Partyin' With Rush

[jay_too]

[quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1067045112;start=20#39 date=10/31/03 at 03:44:30]

And I have to agree that it is difficult to find a reliable, unbiased, source in the US as almost everything, even the academic world, seems to be heavily webbed by politics. But there are ways to find a middle.  [/quote]

Jav..

Contrary to what the cry babies on the extreme right would have you believe - the U.S. does have sources of news and opinion that are relatively non-doctrinaire. Do not believe every rant about the liberal media bias. Unfortunately, many extreme right news organizations do not seem to have credibility even among those who listen. A case in point is Fox News; apparently, even they do not consider this a NEWS source because it is certainly extreme enough...otherwise they would stop the liberal media rant.

Perhaps, Americans hear only what irritates them; in my case, on AM radio I seem always to find only Christian radio that does not appeal to tolerance and understanding but to equal measures of political and personal invective and a rationalization that God believes this c---. AND ironically, they always mention that to keep these words of God on the air and expose the liberal bias, please SEND money...lots of it.

A week or so ago when Rush was big news, I listened to a few minutes of one of these programs dealing with Rush. In five minutes, they ranted about Roger Clinton and Bill at Cambridge and NOT inhaling [yeah, they did not tie this back to Rush's problem]....but nothing about the problems with substance abuse by the Bush family.

jay

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1067045112;start=40#40 date=10/31/03 at 05:33:14]...Perhaps, Americans hear only what irritates them...[/quote]

I think rather that we tend to remember what irritates us, Jay, rather than just hearing it.

It's like the current bad news/good news in Iraq debate. All the news shows, regardless of network affililation, know that a half-hour of good news is not going to get the ratings of bad news. People like to hear good news but only in snippets here and there, interspersed in the tintillating bad news.

Pecker

(HEADLINE: County Officials To Talk Rubbish)

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1067045112;start=40#40 date=10/31/03 at 05:33:14]
Contrary to what the cry babies on the extreme right would have you believe - the U.S. does have sources of news and opinion that are relatively non-doctrinaire. Do not believe every rant about the liberal media bias. Unfortunately, many extreme right news organizations do not seem to have credibility even among those who listen. A case in point is Fox News; apparently, even they do not consider this a NEWS source because it is certainly extreme enough...otherwise they would stop the liberal media rant.[/quote]
For every extreme right news source there is in this world, there are ten extreme liberal news sources.  Two most obvious ones are CNN and the BBC.  Hell, some people have been using the BBC to present "factual" proof of their political beliefs.  What a load of crock.  The BBC has recently been way under fire for fabricating numbers and over exaggerating reports.  Especially reports on the war in Iraq.  So, for every for every right wing new station that isn't considered a news source, there are many, many more Liberal stations that throw credibility out the window.  

Oh, and I listen to AM radio alot and I don't really know what you are talking about.  Christian radio?  Where?  Jeez, you make it sound like it populates the airwaves.  Of the MANY right-wing talk show hosts I listened to, very few incorporated religion into their politics.  Contrary to liberal belief, jay_too, not EVERY Republican totes around a bibal and preaches the word of god.  Can't help but generalize though, cantcha? Oh well, all you Liberals are god damn, unbathed, drug-addicted hippies. (Please notice the sarcasm there)

And of course, the topic at hand was dropped again.  I presented a challenge to directly qoute Rush coming down on drug users with "fire and brimstone" and no one was able to step up to the challenge.  The closest one got was trying to quoute Rush coming down on the CLINTON family, not drugs.  Oh well, when people can't win an argument, they change the subject.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: I am sorry but when exactly have the BBC been accused of fabricating numbers and exaggerating reports??? The only criticism that I have heard of the BBC over here was that it gave TOO MUCH support for the pro-war effort!

Give the critics and the dates, please.

The only other critic that I can think of the BBC is our own government that have accused them of 'making stories, not reporting them' - and this was mainly because they came out with news they don't like - they love to play the media when its rolling with them but instantly accuse it of foul play when they turn round and bite it in the arse. As to whether the BBC is found guilty of this re: the David Kelly affair or whether it is the government that is at fault we will find out when the inquiry publishes.

There is no reason for the BBC to be politically biased, and a lot of its constitution is focused on it being 'politically neutral' - they receive their public funding come what may and don't have to rely on funding from political sources or even politically motivated industries.

Besides which, the figure that I used (which I presume you were referring to) actually came from an american policy advice institute which advises your own government on military issues. They obtained the estimates from based on US combat data, battlefield press reports, and Iraqi hospital surveys. Hardly the lefty, commie conspiracy theory that you thought, eh?

 

[13788]

gigantikok: There may be no reason, but hell yes it is politically biased. I can look for resources. Maybe you don't consider it to be politically bias because it seems to support every political opinion you have. Yea, when something is preaching to the choir, it sure as hell doesn't appear to be biased.

