here a few other gems from Limbaugh:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/l...s-reality.html

Here is an interesting article on Limbaugh and compassion:

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MJ95/ivins.html

Quote:

Lyin' Bully
Instead of picking on someone his own size, Rush consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom can fight back.
by Molly Ivins
For more resources on Rush Limbaugh, see our resource guide.
One of the things that concerns a lot of Americans lately is the increase in plain old nastiness in our political discussion. It comes from a number of sources, but Rush Limbaugh is a major carrier.

I should explain that I am not without bias in this matter. I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn't actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.

I have a correspondent named Irwin Wingo in Weatherford, Texas. Irwin and some of the leading men of the town are in the habit of meeting about 10 every morning at the Chat'n'Chew Cafe to drink coffee and discuss the state of the world. One of their number is a dittohead, a Limbaugh listener. He came in one day, plopped himself down, and said, "I think Rush is right: Racism in this country is dead. I don't know what the niggers will find to gripe about now."

I wouldn't say that dittoheads, as a group, lack the ability to reason. It's just that whenever I run across one, he seems to be at a low ebb in reasoning skills. Poor ol' Bill Sarpalius, one of our dimmer Panhandle congressmen, was once trying to explain to a town hall meeting of his constituents that Limbaugh was wrong when he convinced his listeners that Bill Clinton's tax package contained a tax increase on the middle class. (It increased taxes only on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.) A dittohead in the crowd rose to protest: "We don't send you to Washington to make responsible decisions. We send you there to represent us."

The kind of humor Limbaugh uses troubles me deeply, because I have spent much of my professional life making fun of politicians. I believe it is a great American tradition and should be encouraged. We should all laugh more at our elected officials--it's good for us and good for them. So what right do I have to object because Limbaugh makes fun of different pols than I do?

I object because he consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom are in a particularly good position to answer back. Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel. It has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people, as Limbaugh does, it is not only cruel, it's profoundly vulgar. It is like kicking a cripple.

On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.

On another occasion, Limbaugh put up a picture of Labor Secretary Robert Reich that showed him from the forehead up, as though that were all the camera could get. Reich is indeed a very short man as a result of a bone disease he had as a child. Somehow the effect of bone disease in children has never struck me as an appropriate topic for humor.

The reason I take Rush Limbaugh seriously is not because he's offensive or right-wing, but because he is one of the few people addressing a large group of disaffected people in this country. And despite his frequent denials, Limbaugh does indeed have a somewhat cultlike effect on his dittoheads. They can listen to him for three and a half hours a day, five days a week, on radio and television. I can assure you that David Koresh did not harangue the Branch Davidians so long nor so often. But that is precisely what most cult leaders do--talk to their followers hour after hour after hour.

A large segment of Limbaugh's audience consists of white males, 18 to 34 years old, without college education. Basically, a guy I know and grew up with named Bubba.

Bubba listens to Limbaugh because Limbaugh gives him someone to blame for the fact that Bubba is getting screwed. He's working harder, getting paid less in constant dollars and falling further and further behind. Not only is Bubba never gonna be able to buy a house, he can barely afford a trailer. Hell, he can barely afford the payments on the pickup.

And because Bubba understands he's being shafted, even if he doesn't know why or how or by whom, he listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh offers him scapegoats. It's the "feminazis." It's the minorities. It's the limousine liberals. It's all these people with all these wacky social programs to help some silly, self-proclaimed bunch of victims. Bubba feels like a victim himself--and he is--but he never got any sympathy from liberals.

Psychologists often tell us there is a great deal of displaced anger in our emotional lives--your dad wallops you, but he's too big to hit back, so you go clobber your little brother. Displaced anger is also common in our political life. We see it in this generation of young white men without much education and very little future. This economy no longer has a place for them. The corporations have moved their jobs to Singapore. Unfortunately, it is Limbaugh and the Republicans who are addressing the resentments of these folks, and aiming their anger in the wrong direction.

In my state, I have not seen so much hatred in politics since the heyday of the John Birch Society in the early 1960s. Used to be you couldn't talk politics with a conservative without his getting all red in the face, arteries standing out in his neck, wattles aquiver with indignation--just like a pissed-off turkey gobbler. And now we're seeing the same kind of anger again.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the organization that provided the absurd Limbaughisms that you see to the right, has a sweet, gentle faith that truth will triumph in the end, and thinks it is sufficient to point out that Limbaugh is wrong. I say it's important to point out that he's not just wrong but that he's ridiculous, one of the silliest people in America. Sure, it takes your breath away when he spreads some false and vicious rumor, such as the story that Vincent Foster's body was actually discovered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton. Or when he destroys an important lobby-control bill by falsely claiming that it would make the average citizen subject to lobbying laws. Yes, that's sick and perverse.

