what IF Limbaugh reported those 12 miners were safe?

[Stu Ghatze]

I have yet to have someone tell me what channels this mythical liberal main stream media broadcasts on.

The misinformation was originally propigated by people standing around the rescue HQ with cell phones. Once someone said what they thought they heard over the radio communication of the rescue workers, the cell phones went nuts with people spreading the mistake so fast that it was unstoppable. If people would just calm down and not jump to conclusions maybe this thread wouldn't exist.

Also Rush Limbaugh already is a lying DRUG ADDICT in my book so it wouldn't matter to me if someone else called him that.

If your last paragraph is the case, ..why haven't you, & other liberals shown "sympathy" for him, ..as THEY USUALLY DO for drug addicts, & the rest of criminal society as they do by expanding rights to them by making THEM appear as "victims"?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

You must listen closely to the jerk himself... My favortie thing to hate Rush Limbaugh for is his insistance of mis-labeling people and organizations with his own immature views and name calling.

His show has nothing to do with his being a moron. But it has everything to do with the moron's that listen to him:ninja:

Naw, ....You are only saying these things because Limbaugh HAS a MASSIVE listening audience, ..& he has EXPOSED the behavior of liberal politicians, & its "cause & effect" & helped to IDENTIFY, & DESTROY the LIBERAL media's monopoly on news that ONCE USED to rule, & used to be trusted as gospel!

Limbaugh is the consumate liberal's worst nightmare; ..& every effort that the liberals have tried to destroy Limbaugh has made Limbaugh even MORE popular, ..& vindicates the things that he says!

IMO, ..THAT is why "CERTAIN" people despise him so. ...by co-incidence, ..it is generally THE party, & party supporters that cannot win very many elections either.:smile:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stu Ghatze:
You are only saying these things because Limbaugh HAS a MASSIVE listening audience...

He has a massive listening audience because he gives his show away for free. If he charged for his show like Howard Stern, nobody would be listening to him.

 

[shuamort]

He has a massive listening audience because he gives his show away for free. If he charged for his show like Howard Stern, nobody would be listening to him.

For free? You mean there's no advertising and he doesn't draw a salary? Limbaugh's good at what he does. I might disagree with what he says and the conclusions he draws from the news, but I won't deny his popularity. He just entered the market here on the FM side of things. This could be a good litmus test to see if he's successful enough to pull that off.

 

[scottyz]

If your last paragraph is the case, ..why haven't you, & other liberals shown "sympathy" for him, ..as THEY USUALLY DO for drug addicts, & the rest of criminal society as they do by expanding rights to them by making THEM appear as "victims"?

And Rush says drug addicts should be tossed in jail and uses the same ACLU he supposedly despises to help keep him from ending up in jail. :rofl I don't know how anyone can take Rush seriously.

 

[Saboteur]

If your last paragraph is the case, ..why haven't you, & other liberals shown "sympathy" for him, ..as THEY USUALLY DO for drug addicts, & the rest of criminal society as they do by expanding rights to them by making THEM appear as "victims"?

Why should he get sympathy when he had none for drug addicts before he admited to his problem? He only admitted to his problem because he got caught and he copped out with a 'the devil made me do it' excuse just like every other drug addict does. I don't give special sympathy to drug addicts whether they're Rush Limbaugh or Tommy Chong. They make their own bed and have to deal with the consiquences. So do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The fact that he was addicted to drugs is not why I dislike him. Though I fail to understand how his listeners can give him a break when his creedo regarding drug abuse was a zero tolerance policy that pigeon holed people into one catagory; "Drug using deadbeat scum", Which brings me to my next point. I dislike him because he make sweeping generalizations and catagorizes anyone that doesn't agree with his or the people he supports views and policies as a "hopeless liberal" or "moonbat" whatever the hell that's supposed to be.

Remember, Hitler was a drug addict. And his propagandist had a radio show that did much of the same thing I've described here.

 

[Saboteur]

Naw, ....You are only saying these things because Limbaugh HAS a MASSIVE listening audience, ..& he has EXPOSED the behavior of liberal politicians, & its "cause & effect" & helped to IDENTIFY, & DESTROY the LIBERAL media's monopoly on news that ONCE USED to rule, & used to be trusted as gospel!

Limbaugh is the consumate liberal's worst nightmare; ..& every effort that the liberals have tried to destroy Limbaugh has made Limbaugh even MORE popular, ..& vindicates the things that he says!