 

[jay_too]

gigantikok...

psssst....a secret...my family is or was Republican...it has been since Fremont was the nominee. Yep, you better go look that up. A grandfather claims, "Those idiots hijacked my party."

As for quoting Rush...who in the hell cares what Rush says/said? Remember he claims to entertainment only...and I don't find him entertaining. I have listened to at most 30 minutes of Rush. I have read about his comments in the papers. And oh yeah, I did not know that you threw down a challenge.

Speaking of challenges, I do remember someone recently meeting another of your challenges on what Bush said - but that does not count, right? By the way, was the Bush quote correct?

About Rush and his drug problem, I hope that he gets it under control (no relapses). Why? Am I a bleeding-heart liberal? Nope, but I have seen addiction destroy or maim the lives of friends.

I read the Wall Street Journal online every day. One of the items of interest is the "Question of the Day." Hey, I am into surveys and questionaires. Where do I fall among WSJ readers? Well, in the past 11 months, 93% of the time my response is one of the majority. About 3% of the time (multiple categories), I voted with the plurality. So only 3% of the time I was in the minority. The Journal is not known for a flaming liberal readership but a moderate to conservative group. Yeah, the WSJ's readership tend to nervous about the war and its conduct.

I mistyped or .... anyway, I should have said FM instead of AM. Back east and out here, Christian radio with 5 minutes of bible, 7 of sermon, 3 of politics, some religious music and the solicitation is alive and well.

jay

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: I think this thread is drifting again, so I will keep this brief.

I have read our main left-wing newspapers - the Guardian and the Mirror - and they are very obviously left-wing in their reporting (rarely critiscise Labour and always rally around trade unions and attack the Tories)

I have also read our main right-wing newspapers - the Sun (I am ashamed to say) and the Times. They are very much the same, but the Sun is more rabid (think Fox News, well it's owned by Murdoch) and the Times more subtle - but it's still there.

I have also read our supposedly 'politically independant' paper The Independant, which attempts to be pragmatic and fact-led, with political commentry from followers of each main party.

I say that I cannot read any of the obvious right or left-wing bias that I see in the newspapers when reading BBC News. It usually asks for public feedback and opinion on their website that comes from the entire political spectrum from far-right to far-left, which implies that it is read by the entire range of people (rather than the political papers that have a skewed reader profile). Go on - prove me wrong by giving me an obviously biased article rather than an interview with a biased person (which is not the same thing - esp their leanings will be clear in the background given, allowing you to paint your own picture).

For the record, my paper of choice is the Independant, as I prefer my news in black and white rather than painted in shades of blue or red.

And this was going to be brief  :

P.S. I have created a new thread for this in etc. etc. called "reliable (and not-so reliable) news", so it may be a better idea to reply there - just quote me.

 

[13788]

hawl: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1067045112;start=40#42 date=10/31/03 at 10:40:39]


And of course, the topic at hand was dropped again.  I presented a challenge to directly qoute Rush coming down on drug users with "fire and brimstone" and no one was able to step up to the challenge.  The closest one got was trying to quoute Rush coming down on the CLINTON family, not drugs.  Oh well, when people can't win an argument, they change the subject.[/quote]
Again: ???. The quotes in the first link in the first post are acknowledged everywhere from Fox News to ABC News to wherever. Maybe I should have led off with the Bill Maher link. I think the intended vibe of my initial post got lost somewhere. Rush is just an example, he's not the main point. Even if Rush never said anything about drugs, he would still be guilty of unquestioningly and actively supporting an administration that escalated a "War On Drugs" that the Republican National Review declared "lost" years ago. Did he, even once, use his voluminous media influence to speak out about the criminal prosecution of people like Tommy Chong by Operation Pipe Dreams? I don't care about his personal life. He shamelessly supported people who have an obnoxious interest in mine. Under President rrrrrr's administration he would never have been busted in the first place 8).

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1067045112;start=40#42 date=10/31/03 at 10:40:39]
For every extreme right news source there is in this world, there are ten extreme liberal news sources.  Two most obvious ones are CNN and the BBC. [/quote]

Ok, you knocked me off my chair with this one. Dude, you are starting to irritate me with your 'I say so, so it's a fact' statements. If you take one peek further than just the current criticism CNN and BBC have against the administrations, you will notice that they also dug up, and reported the entire Clinton affair, White water, and possibly did everything in their power to discredit Thatcher when she reigned. It's what they do, theyre journalists!! They are there to bring news, an anything concerning ANY government is news. So please stop pretending like the world is one big W-conspiracy and start thinking before you rant.

Hell, some people have been using the BBC to present "factual" proof of their political beliefs.  What a load of crock.  The BBC has recently been way under fire for fabricating numbers and over exaggerating reports.  Especially reports on the war in Iraq.