But it's important to show people that there is much more wrong with Limbaugh's thinking than just his facts. Limbaugh specializes in ad hominem arguments, which are themselves ridiculously easy to expose. Ted Kennedy says, "America needs health care reform." Limbaugh replies, "Ted Kennedy is fat."

Rush Limbaugh's pathetic abuse of logic, his absurd pomposity, his relentless self-promotion, his ridiculous ego--now those, friends, are appropriate targets for satire.

Molly Ivins is a contributing writer to Mother Jones.

Rush has made a career out of preaching hate. Many of his fans learn from him how to act like abusive bullies. Is he worse than, say, Pol Pot? Of course not. But the net effect of his show is that he spread hatred, bigotry, and sows the seeds of ill will throughout the world. All of this while being, himself, one of the people he purports to despise. I'm sure a good psychologist could explain all this to me.

Rush Limbaugh spread a message of hate every day on his show. Perhaps you didn't see it that way, but that was my perception. So, for me, Rush increased the hate in the world. As the Tao says, pushing the pendulum to one side just makes a stronger reaction on the other side, so Rush made the world worse for all of us.

2wolves · 10-25-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Let's be as clear as possible here, since we're discussing one of the most vile emotions humans are capable of. If the implication is that Rush preaches messages of hate, that would be unsupportable.

How many exact, in context, quotes would it take to alter your opinion?

2Wolves

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 06:28 PM

Go for it. I'd be interested to see an example of something he's said that could be considered hate speech.

By the way, I'm not interested in defending this broadcaster as an end in itself. I'm really more interested in sharpening the terms we engage here in our discussions and debates.

So I would genuinely be interested in seeing what sort of statements you would consider to be in the category of "hate".

2wolves · 10-25-2003, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
So I would genuinely be interested in seeing what sort of statements you would consider to be in the category of "hate".

As I said "How many"?

I'm more than happy to provide specifics (unlike old Rush who does not and will not offer show transcripts) but I want to know before hand how much labor is involved.

2Wolves

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 06:40 PM

Well, since you are so kind as to ask, I'd say just please give me an example in order that I may get a sense of how you are defining the concept. I'm interested initially in exactly what you consider hate speech or spreading/broadcasting messages of hate.

Thanks.

2wolves · 10-25-2003, 07:31 PM

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."

"I don't give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a
disease that they didn't have immunity against"

"The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict."

If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--
I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely
no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and
unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond."

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (bite me Rush)

"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics...[Events would include] the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."

Speculating on why a Mexican national won the New York marathon: "An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles."

Would you care for more? Each and every 'gem' displayed above aids and gives comfort to such who follow the KKK, skinheads, and other such sterling individuals.

2Wolves

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 09:18 PM

Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that.

Astrocloud · 10-25-2003, 09:51 PM

ArtTelivision... I don't understand how. Rush has no defense for talking about how people are worthless. He does this as part of his radio address. If you haven't heard this then why are you questioning it now? Are you saying Rush hasn't gone this far with his commentary?

HarmlessRabbit · 10-25-2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that.

I consider Rush's comments about Chelsea to be hate speech. You may disagree with my interpretation, but that in no way invalidates my feelings.

If you're asking me to prove to you, in your opinion, that Rush practiced hate speech, then I would consider that a nearly impossible task, akin to moving a spoon across the table with my mind.

This statement is absolutely true:

I consider rush a proponent of hate.

ARTelevision · 10-25-2003, 11:29 PM

It's not possible to make a fair judgement about a sentence when it is not reported in its original context. Meaning is created by context. It is possible to frame those sentences within various contexts that would significantly alter their meaning. Quoting people out of context is not diligent or persuasive reporting. It is a manipulative tactic.

a_divine_martyr · 10-26-2003, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that.

I call bullshit on that.

seretogis · 10-26-2003, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Ha Ha Ha, Rush is in Tears

All these years of calling enviromentalists and everyone else a "crybaby" and here he is... who's crying now, MORON?

I consider this "hate speech." You mean nasty hateful hypocrites, you.