IMO, ..THAT is why "CERTAIN" people despise him so. ...by co-incidence, ..it is generally THE party, & party supporters that cannot win very many elections either.:smile:

Well I've explained to you why I don't like him twice now and if you want to ignore that, as I expect that you will, I don't see why I should go further.

Limbaugh is entitled to his opinion and to broadcast them. And you are free to listen to him. It is both the boon and the bane of the first amendment's exsitance just like pornography and the KKK.

If you want to spread hate, you can.

If you want to exploit people as sex objects, you can.

If you want to manipulate weakminded people who can be told that liberals are bad and conservatives are good into voting for liars and criminals, you can.:smile:

The liars and criminals being;

Tom Delay

Dennis Hastert

George Bush

Dick Cheney

Carl Rove

Etc, etc etc.:roll:

 

[SixStringHero]

Can you show empirical evidence that Bush and Cheney are criminals, or is this more rhetoric?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by SixStringHero:
Can you show empirical evidence that Bush and Cheney are criminals, or is this more rhetoric?

They violated Article 51 of the UN Charter which was ratified by the US Congress which makes it part of our US Constitution. Is that empirical
enough for you?

 

[Conflict]

I fear too many responders on this post have fallen victim to the concept of socratic irony.

I saw nothing partisan about Stu's post. It was a position that I agree with.

Why?

Because I dislike the media. THat's all Stu really said as well.

Wether or not the media has a favorite subjective political party... it is beyond me as I do not have the time to thoroughly research nor understand such a conjecture.

However, What is intuitive to me is that our Media does seem to be one big hyperbole of common belief. Media is not a service to the American people as it was in the foundation of our society...

Today it exists just as any other corporations exists... not to provide a good honest service to meet it's demand, but to capitalize on every penny that it can...

 

[KCConservative]

Only 31 posts and completely off topic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative:
Only 31 posts and completely off topic.

How many posts do you think we can get talking about pumpkin-head?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by shuamort:
For free? You mean there's no advertising and he doesn't draw a salary? Limbaugh's good at what he does. I might disagree with what he says and the conclusions he draws from the news, but I won't deny his popularity. He just entered the market here on the FM side of things. This could be a good litmus test to see if he's successful enough to pull that off.

The reason his show is syndicated in over 600 markets is because he practically gives it away at bargain basement prices. If he charged as much as Stern to syndicate his show, he would be no where near the amount of markets he's in now.

I personnally think he's a joke.

 

[Saboteur]

Only 31 posts and completely off topic.

Well let's get it back on topic...

If Rush Limbaugh had reported that the miners were safe.

Everybody would have just thought he was back on an oxyconton binge like he was when he made that rasict statment about Donovan Mcnabb.:2razz:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Well let's get it back on topic...

If Rush Limbaugh had reported that the miners were safe.

Everybody would have just thought he was back on an oxyconton binge like he was when he made that rasict statment about Donovan Mcnabb.:2razz:

Thats the problem with liberals like yourself! What Limbaugh said about McNabb had nothing to do with race in the conventional sense, ..but rather McNabb's ability to play subpar football, & STILL get great news coverage because of the fact that liberals generally refuse to report the ineffectiveness of focus group people BECAUSE THEY want them to do well, ESPECIALLY at the position of quarterback, ..whereas whitey, as most liberals would opine always practiced their discrimination at the position of quarterback.

McNabb has been at the helm of that position for some time now, ..& the Eagles STILL stink, & cannot ever advance to the next level even when THEY do have a winning season, & yet the media extrapolates on how great McNabb is etc etc.

Has McNabb's stock lowered even when he blows games as quarterback, ...why no....he's one of the few that can continue to lose games, & still be considered GREAT, & he has NEVER earned the title of being a great.

Why even his chunky soup commercials are graced upon everybody 7/24.:smile:

The sports media, & media in general NEVER hold him responsible for games that he loses; ..but when he does win, the media is always there to make it look like he has disproved the myth that black quarterbacks cannot win.

Always & always...its all about making a big deal about Donavan McNabb being a black quarterback, ..because THE MEDIA DOES INDEED want to exploit that; & furthermore it is not even arguable anymore that its the liberal media behind it all!

What Limbaugh said, ..is exactly TRUE. THE MEDIA WANTS HIM TO SUCCEED; & its pretty easy to see that!