Again, a load of bull. Stop digging your news up from porn magazines and try to whip open a newspaper. The BBC has never been under fire for that, the Blair government was under fire because the BBC found out that they embellished the report.

So, for every for every right wing new station that isn't considered a news source, there are many, many more Liberal stations that throw credibility out the window.

Yes there are. But with you, anything that even remotely reported something negative about Bush has been labeled liberal and unreliable. You would have been good in Saddams regime, newsfacts weren't allowed to be reported there either.   

Can't help but generalize though, cantcha?

It is all YOU do dude. You picked AJ out of the crowd, not because of the content of his post, but because his profile mentioned he was a liberal. That must have been the saddest thing i've seen thus far. You seem frustrated about anything liberal, traumatized almost. Wanna talk about it?  

Oh well, all you Liberals are god damn, unbathed, drug-addicted hippies.

*takes a whif*
Yeah...its the 1st of the month again, so i'd better hit the shower...see if that green mold comes off

 (Please notice the sarcasm there)

Noted

And of course, the topic at hand was dropped again.  I presented a challenge to directly qoute Rush coming down on drug users with "fire and brimstone" and no one was able to step up to the challenge.

Everything is a challenge to you dude. This is a discussion, but i can hear your blood bubbling across the ocean. The point here, again, is not anyone's opinion. But stop ranting like youre the oracle, how every newsreport yóu come up with is fact, and every newsfact with the words 'Bush' and 'bad' is not. Stop with the 'it's a fact that...' when you obviously don't know anything of the subject. Holy crap...CNN and the BBC unreliable...that's why half the world (except for the Arab) is tuned into it. Think again man, think again.

 

[13788]

Inwood: ***Sigh***

He was only too happy to bring hail and brimstone down on those poor mortals who had addictions. No help for them but jail or the gallows.

Since I'm the one who posted the above I suppose I'm the one who has been challenged. As to the delay in posting to your inquiry some of us do have other things we have to take care of before we go on the Internet. I guess I assumed that if something was not in quotation marks, say hail and brimstone, it would be understood to be a figure of speech. But since it has been requested that posts be backed up I went on a quest.

After a short hop through cyberspace I found the reference to the Clintons by Rush but much more interesting was part of the TV show he did back in 1995. He is discussing the discrepancy in the numbers of Blacks arrested for drug possession and the number of Whites arrested for drug possession. His opinion was that there were a lot more whites who were doing drugs and that they should be found, prosecuted and sent up. That way the figures would be more in line with reality. For some reason Rush never really pushed this idea. Perhaps his audience didn't respond to well to the thought of more of them getting locked up or perhaps it hit too close to home. In any case that's all I could find with a cursory look on the web. So at this point I've found JAIL.

Then I thought why not go to Rush's official site and see what was listed there. So I did and I put in a search for "Rush Hail and Brimstone Drugs." I got over 6,500 hits on his site. Well I thought that was quite a bit but decided to open the first one and check it out. There I found out I had to JOIN his site to access any information. Well, that's asking a bit much. I'd end up on every mailing list that I would despise being on. Of course there's really not a mailing list I wouldn't despise being on so I suppose that's a moot point.

Then I got to thinking well that was an awful lot of hits let's try something else to see if it's really working correctly. So I entered "Rush sanctimonious asshole." Well imagine my surprise when 4,300 plus hits came up. At that point I thought perhaps something less partisan might get me somewhere so I put in "Rush sucks large penises" in honor of lspg.org. Low and behold 2,900 plus hits popped up. At that point I decided that Rush didn't put a whole lot of money into the search engine for his site. So I just put in "Drugs" and came up only about 220 hits. Still ain't going to join but I did get you to a point where you can decide if it's worth joining Rush's club to get the low down.

So since I consider hail and brimstone to be a figure of speech I think I can group it in with the word jail. I can't find anything about him using the word gallows. So I guess he didn't use that word in regard to drugs or people using drugs.

Since I like this thread more when it focuses on Rush I'll put my Bush comments into "Bush Lie?" I did find one comment he made for sure that he had to take back about Iraq. Once I've got the post written I'll put it there.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well inwood...i finally have found some common ground with you...[i must have a fever]...but the rush and drugs thing...hey...hes ranting about drug addicts going to jail...or another country...well rush....heres your cell... in the past he has made some nice points...im a conservative myself...but if hes busted out...tried and convicted...hes got to go...[to jail]...doesnt mean hes a bad guy...*good people sometimes do bad things* maybe he can learn and grow from this...having been an addict...and busted out publicly...he can now explain how its possible to become addicted...if he owns up to this...some good can come out of it...if he doesnt...hes a bag of dirt and deserves what he gets...

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Too bad his pride might get in the way. If it doesn't, he can do a lot of good with his experiences...