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 04:49 AM

a_divine_martyr, guess what. You just earned a public warning from me. You don't get to pull down the level of dialog and decorum in this Forum just because you happen to own a keyboard.
There are times when I come in here for the express purpose of finding out who exactly is responsible for the lowering of standards of discussion. You just identified yourself as one of those members.
I'm not playing games. You try typing a response like that to a rational discussion again - you're gone. That's how simple things sometimes are.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-26-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
It's not possible to make a fair judgement about a sentence when it is not reported in its original context. Meaning is created by context. It is possible to frame those sentences within various contexts that would significantly alter their meaning. Quoting people out of context is not diligent or persuasive reporting. It is a manipulative tactic.

On national TV, Rush said "the whitehouse already has a dog" and then flashed up a photo of then-13-year-old Chelsea Clinton.

If you've ever spent time with teenage girls, you know how damaging comments like that can be from their peer group. Imagine getting made fun of like that on national TV.

The person who is capable of doing that is a monster and a proponent of hate. And that's not all he did, see the article that I posted above. How many kids heard their parents laughing about that and went to school the next day and made fun of people? I would guess more than one. Rush increased the hate in the world with his bullying.

Again: I think Rush is a proponent of hate. You cannot take that away from me with your words. My providing you "context" for Rush's statements doesn't change my opinion, and frankly I doubt it will change yours. So, you're asking me to prove to you, in your opinion, that your opinion is false. Do you see the problem?

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 08:48 AM

I don't have an opinion about this yet.
I'm looking for more than a word or a sentence taken out of context.
The "evidence" presented here is sensationalized to the point of unreliability. The lack of contextual framing demonstrates the quickness with which people are ready to make ethical judgements of the deepest kind based on partial statements.

I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remark. I don't believe Jackson is a proponent of hate because of that statement. I believe he probably has a pattern of speaking disrespectfully of certain groups and that's not commendable. I don't think Rush is to be commended for this either. I don't speak that way myself.

What I'm objecting to is the level of discourse - it's emotional and not rational. No one gets convinced of anything in discussions of this sort. And the forum becomes a place where people simply type out their own rigid and inflexible conceptions of things.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-26-2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I don't have an opinion about this yet.
I'm looking for more than a word or a sentence taken out of context.

I contend that you expressed a strong opinion earlier when you said: Probably what is being expressed is something closer to the fact that people who are on the other side of the polarities of political expression from him hate his ideas. And they make the common logical fallacy of arguing ad hominem (The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself).

Also, in the same post where you started off saying "I don't have an opinion" you later expressed an opinion.

Everyone has an opinion. You appear to be coming at Rush from a position of support and sympathy. We all have preconceptions.

Quote:

The "evidence" presented here is sensationalized to the point of unreliability. The lack of contextual framing demonstrates the quickness with which people are ready to make ethical judgements of the deepest kind based on partial statements.

In your opinion, perhaps. I have seen Rush on TV, I have heard his show, and I have read the quotes and articles posted so far. The article I posted earlier about his bullying tactics was, I feel, not sensationalized and not exaggerated. It was a summary of how Rush behaves on his show generally.

Quote:

What I'm objecting to is the level of discourse - it's emotional and not rational. No one gets convinced of anything in discussions of this sort. And the forum becomes a place where people simply type out their own rigid and inflexible conceptions of things.

I feel you are taking much the same tactic. I have presented my opinon that Rush is a hater, that he is a bully, and that he contributes to increasing the amount of hate in the world. You are invalidating my opinion by saying that it doesn't measure up to your standards of context and evidence.

I feel like you are manipulating the context in which the argument is framed in order to support your pre-conceived opinion that Rush is not a proponent of hate. When a national talk show host calls a 13-year old girl ugly on his show and doesn't apologize for it, that is all the context that I need to conclude that he is a bully and a hater. Your standards may differ, but that in no way invalidates my opinion. You are creating an artificial standard of evidence that supports your world-view.

There is no such thing as an absolute, impartial way to judge whether a talk-show host is a hater.

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 10:00 AM

quote:
"There is no such thing as an absolute, impartial way to judge whether a talk-show host is a hater."

Yes that's right.
You are also right that I may occasionally express strong opinions.

I've made the points I felt compelled to make regarding quality of "evidence". That was my main thrust here - not to defend Rush.

I believe I've made that clear.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-26-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I've made the points I felt compelled to make regarding quality of "evidence". That was my main thrust here - not to defend Rush.

