Rush Limbaugh wins children's book author of the year award

[Esmeralda]

Good job in manipulating an internet poll

The cheater even manipulated the sales of his book that got him nominated in the first place. He has admitted, over the air, that he bought tens of thousands of his book to give away.

Lol, this is great stuff!

Yeah because no other author has ever done this right?

Not usually no, certainly not authors who have credibility. What individual person needs tens of thousands of his books to give away to friends? The only books respected and credible authors give away are to their friends; the publishers give books to critics.

 

[Esmeralda]

But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.

College campuses ? Are you serious ? Do you honestly believe the leftist professors and their mush-brained students would allow him to even step foot on an American campus ?!!!!

If American colleges and universities are so terrible, why do students from all over the world come to America to study in them?

 

[hunarcy]

But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.

The guy's on the radio. People can listen to him or not as they choose.

Thom Hartmann wouldn't do well as he wouldn't be allowed to use his own versions of things and would be limited to the truth. That loon still says that Reagan conspired with the Iranians to hold the hostages back in 1980.

 

[HenryBHough]

The guy's on the radio. People can listen to him or not as they choose.

Actually that's only partially true. Liberals often are required to not just to "listen" to Mr. Limbaugh - rather to "monitor" him with their tender little feelies set on high. Which is kind of a good thing because if they have nothing to hate they have to invent things and they do find that painful - reminiscent of actual work.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

But why does Rush hide out on a radio station listened to by mostly people that agree with him? To convert others, he needs to go more public. Maybe appear on a few college campuses. Television talk shows. Engage in extemporaneous debate with the opposition with out having the ability to cut the opposition off when the debate starts to go against him. I'd like to see Rush vs. Thom Hartmann. T.V. or radio, that would be interesting.

College campuses ? Are you serious ? Do you honestly believe the leftist professors and their mush-brained students would allow him to even step foot on an American campus ?!!!!

If American colleges and universities are so terrible, why do students from all over the world come to America to study in them?

I didn't say they were terrible.
All's I'm getting at is a conservative like Limbaugh is not welcome on an American campus today. Guarantee you, if he was invited to speak, there would be a HUGE protest put on by a large percentage of the faculty, and a sizeable percentage of the student body.
For instance when Ann Coulter has attempted to speak at an Arizona university, she's nearly attacked. Watch this:

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here's another example:

Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter

Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.

Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.

Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.

Young America's Foundation

 

[S.J.]

An attack by a liberal "peace protester".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q93XHjsiMd4]President Reagan Assaulted by Protester - YouTube[/ame]

 

[American Horse]

The sales of the books were boosted by parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Still, the kids seem to like them. Kids want to hear and read something positive about their country and its founding and Rush is capitalizing on that to get kids on a different path in learning about their country.

He might start a revolution in children's literature. I think it's ingenious and may have far reaching effects.

 

[katsteve2012]

Even though the likelihood is that most of the voting was probably done by adults? Think about it, logically if you can. The fan base for Limbaugh is not children. His fan base is adults, and he focuses on political issues. Without any push from adults, right or left wing, children are not interested in politics. They like a good story and a simple good versus evil theme, which is why Harry Potter novels are so popular.

I am not 'pissed off' by this Limbaugh award, but I find it very, very sad that rightwingers are so rampant in their desire to try to paint America as being behind the kind of thing Limbaugh represents that they would use children this way and try to warp reality. Left on their own, children prefer reading good stories that do not present any specific political slant.

Your post, sj. points out that you care more about partisan politics than children. And, that meshes with the overwhelming impression that the right gives in that they also care more about partisan politics than the good of the country.

You're the one who cares more about partisan politics than children. You think that because the only example of Rush you know is him talking about politics on the radio, that's the only thing he ever does and has no life outside of his job. You're so consumed by your hatred for the man you can't understand that he just might have other talents and interests. It must be hell being so full of hate.

That's a very ironic statement coming from you. I believe that the vehement and vicious television and radio people like Limbaugh are mainly at fault for the extreme partisan politics in today's America. Nothing like this was in existence before such people began to be media sensations.

