Posted on 05/15/2006 5:36:17 AM PDT by Quilla
Another reason liberalism doesn't fly on the radio, they're too busy listening to FM. Its the same reason why FoxNews has done so well...Libs like watching the West Wing or Survivor, they don't watch the news like conservatives do. Libs live on emotion not analytical thinking. Ever get into a serious politcal discussion with a liberal? It always ends with them frustratingly blurting out, "oh yeah, well Bush is a moron".
"His sparkling humor is merely the icing on the sumptuous cake of analysis he serves up on a daily basis. To liberals, however, it does not taste as delicious and understandably so. To them his wit feels more like a stinging petard in their rear regions as they lie prostrate in the ruins of their ideology brought down by the power of his analytical firestorm."
Love that line.
Exactly, and let's not forget the stories about his wife, lol
Yup
I guess I missed Dr. Williams' rough debut, but I sure do enjoy listening to him.
There is a lot about conservatism to be passionate about. How can anyone think doom and gloom is something people naturally want to hear?
This makes television news, newspapers and magazines the media of choice for getting the message out. Any medium that goes into any detail (eg., radio and books) are dominated by conservatives."
Just so.The best thing Rush could do for the Republic in the next year would be to bring the '08 Republican presidential candidates in (whether physically or via phone) and stage debates among them in Rush's "long form" show. Let's find out who is ready for prime time in that rigorous analyitical format. Then when we have a candidate who we know can stand that gaff, let's demand that there be no moderator but a chess timer in the televised presidential debates.
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I'd love to see some data backing up your claim. His radio show just recently added its 500th station to its syndicated network.
I enjoy some of Rush's rivals in the talk show game, but they just make me realize how much better he is than anyone else doing it.
Why should the democRATS get a pass on an anal exam?
Most of my conversations with libs end with the name calling as you mentioned or with them angrily storming out of the room. They are mad at themselves for not being able to come up with a good argument. I say, as they stomp away, "What are you mad about? Let's talk about it!" That rubs it in even more.
Do liberals really have a message? Oh, sure, they want to raise taxes, are for gun control, abortion, gay marriage, against war, intolerance, and on - and on, but is that really a message or issues that simply stem from living emotionally with minimal benefit from reason?Sure that's a message. You nailed it but you could have also said they have little respect for most people and believe things would be best if they themselves were in charge. It's a dimwitted and immature outlook.
The message actually is, "Mother is here, dear, just don't you worry your sweet little head over a thing." We are supposed to leave the thinking to them.
I have noticed that as liberalism's grasp on the population weakens the "shrill" level increases. On television they are forced to gin up stories in order to mount an attack (false but accurate though they may be! - he he)
"Any such effort would have to begin with a hard look at the format in which "THEY" are trying to succeed," ........( Nice try, but he just gave it away)
"In the type of political talk show invented by Rush Limbaugh, the host openly takes an ideological stance (conservative or liberal) and then applies it to the issues of the day during his hours on the air.
WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO IS AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CURRENT AFFAIRS FROM A SPECIFIC POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW"
If the writer is 6 years, or has just come out of a 50 year old coma, I apologize, and ask that you decline from reading any further.
For crying out loud, Stalin and Goebbels invented this game.
Did this person ever hear of Dan Rather? Walter Cronkite? Peter Jennings? Larry King? Ted Koeppel? Barbara Walters? Hanoi Hanna? Ted Turner? Time Warner? Oliver Stone?
When I think of Rush, I think of that image of a lone man, his arms filled with groceries, defiantly facing down a tank in Tiananmen Square.
Rush broke through the msm's wall of lies. He gave America a choice.
HBO, eat your heart out.
Yes, we're the parents, and DON'T YOU EVER DARE QUESTION US as we take complete control over your entire life, for the "greater good".
Libs live on emotion not analytical thinking.
&&&&&
Libs always say "I feel" when they call a show.
Conservatives say "I think"
It is a foolproof "tell".
Listening to Rush, or Laura, or Marc Levin can be inspirational. Listening to Err America? Painful! It's the message that is the difference, granted that we on the right also have the better messengers too.
Not sure about that.
This weekend I'd guess that 90 percent of the talking heads were ranting about the alleged "illegality" of the NSA programs, while failing completely to acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate technical and legal reasons to counter that view.
IMO, "reporters" of national prominence and caliber would very well know that there are holes in their explanations, yet they fail to mention them (so much for the "objective" media).
In any case, since we know these are not stuipd people, there is only one other explanation: they are lying, and they know it, and they know it's transparent.
Side note: surprisingly, only Evan Thomas of Newsweek made the faux pas of admitting that the NSA programs may in fact be perfectly legal.
You're a liar. A creepy liar. A lying liar. Stop lying you liar...
and so on ad infinitum. Why Franken even used it for a book title: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.