I believe I've made that clear.

I understand. I just felt that your comment that you don't have an opinion yet was much like a media outlet claiming to be fair and impartial.

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 10:26 AM

I'll tell you what though. I do not like the kind of slurs he dishes out toward ethnic groups at all.

I would just prefer to reserve the notion of "hate speech" for something more flagrant. There are examples of much more despicable public expression in history and in other societies currently.

And you know what I'm trying to do - just remind us all to get more of a handle on our rhetoric here.

Most contributors are doing fine.
Thanks.

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that.

Actually, he had. Each quote had the context explained to you. Now, you may refute the truth of his purported contexts but that's a different issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'll tell you what though. I do not like the kind of slurs he dishes out toward ethnic groups at all.

I would just prefer to reserve the notion of "hate speech" for something more flagrant. There are examples of much more despicable public expression in history and in other societies currently.

And you know what I'm trying to do - just remind us all to get more of a handle on our rhetoric here.

Most contributors are doing fine.
Thanks.

While I can understand the desire to reserve the term "hate speech" for truly hateful speach, it's not uncommon (or unwarranted) to use such "extreme" terms for things that are relatively extreme. I mean, maybe I'm just not "with it" but I haven't seen anything in public light that has been as hateful as Rush Limbaugh, especially in the US in recent times.

As for the level of rhetoric, please read on...

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
a_divine_martyr, guess what. You just earned a public warning from me. You don't get to pull down the level of dialog and decorum in this Forum just because you happen to own a keyboard.
There are times when I come in here for the express purpose of finding out who exactly is responsible for the lowering of standards of discussion. You just identified yourself as one of those members.
I'm not playing games. You try typing a response like that to a rational discussion again - you're gone. That's how simple things sometimes are.

I must ask, where were you when all these other threads degenerated into empty rhetoric bordering on flame wars? I've almost entirely abandoned the political forum 'cause of this and, here you are, complaining about, what seems to me to be, a minor infraction. All a_divine_martyr said was "I call bullshit on that," which is just a rude way of saying "I call you up on that," meaning he's not willing to take your word for it (what we usually do) and to please elaborate with examples or evidence (at TFP, this means links to secondary opnions on the internet).
Now, I can understand if you don't read every thread (there's a lot of traffic here at TFP) but it seems weird to come down so hard without so much as a cursory look at what the community standard has become because what you are complaining about is way above the bar...

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 02:10 PM

My idea of "in context" is this: (it is the generally accepted journalistic view): The context in which a sentence appears is the surrounding text - the rest of the statement from which it is taken. The context of a sentence involves the buildup of meanings assembled from an entire utterance. One sentence's meaning is conditioned by those that preceed it and follow it.

The statement made by the member in question was not in any way amenable to discussion or debate. It represents a lowering to level zero of discourse here.

As to the rest of your statement. This forum is constantly moderated. Every single day mods discuss their decisions with other mods and admins. Decisions are made as regards the level of discourse. Periodically, it is decided to increase the level of moderation here because periodically it descends into rudeness and virulence.

That's sufficient explanation. I read what goes on here. I am in daily contact with the moderators who do daily duty here. I decided to take this opportunity to serve notice that this forum is from this point forward being more heavily moderated than it has been in the past.

The "community standard" you refer to is on its way toward improvement. You can be a part of that.

10-14-2003, 12:25 PM	#84 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Here is a new fun Rush lie that we can now use to show he is someone that noone should ever listen to. Rush has said since he lost his hearing, that his hearing loss was due to Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease "according to doctors at the ear clinic" that fitted him with his cochlear implant. We now know that the habitual use of Vicodin is what did him in for the hearing loss, so for what, 2 years he lied to his listeners about his hearing loss? What else did he lie and manipulate about to everyone to further his own agenda? And I want to know why he didn't mention in his "I'm a victim" speech, that he enjoyed getting fucked up off these drugs. Because I have known people who took OxyCotin for back pain and even though they upped their doses over time, they never got anywhere near 30 pills a day. The most I have heard is 100mg every 8 hours. Taking 30 pills was for one reason, to get high. He should be getting 20 years for this. He had enough drugs on him to qualify himself as a dealer, that constitutes much stiffer fines than just buying as a user. Last edited by Superbelt; 10-14-2003 at 12:29 PM..