I don't hate Limbaugh because I don't personalize it and because politics is not the center of my life by any means. What does disturb me is the vitriolic and partisan atmosphere that infuses American politics and social issues nowadays. It is destroying America. I don't know who said it, but it goes something like America will destroy itself from within; it will not be destroyed by outside entities. The American people themselves are far more of a threat to the country than Al-Qaeda terrorists, or any kind of terrorist.

People like Limbaugh are responsible for much of the extreme divisiveness in America today. The fact that a book or series of books he wrote, focusing on politics, has been voted by internet readers as most popular simply indicates that people are using political views to slant reality. I know children and I know what they like to read: children are not interested in politics. This 'award' is a false award based on adults who are fans of Limbaugh. It is not based on what children love. Children love stories like Harry Potter. That is the reality.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals won't buy books for the children - a waste of good crack money!

Libraries?

There are IDEAS in libraries - documents like copies of The Declaration of Independence and The (former) U.S. Constitution.

Can't have tender young minds seeing that kind of hate filled pornography, now can we!

 

[Politico]

Review: 'Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims' by Rush Limbaugh - Chicago Tribune


<Rush Revere is the author's alter ego, a substitute middle-school history teacher who dresses like Paul Revere and time-travels with his magical horse named Liberty.

Rush and Liberty, sometimes accompanied by two bright students, go back in time to the Pilgrims' Atlantic crossing on the Mayflower and the establishment of the Plymouth colony. Many of the book's details line up well with historical accounts.

Limbaugh's political viewpoint certainly shows up, but less than you might expect. He even defines "American exceptionalism" in a manner unlikely to offend Rachel Maddow: "It does not mean that we Americans are better than anyone else. It ... means that America is special because it is different from all other countries in history."

Limbaugh, like other conservatives, seizes upon the Pilgrims' story as an example of the terrible things that can happen when people pool their resources in a collectivist manner. The author seems particularly offended by the idea of a "Common House" at Plymouth. To him, the pilgrims suffered from the evils of Common-ism (my word, not Limbaugh's) and survived only by belatedly injecting individualism and free enterprise into their settlement.
>

<Limbaugh is also wrong in the same way that much of American history is wrong — in deifying the founding fathers. Limbaugh declares that they "believed all people were born to be free as individuals." The founding fathers were great in many ways, but the fact is, four of the first five presidents owned slaves. If they believed all people should be free, they certainly didn't act on it.>

Almost impossible to even discuss US history without 'opinions'. Somewhat disturbed at some of the ideas Limbaugh seems to present and more concerned about those of the article's author.

Much was said when PBS or NPR produced a cartoon series on US history---many well known celebs were involved. So 'whatever floats your boat'? I watched it a few times--never noticed anything 'upsetting'. Probably miss a lot.

Liberty's Kids

The Theme Song is performed by: Aaron Carter and Kayla I see a land with liberty for all Next thing I know the truth will rise and fall That's just the way it goes A word now to the wise The world was made to change Each day is a surprize I'm looking at life with my own eyes I'm searching for a hero to idolize Feeling the pain as innocence dies I'm looking at life through my own eyes I'll take my heart into battle Give that freedom bell a raddle Get my independence signed Declare for it on the dotted line Let Philadelphia freedom ring and patriotic voices sing Red, White and Blue Never give up You represent America! I'm hoping and praying for a brighter day I listen to my heart and I obey How can I see it any other way? I'm looking at life through my own eyes

No--the leaders of the nation should not have owned slaves. I can only assume that in the process of creating a new nation---there was chaos. No excuse I suppose. I would want my child to think critically about politics.

Based on this, he's delivering a false view of American history, which is not only sad but dangerous.

No just not the distorted one you want him too.

 

[wavingrl]

I suppose someone before Robert Lawson, children's author illustrator--winner of the top awards for children literature--about 50 years ago---might have come up with similar ideas on how to revisit history. He wrote 'Mr. Revere's Horse'--whatever the title.

I think Rush must have been inspired by that book. Read the books, discuss the books--draw your own conclusions.

There are other explanations for the perceived socialism of the Pilgrims. Explained in other books.

 

[natstew]

I jumped from page 3 to here, don't have time or patience to read all the Liberal cesspool garbage, so if this has already been posted, I apologize, but only to Conservatives.