Limbaugh did NOT disparage, or critiscise him in any way "because" of his race. Its simply amazing, as some people think that anybody that is black that gets some critiscism, ..why thats tandamount to racism which is of course ludicrous.

Could that be why black crime which IS sky high, ALSO is NOT addressed as it should be for "REMEDY"???

Why... according to many of the liberal mind-set,..just discussing the topic is racist!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stu Gahtze:
Thats the problem with liberals like yourself! What Limbaugh said about McNabb had nothing to do with race in the conventional sense, ..but rather McNabb's ability to play subpar football, & STILL get great news coverage because of the fact that liberals generally refuse to report the ineffectiveness of focus group people BECAUSE THEY want them to do well, ESPECIALLY at the position of quarterback, ..whereas whitey, as most liberals would opine always practiced their discrimination at the position of quarterback.

McNabb has been at the helm of that position for some time now, ..& the Eagles STILL stink, & cannot ever advance to the next level even when THEY do have a winning season, & yet the media extrapolates on how great McNabb is etc etc.

Has McNabb's stock lowered even when he blows games as quarterback, ...why no....he's one of the few that can continue to lose games, & still be considered GREAT, & he has NEVER earned the title of being a great.

Why even his chunky soup commercials are graced upon everybody 7/24.

The sports media, & media in general NEVER hold him responsible for games that he loses; ..but when he does win, the media is always there to make it look like he has disproved the myth that black quarterbacks cannot win.

Always & always...its all about making a big deal about Donavan McNabb being a black quarterback, ..because THE MEDIA DOES INDEED want to exploit that; & furthermore it is not even arguable anymore that its the liberal media behind it all!

What Limbaugh said, ..is exactly TRUE. THE MEDIA WANTS HIM TO SUCCEED; & its pretty easy to see that!

Limbaugh did NOT disparage, or critiscise him in any way "because" of his race. Its simply amazing, as some people think that anybody that is black that gets some critiscism, ..why thats tandamount to racism which is of course ludicrous.

Could that be why black crime which IS sky high, ALSO is NOT addressed as it should be for "REMEDY"???

Why... according to many of the liberal mind-set,..just discussing the topic is racist!

I can tell you dig O' Reilly.

 

[shuamort]

The reason his show is syndicated in over 600 markets is because he practically gives it away at bargain basement prices. If he charged as much as Stern to syndicate his show, he would be no where near the amount of markets he's in now.

I personnally think he's a joke.

I'd love to see the figures to that. I found an article (albeit from '01) that states:

While PRN refused to comment on the value of the deal, insiders reportedly say it's worth a whopping $30 million a year, or $250 million total, making the conservative firebrand's show the priciest ever in the history of syndicated radio.

And making out like a bandit, Limbaugh will also get a hefty $35 million signing bonus.

All in all, the new contract far surpasses the $18 million five-year deal that shock jock Howard Stern recently signed in December with Infinity Broadcasting.

(Stern was later upped to $100M a year with Sirius).

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by shuamort
I'd love to see the figures to that. I found an article (albeit from '01) that states:

Quote:
While PRN refused to comment on the value of the deal, insiders reportedly say it's worth a whopping $30 million a year, or $250 million total, making the conservative firebrand's show the priciest ever in the history of syndicated radio.

And making out like a bandit, Limbaugh will also get a hefty $35 million signing bonus.

All in all, the new contract far surpasses the $18 million five-year deal that shock jock Howard Stern recently signed in December with Infinity Broadcasting.


(Stern was later upped to $100M a year with Sirius).

This was recent I assume. I guess my information was a little dated when Rush was fat-Limbaugh and a drug addict.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

I can tell you dig O' Reilly.

Dear Really, ..I do not even watch O'Reilly. THe truth is that I SIMPLY KNOW MOST LIBERALS BETTER THAN THEY KNOW THEMSELVES!

Lord I HATE bragging, ..but its the truth, & the media has NEVER let me down!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stu Gahtze:
Dear Really, ..I do not even watch O'Reilly. THe truth is that I SIMPLY KNOW MOST LIBERALS BETTER THAN THEY KNOW THEMSELVES!

Lord I HATE bragging, ..but its the truth, & the media has NEVER let me down

You mean the conservative media?