10-24-2003, 11:57 AM	#90 (permalink)
floonine Insane Location: Silicon Valley, Utah	I hadn't heard of oxycontin/oxy cotton before Rush came clean. Thank ya mass media! __________________ Political arguments do not exist, after all, for people to believe in them, rather they serve as a common, agreed-upon excuse. Foolish people who take them in earnest sooner or later discover inconsistencies in them, begin to protest and finish finally and infamously as heretics.

10-24-2003, 07:56 PM	#92 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	MY big problem with Rush has always been his saying " I am just an entertainer". He and Moore use this as a means to spread lies, half lies and mistruths. Either you are a pundit, or you are an entertainer. Pick one, and dont use the "E Card" when called on a lie. So if he is Just an Entertainer, why should anyone listen to him, and say not Ruth Buzzy. He is clearly a pundit. And he, like Moore, hide behind that excuse, and to me, neither have any crediblity. Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-24-2003 at 08:45 PM..

10-25-2003, 04:44 AM	#95 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Actually, anyone who has ever sown anything is fully aware of the fact that you also get a lot of weeds no matter what you sow. Those who feel justified in any way shape or form in hating someone because they accuse the object of their hatred of being someone who sows hatred are no better than the object of their hatred, are they? It would be a far better world for everyone if when we feel justified in hating someone we step back and think a moment about the implications of sowing hatred ourselves. Statements such as the one above do not in any way justify hate. __________________ create evolution

10-25-2003, 05:58 PM	#99 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Let's be as clear as possible here, since we're discussing one of the most vile emotions humans are capable of. If the implication is that Rush preaches messages of hate, that would be unsupportable. He may broadcast messages and ideas you hate, but that's a different thing, entirely. I believe there are a very few figures in human history that have actually and literally broadcast hate messages - and it should be clear to a discerning mind that Rush is not in that category. So, why engage in or even entertain such a hyperbolic form of discourse? Why ramp up the rhetoric to the point where someone who is rather mild on the scale of vitriolic sentiment is accused of hate speech? I just don't think see how we get anywhere with that sort of exaggeration. Probably what is being expressed is something closer to the fact that people who are on the other side of the polarities of political expression from him hate his ideas. And they make the common logical fallacy of arguing ad hominem (The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself). When we persistently pursue tactics like this - we end up with many of the types of problematic exchanges we see on this Forum. __________________ create evolution

10-14-2003, 05:52 AM	#81 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Thirty day rehab's work one in six times. Limbaugh waited until the last possible moment on a Friday to 'out' himself. It's a standard legal tactic; the 30 days to cool the media, the limited mea culpa to show remorse. If he is doing this because his legal team is pushing for it he's probably going to fail. Now, $40 million per annum is a bunch o money and Limbaugh will be able to lay his hands on any script drugs he wants when he gets out. We'll see if hubris and ego will dominate survival. 2Wolves

10-14-2003, 07:59 AM	#83 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Ha Ha Ha, Rush is in Tears All these years of calling enviromentalists and everyone else a "crybaby" and here he is... who's crying now, MORON?

10-16-2003, 03:46 AM	#86 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Where is the FCC in all of this? http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/antidrug.html More than enough to get his license pulled. 2Wolves

10-16-2003, 06:50 AM	#87 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	There are two possible causes of his deafness. __________ 1. The drug caused his deafness. -The drug can cause deafness. The chances rise exorbitantly under extreme illicit abuse of the drug. -Rush was abusing this drug to such a dangerous degree. -Rush had been in the middle of his drug haze when he told his listeners about his deafness. __________ 2. Ear disease. -Getting it is like winning the lottery -It just so happened to coincide with his extreme use of hearing damaging drugs. Occam's Razor. (google it if you don't know) But you can go on believing him if you want. We're all just 'keyboard nobodies'.

10-24-2003, 11:46 AM	#89 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	do you have any idea what the onion is filterton...uggghhh

10-24-2003, 07:30 PM	#91 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	sickening - the hatred liberals feel towards a conservative talk show host. Bear in mind we live in a free country, Rush never made any bones about what his show was and what he meant it to be. But because he wasn't liberal, you thrive off of him admitting addiction to a pain killer. You're hatred for a different philosophical opinion in a democratic society supercedes that for some third world fucked up bunch of freaks that will kill upwards of 3000 of us and threaten the society we live in. Be honest with yourselves - everything you've said points to one thing, if you had your way - you'd rather see rush limbaugh stoned to death than Osama Bin Laden put in jail.