No frigging wonder the World is laughing at us:

Al Sharpton Demands?Voter ID?

 

[rightwinger]

I jumped from page 3 to here, don't have time or patience to read all the Liberal cesspool garbage, so if this has already been posted, I apologize, but only to Conservatives.

No frigging wonder the World is laughing at us:

Al Sharpton Demands?Voter ID?

Does the world listen to Rush Limbaugh?

 

[jknowgood]

I jumped from page 3 to here, don't have time or patience to read all the Liberal cesspool garbage, so if this has already been posted, I apologize, but only to Conservatives.

No frigging wonder the World is laughing at us:

Al Sharpton Demands?Voter ID?

Does the world listen to Rush Limbaugh?

No, but the world knows what kind of a screw up you voted for president.

 

[Esmeralda]

Here's another example:

Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter

Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.

Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.

Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.

Young America's Foundation

This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote:

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.

First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.

As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.

 

[Pogo]

Here's another example:

Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter

Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at Fordham University on November 29. Her appearance, organized by the conservative club on campus and funded by the school, would have marked the first time this fall a conservative addressed the Fordham student body.

Upon the announcement this week of the event, the conservative club was routinely attacked by others on campus. In fact, one member was singled out as a racist on a Tumblr blog that has since been removed.

Adding to the attacks against the club was the university president, Joseph McShane. Instead of welcoming Ann Coulter and encouraging students to consider her ideas, he issues an email to students, alumni, and faculty blasting the club for inviting her to speak.

Young America's Foundation

This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote:

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.

First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.

As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.

Boiled down, what he's saying is that Coulter is not a discussant but a troll. We have the same shit flung here, and it's equally ineffectual as argument.

The same applies to Limblob, and always has, which is why he can't be taken seriously. There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument. For a good example, imagine how a conservative tenet might be expressed by Limblob or Coulter, and then imagine William F. Buckley making the same point. There's no contest, even if the point is the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's another example:

Fordham President Attacks Conservative Club for Hosting Coulter



Young America's Foundation

This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote:

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of
view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among
them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more
heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker
side of our nature.

First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.

As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.

Boiled down, what he's saying is that Coulter is not a discussant but a troll. We have the same shit flung here, and it's equally ineffectual as argument.

The same applies to Limblob, and always has, which is why he can't be taken seriously. There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument. For a good example, imagine how a conservative tenet might be expressed by Limblob or Coulter, and then imagine William F. Buckley making the same point. There's no contest, even if the point is the same.

"Limblob"

After you just got finished calling Ann Coulter a troll. I don't like Ann Coulter either. She is a prima donna. But if you are going to call Coulter down for being a troll, make sure you refer to Rush by his name, not by a pejorative. Or else, you risk sounding like a troll yourself.

There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument.

Sure, but we have liberals on the other end doing the exact same thing. More notably people like Al Sharpton. And so, when we resort to attacking the person instead of their views, as you have done with both Limbaugh and Coulter, we have conflict of interest here. Why not address the same behavior in your party?

I can list a slew of examples of liberals employing argumentum ad passiones, namely in the race debate, gay rights, religion, women's rights and etc, and other forms of less than effectual arguments. They simply label dissent as one of four things: hateful, bigoted, racist or misogynistic. These are nothing but emotional crutches as well, used in lieu of an actual argument. They also employ a tactic of ad hominem known as guilt by association. Similar if not identical to Alinskyist tactics of shaming and ridiculing the opposition. Throw a bit of McCarthyism in there to boot. By no means is this a definitive list of left wing debate tactics.

 

[Pogo]

This is from the article you cite, a quotation from the email the university president wrote: First off, this is 2 years ago. Second, the quotation explains why he was not in favor of her speaking at Fordham. Not because she is a Republican but because she is a low level thinker: he wants them to have a serious, intellectual, thoughtful speaker, not a bigoted blowhard. He is disappointed in them that they don't recognize the difference. One important purpose of a good education is to help students become critical thinkers. No truly critical thinker would value what someone like Coulter has to say, no matter what side she is on politically.

As well, the president did not "attack" the students. He spoke to them about his "disappointment" in them. The use of the term 'attack' is hyperbole and intends to act as propaganda. It's dishonest and manipulative.

