Posted on 02/17/2005 1:15:24 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Keep up the good work Sean!
If you're taking flak, you're over the target!
Bombs away!
Let's face it. If one were to do an analysis of Sean's show, especially the TV show, as in my market, Sean's show is carried on a station 30 miles away from the center city and who's signal is directed away from the center city and virtually unlistenable, you would find that Sean does rely on the talking points almost exclusively and lacks in original thought in these matters. Sean does often interrupt the guest he is grilling and doesn't allow for a complete thougth to be presented. I'm not saying this is to be prim and proper old English decorum, but let's face it, the TV show is shrill shouting match and it's not just the liberals doing the shrill shouting.
As for Rush, what an unbelieveable talent. Yes it is talent on loan from God. Only if everyone could be blessed with the pipes, the charm, the ability to take often complex situations and put them in laymans terms. But what about the his drug addiction? It was a sad state of events and not entirely his fault. He failed at previous interdiction and treatment. Yet Rush was always using the term of how conservatives were the "law abiding" citizens. His purchase of some of those drugs were not in a law abiding manner. So a mockery. He has upheld the concept of family values yet has made a mockery of it with his failed marriages. When nailed for something incorrect, instead of owning up to the failing for the most part, his stock answer is he was illustrating his absurdity with an absurdity.
He has chastized the Hollywood elite for their use of PR firms that exploit the media when their personal shortcomings are exposed , yet his current misfortunes are being managed by one of those same high powered Hollywood crisis management teams. His from the heart admission of the drug addiction was scripted. How do I know? It was released in text at the same time it was being spoken. He is using an attorney now that is known for exploiting the loopholes in the law rather to get his clients out of trouble rather than letting them face the reality of their actions. How often has he mocked people using those tactics only to use them now?
Sounds like sour grapes. It isn't. These may in fact be close friends and wonderful people to you. But their careers are shinging light on the shortcomings of others. Yet they suddenly believe they are above having that same light shown on them. Yeah, as most conservatives say "that's different."
It is typical of the other people who have defended Sean (albeit a little long-winded) and represents most people here. But it also proves his point about the personal attacks. In fact, he's already been ridiculed and called a putz just since I posted last night. So, regardless of how mad or hurt people are about his comments and how wrong his comments were, he does have a point. Conservatives eat their own. Yes, what he did was tacky and was a cheap shot. (And a very poor business decision, I might add.) And, yes, he should either grow thicker skin or not click on the thread. But it still doesn't negate the fact that some people here are beyond rude and make vicious personal attacks.
Okay, now I'm bored with this subject and I've spent way too much time on it already. Good luck to all, and I hope everyone gets this worked out without too many hard feelings on either side.
criticism of opinions can get rough in here, but is not as nasty as, say, Spades players on Microsoft's Games site.
I assume we can all handle a little flogging.
This is the first thread; look at 8:19 p.m. posts.
Silliness. Ya know, I've been on this Forum since October of '98, so I remember the "old heads".
Many........not all, but many........of that now-departed crew who are held up by some as these wonderfully insightful posters were merely full of themselves; self-indulgent to a fault.
There were a few that I miss, but all in all.........egos got WAAAAAAAAAY out of whack. It's a damned Internet site, fercryinoutloud. Don't know how many times I had to remind such people of that back in the day.
No, there are many, many outstanding posters here on FR and there always will be. I'll take the "new crop" over the old "HEAR me, people, and REVEL in my brilliance" crew any day of the week.
Thanks for your input here Mark. I hope you'll have some similar words of wisdom for Sean as well.
To: holdonnow
While all the things you say about Sean's generosity may and probably is in fact true, he is still a public figure. He may in fact be one of the most wonderful individuals in the world, and yet he has put his opinions and style out for the world to see. When it time for feedback from those who are consumers of his shows, books and otherwise support him, then suddenly our opinions of his talent, style and effectiveness should be mute. It's sort of like GM not taking customer feedback on the quality and styling of their automobiles. And while that may be more a PR ploy, the fact remains that GM did lose touch with it's consumers and has never regained what it once had. Sean, Rush and those like them are the GM's of today.