10-25-2003, 06:28 PM	#102 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Go for it. I'd be interested to see an example of something he's said that could be considered hate speech. By the way, I'm not interested in defending this broadcaster as an end in itself. I'm really more interested in sharpening the terms we engage here in our discussions and debates. So I would genuinely be interested in seeing what sort of statements you would consider to be in the category of "hate". __________________ create evolution

10-25-2003, 06:40 PM	#104 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Well, since you are so kind as to ask, I'd say just please give me an example in order that I may get a sense of how you are defining the concept. I'm interested initially in exactly what you consider hate speech or spreading/broadcasting messages of hate. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

10-25-2003, 07:31 PM	#105 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares." "I don't give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a disease that they didn't have immunity against" "The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict." If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people-- I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (bite me Rush) "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics...[Events would include] the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip." Speculating on why a Mexican national won the New York marathon: "An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles." Would you care for more? Each and every 'gem' displayed above aids and gives comfort to such who follow the KKK, skinheads, and other such sterling individuals. 2Wolves

10-25-2003, 09:18 PM	#106 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that. __________________ create evolution

10-25-2003, 09:51 PM	#107 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	ArtTelivision... I don't understand how. Rush has no defense for talking about how people are worthless. He does this as part of his radio address. If you haven't heard this then why are you questioning it now? Are you saying Rush hasn't gone this far with his commentary?

10-25-2003, 11:29 PM	#109 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It's not possible to make a fair judgement about a sentence when it is not reported in its original context. Meaning is created by context. It is possible to frame those sentences within various contexts that would significantly alter their meaning. Quoting people out of context is not diligent or persuasive reporting. It is a manipulative tactic. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 04:49 AM	#112 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	a_divine_martyr, guess what. You just earned a public warning from me. You don't get to pull down the level of dialog and decorum in this Forum just because you happen to own a keyboard. There are times when I come in here for the express purpose of finding out who exactly is responsible for the lowering of standards of discussion. You just identified yourself as one of those members. I'm not playing games. You try typing a response like that to a rational discussion again - you're gone. That's how simple things sometimes are. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 08:48 AM	#114 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I don't have an opinion about this yet. I'm looking for more than a word or a sentence taken out of context. The "evidence" presented here is sensationalized to the point of unreliability. The lack of contextual framing demonstrates the quickness with which people are ready to make ethical judgements of the deepest kind based on partial statements. I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remark. I don't believe Jackson is a proponent of hate because of that statement. I believe he probably has a pattern of speaking disrespectfully of certain groups and that's not commendable. I don't think Rush is to be commended for this either. I don't speak that way myself. What I'm objecting to is the level of discourse - it's emotional and not rational. No one gets convinced of anything in discussions of this sort. And the forum becomes a place where people simply type out their own rigid and inflexible conceptions of things. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 10:00 AM	#116 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	quote: "There is no such thing as an absolute, impartial way to judge whether a talk-show host is a hater." Yes that's right. You are also right that I may occasionally express strong opinions. I've made the points I felt compelled to make regarding quality of "evidence". That was my main thrust here - not to defend Rush. I believe I've made that clear. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 10:26 AM	#118 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'll tell you what though. I do not like the kind of slurs he dishes out toward ethnic groups at all. I would just prefer to reserve the notion of "hate speech" for something more flagrant. There are examples of much more despicable public expression in history and in other societies currently. And you know what I'm trying to do - just remind us all to get more of a handle on our rhetoric here. Most contributors are doing fine. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 02:10 PM	#120 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	My idea of "in context" is this: (it is the generally accepted journalistic view): The context in which a sentence appears is the surrounding text - the rest of the statement from which it is taken. The context of a sentence involves the buildup of meanings assembled from an entire utterance. One sentence's meaning is conditioned by those that preceed it and follow it. The statement made by the member in question was not in any way amenable to discussion or debate. It represents a lowering to level zero of discourse here. As to the rest of your statement. This forum is constantly moderated. Every single day mods discuss their decisions with other mods and admins. Decisions are made as regards the level of discourse. Periodically, it is decided to increase the level of moderation here because periodically it descends into rudeness and virulence. That's sufficient explanation. I read what goes on here. I am in daily contact with the moderators who do daily duty here. I decided to take this opportunity to serve notice that this forum is from this point forward being more heavily moderated than it has been in the past. The "community standard" you refer to is on its way toward improvement. You can be a part of that. __________________ create evolution