Boiled down, what he's saying is that Coulter is not a discussant but a troll. We have the same shit flung here, and it's equally ineffectual as argument.

The same applies to Limblob, and always has, which is why he can't be taken seriously. There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument. For a good example, imagine how a conservative tenet might be expressed by Limblob or Coulter, and then imagine William F. Buckley making the same point. There's no contest, even if the point is the same.

"Limblob"

After you just got finished calling Ann Coulter a troll. I don't like Ann Coulter either. She is a prima donna. But if you are going to call Coulter down for being a troll, make sure you refer to Rush by his name, not by a pejorative. Or else, you risk sounding like a troll yourself.

Why?

When I speak of His Blobness I'm not speaking of an issue. I'm speaking of a person who has asked for, worked hard for, and rightly earned an utter lack of respect. If I had a similarly good pun name for Coulter I would have employed it but "Colder" doesn't quite have the impact I want. ("Coultergeist" is off the point but I'm always open to suggestions here). This is a form of ridicule for behaviour deserving of ridicule. And you yourself are engaging in the same mockery in the Nigerian girls hashtag thread, which mockery is also a legitimate position.

The point is, these clowns are clowns who sincerely want to be regarded as clowns. Who am I do deny them their dream? They're public figures, a path they voluntarily chose. Who the **** are you to declare they're immune to criticism? Perhaps more revealingly, what does it say that you have an emotional relationship with them?

There is a chasm of difference between criticizing someone's legitimate rationally-presented views, and on the other hand criticizing their use of the cheap crutch of emotional hysteria in lieu of argument.

Sure, but we have liberals on the other end doing the exact same thing.

Tu quoque fallacy dismissed. What else?

More notably people like Al Sharpton. And so, when we resort to attacking the person instead of their views, as you have done with both Limbaugh and Coulter, we have conflict of interest here. Why not address the same behavior in your party?

My "party"? When did I acquire a "party"? When did I even start believing in parties? Link?
Have you been reading Pothead's posts again?
The last party I was a member of, I had no choice because it was my birthday.

Al Sharpton? Seriously, as much as I've mocked that clown? You're flailing in the wind here. Again-- link to what this has to do with me?

I do confess I have failed to come up with a suitably mocking appellation for Sharpton --- again, open to suggestions. I'm surely not above stealing good ideas. But "Lush Rimjob" is my own creation, and I'm proud of it. It's always satisfying to find a way to award what such a figure has rightfully earned.

I can list a slew of examples of liberals employing argumentum ad passiones, namely in the race debate, gay rights, religion, women's rights and etc, and other forms of less than effectual arguments. They simply label dissent as one of four things: hateful, bigoted, racist or misogynistic. These are nothing but emotional crutches as well, used in lieu of an actual argument. They also employ a tactic of ad hominem known as guilt by association. Similar if not identical to Alinskyist tactics of shaming and ridiculing the opposition. Throw a bit of McCarthyism in there to boot. By no means is this a definitive list of left wing debate tactics.

There's no question that employment of fallacies has zero to do with political bent. I've been making that point to the usual deaf ears a lot lately as the blind among us continue to quote a post and declare "here we see the hate of the left/right" or "the fundamental ignorance of Liberals". On that we agree. But what you're doing in this paragraph is another Tu Quoque fallacy (or to be fair, continuing the same one).

Argument to Emotion certainly is a common fallacy, as is Guilt by Association, the whole Jeremiah Wright rhetoric now serving as the classic go-to example. But ad hominem applies when it's foisted upon one's opponent in the discussion. We are not debating against Limblob or Coulter here, but about them -- they are in this instance the topic, not the adversary. As the topic, and as public figures, they are fair game.

 

[Papageorgio]

But if a liberal drug addict, obese, drunk, drug smuggler had tried to make himself the hero, we'd never hear the end of it.

He can posture and jiggle all he wants but he is not worthy to call himself Rush Revere.

Really, that's just trashy and exactly what we have all come to expect from him.

Let him write all the books he wants but he is no hero.

I don't think anyone said he was a hero, he got an award for the children's book he wrote. You are also pissed off because being the intolerant ***** that you are, you hate people the have a different belief system being successful.

Love you tolerant left nuts.