Let's face it. If one were to do an analysis of Sean's show, especially the TV show, as in my market, Sean's show is carried on a station 30 miles away from the center city and who's signal is directed away from the center city and virtually unlistenable, you would find that Sean does rely on the talking points almost exclusively and lacks in original thought in these matters. Sean does often interrupt the guest he is grilling and doesn't allow for a complete thougth to be presented. I'm not saying this is to be prim and proper old English decorum, but let's face it, the TV show is shrill shouting match and it's not just the liberals doing the shrill shouting.
As for Rush, what an unbelieveable talent. Yes it is talent on loan from God. Only if everyone could be blessed with the pipes, the charm, the ability to take often complex situations and put them in laymans terms. But what about the his drug addiction? It was a sad state of events and not entirely his fault. He failed at previous interdiction and treatment. Yet Rush was always using the term of how conservatives were the "law abiding" citizens. His purchase of some of those drugs were not in a law abiding manner. So a mockery. He has upheld the concept of family values yet has made a mockery of it with his failed marriages. When nailed for something incorrect, instead of owning up to the failing for the most part, his stock answer is he was illustrating his absurdity with an absurdity.
He has chastized the Hollywood elite for their use of PR firms that exploit the media when their personal shortcomings are exposed , yet his current misfortunes are being managed by one of those same high powered Hollywood crisis management teams. His from the heart admission of the drug addiction was scripted. How do I know? It was released in text at the same time it was being spoken. He is using an attorney now that is known for exploiting the loopholes in the law rather to get his clients out of trouble rather than letting them face the reality of their actions. How often has he mocked people using those tactics only to use them now?
Sounds like sour grapes. It isn't. These may in fact be close friends and wonderful people to you. But their careers are shinging light on the shortcomings of others. Yet they suddenly believe they are above having that same light shown on them. Yeah, as most conservatives say "that's different."
542 posted on 02/18/2005 4:10:30 AM PST by joesbucks
To: holdonnow
While all the things you say about Sean's generosity may and probably is in fact true, he is still a public figure. He may in fact be one of the most wonderful individuals in the world, and yet he has put his opinions and style out for the world to see. When it time for feedback from those who are consumers of his shows, books and otherwise support him, then suddenly our opinions of his talent, style and effectiveness should be mute. It's sort of like GM not taking customer feedback on the quality and styling of their automobiles. And while that may be more a PR ploy, the fact remains that GM did lose touch with it's consumers and has never regained what it once had. Sean, Rush and those like them are the GM's of today.
Let's face it. If one were to do an analysis of Sean's show, especially the TV show, as in my market, Sean's show is carried on a station 30 miles away from the center city and who's signal is directed away from the center city and virtually unlistenable, you would find that Sean does rely on the talking points almost exclusively and lacks in original thought in these matters. Sean does often interrupt the guest he is grilling and doesn't allow for a complete thougth to be presented. I'm not saying this is to be prim and proper old English decorum, but let's face it, the TV show is shrill shouting match and it's not just the liberals doing the shrill shouting.
As for Rush, what an unbelieveable talent. Yes it is talent on loan from God. Only if everyone could be blessed with the pipes, the charm, the ability to take often complex situations and put them in laymans terms. But what about the his drug addiction? It was a sad state of events and not entirely his fault. He failed at previous interdiction and treatment. Yet Rush was always using the term of how conservatives were the "law abiding" citizens. His purchase of some of those drugs were not in a law abiding manner. So a mockery. He has upheld the concept of family values yet has made a mockery of it with his failed marriages. When nailed for something incorrect, instead of owning up to the failing for the most part, his stock answer is he was illustrating his absurdity with an absurdity.
He has chastized the Hollywood elite for their use of PR firms that exploit the media when their personal shortcomings are exposed , yet his current misfortunes are being managed by one of those same high powered Hollywood crisis management teams. His from the heart admission of the drug addiction was scripted. How do I know? It was released in text at the same time it was being spoken. He is using an attorney now that is known for exploiting the loopholes in the law rather to get his clients out of trouble rather than letting them face the reality of their actions. How often has he mocked people using those tactics only to use them now?
Sounds like sour grapes. It isn't. These may in fact be close friends and wonderful people to you. But their careers are shinging light on the shortcomings of others. Yet they suddenly believe they are above having that same light shown on them. Yeah, as most conservatives say "that's different."