 

[libertarian_knight]

If your last paragraph is the case, ..why haven't you, & other liberals shown "sympathy" for him, ..as THEY USUALLY DO for drug addicts, & the rest of criminal society as they do by expanding rights to them by making THEM appear as "victims"?

Because he's an obtuse jerk. See jerks, REGARDLESS of the particular behavior in question, are always treated like jerks.

I don't want to see anyone suffer, but I do get an unfortunate sense of satisfaction when jerks suffer the things they railed against.

If Rush we anti-drug war, and he became addicted (and wasn't a jerk), then he would have sympathy. Because he was ans still is pro-drug war, dispite his inability to clean himself up (without the aid of medical intervention, using just his willpower), he get's treated in the like manner which he treated and treats others with the same or similar afflictions.

it's called KARMA.

What is being done unto Rush, is that which he has done unto others.

Besides, to most people, sympathy only lasts so far and so long. Rush exhausts his for many people.

 

[debate_junkie]

Imagine...just for a second IF Rush Limbaugh reported those miners that were trapped in that West Virginia mine as being safe as SO erroniously reported by THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA????

It was shouted all over the late news last night that all 12 miners were safe, ..& that there was only 1-casuality, ..when in fact the EXACT opposite was true!

He would have been castigated, up & down, & sideways for being absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE, ..& probably simply would have been called a LIAR by the mainstream media!

This IS a prime example as to the media's arrogance, & untrustworthy sources that so influences our lives today.

So...who judges the mainstream media, ...Why nobody of course, ..it is ALWAYS a mistake, & THEY are ALWAYS forgiven....unlike everybody else whom THEY love to condemn first!

There's a difference between Rush Limbaugh, and the newspapers? They have a midnight - 2am deadline to "put the paper to bed". Rush can wake up at 6am, and get the accurate news, and then report it. The paper has to wait until the next print to correct it's misinformation. How about instead of blaming the newsprint, why not blame the officials on the ground in WV that erroniously leaked out that information, and for 3 hours made 12 FAMILIES believe their loved one's were coming out of the violation infested deathtrap alive!

 

[cnredd]

There's a difference between Rush Limbaugh, and the newspapers? They have a midnight - 2am deadline to "put the paper to bed". Rush can wake up at 6am, and get the accurate news, and then report it. The paper has to wait until the next print to correct it's misinformation. How about instead of blaming the newsprint, why not blame the officials on the ground in WV that erroniously leaked out that information, and for 3 hours made 12 FAMILIES believe their loved one's were coming out of the violation infested deathtrap alive!

What you've said makes sense on the surface, but it brings up something I'm sure you didn't intend it too...

Read the two bolded statements...Notice something funny?

Newspapers RELY on information before it can become clearer due to deadlines...That means the earliest editions are putting out stories before any other information may become available...

I got a better idea...Instead of having to "wait until the next print to correct it's misinformation", why don't they just NOT report it until the information doesn't need the "mis" in front of it...

Of course, we know the answer...They have papers to sell...

That's that larger picture here...They'd rather be >100% and report quickly and not accurately for the sake of deadlines(and trumping the competition) than to be 100% and not have to make corrections for their earlier faulty reporting...

 

[debate_junkie]

What you've said makes sense on the surface, but it brings up something I'm sure you didn't intend it too...

Read the two bolded statements...Notice something funny?

Newspapers RELY on information before it can become clearer due to deadlines...That means the earliest editions are putting out stories before any other information may become available...

I got a better idea...Instead of having to "wait until the next print to correct it's misinformation", why don't they just NOT report it until the information doesn't need the "mis" in front of it...

Of course, we know the answer...They have papers to sell...

That's that larger picture here...They'd rather be >100% and report quickly and not accurately for the sake of deadlines(and trumping the competition) than to be 100% and not have to make corrections for their earlier faulty reporting...

I agree with you.. for the most part. However, in this instance, it was learned that AFTER this information went out, and after the AP put it over the wire, some officials sat on the fact that it could be erronious. So there was a 3 hour gap between the time the first report came out, and the second more accurate report came to light.

There are times when a deadline hampers reporting, but in this instance, I think the deadline had nothing to do with it. When false information is leaked, why blame those that report it? Why not blame those who leak it to begin with? The officials who let this misinformation leak was a crying shame. Just like leaks from the White House, which I KNOW redd, you utterly abhor. So where's the difference?