542 posted on 02/18/2005 4:10:30 AM PST by joesbucks
To late, Hannity. I never liked your TV show anyway. Further, you are becoming more and more pompous, an ugly trait I don't like in folks.
LOL!!!
Sorry, but that comment is unrealistic and also unrelated due to the fact that most of the disparaging comments in the last 2 days ONLY CAME from the fact HE insulted us.
So, THERE IS NO RELATION to the insults he got in the last two days to any insult he got before, you cannot compare them because THIS TIME he brought it upon himself. THIS time he asked for it.
YES
You're right. But I think all the posts calling him the "Lower-10%-IQ Spawn of Satan" have been pulled. :-)
Those I'll agree with, yanking them I mean.
I dont want to be mad at him, I liked his show.
Yes, I thought he wasnt the best, but he was the best we had, I sure cant do it.
But he called us all kooks, it was less than 5%, maybe even less than 1% of all Freepers registered who said things, for him to go on the air and say that was dead wrong.
People keep saying that we need to stop eating our young, well that is exactly what he did, is anyone going to tell Sean to stop eating US??
He needs thicker skin, he is a public figure. The only thing I ever said (that I remember) before 2 days ago was I was extrememly angry at how He and Limbaugh for YEARS repeated the mantra about the RULE OF LAW against Clinton, then all of a sudden, GWB gets the nod, and whenever anyone mentioned RULE OF LAW and why did we stop trying to get Clinton, Sean and Limbaugh treated those people as if they had 3 heads.
It was Hannity and Limbaugh who taught us those phrases, repeated those phrases so we would surely understand the right and wrong of the issue involved, and we all got on board...only to be told the bus route changed and we need to shut up.
It's sort of like GM not taking customer feedback on the quality and styling of their automobiles. And while the new GM's efforts to get our feedback may be more a PR ploy, the fact remains that GM did lose touch with it's consumers and has never regained what it once had. Sean, Rush and those like them are the GM's of today. If they don't listen to the Voice of the Customer, then they and those who produce and syndicate their shows, books, newsletters and other related merchandise lose.
We've all heard the phrase tough love, especially recently in the revelation that Alan Keyes suggested that his daughter leave the home and fend for herself because of her coming out. There was a lot of defense for tough love in that situation. Could our critiques and comments be that same tough love. Could our feedback be like an evaluation of the effectiveness of their inputs and results and areas to focus to reach the next level?
Who knows. They don't want to hear the annual or mid-term evaluation.
Remember the phrase Pat Buchanan always used. "When I'm sworn in as President, as soon as I finish the oath, I will turn to the Clinton's and say you have the right to remain silent." I believe it was Tim Russert on the Meet the Press who called Pat on that one and asked what would be the charges. Pat shuffled and squirmed like a six year old who got caught stealing the penny candy from the store and finally said something to the extent of , it's a read meat phrase to instill passion to my audiences and at rally's.
Somewhere about 2 years ago, a guy called Hannity and pointed out, correctly, that some FED action or other (prescrip drugs, I believe) was unconstitutional because of the enumeration. Hannity, the moron, had clearly never even heard of the enum. and began ridiculing the guy. Hannity was broadcasting live from FLA, if that jogs your memory. "Oh, yeah? I suppose the EPA is unconstitutional, and Social Security, too?" Hannity asked, dripping w/sarcasm while exposing his own ignorance, because, of course, those programs ARE unconstitutional because of the enum. I called him later and said, "OK, slicko, you should read FED PAPERS x, y, z, d, and f to get an education." He said, and you could hear the fear in his voice, "Why don't you just tell me what I'm gonna find there?" I started to explain, and the second I said the word "enumeration", the coward hung up. Clearly, his brain worked like this, "I don't know what this caller is talking about, he seems not to be an idiot, I might learn something, thus exposing the fact that I don't know EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE WORLD, (as if that were a sin) so I better hang up. Never mind that I could actually learn something." One week later, the great genius actually had the nerve to lecture another caller about how we used to have this thing called the enumeration. Bottom line: if you are the face of conservatism, and you make a quadrillion dollars per year with a radio AND tv show, don't you think you should know about ART 1, SEC 8?????
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.