What if?

[Zoom-boing]

BBD, you didn't really think folks from the left would actually answer this, did you? This type of question has been posed here before and the answers are always the same. . . those guys tell the truth? Yeah, right blah, blah, blah. They simply cannot get beyond bashing the messenger. Even if you presented the question as 'suppose this information was coming from Diane Sawyer . . . what would your reaction be then', they'd still duck and dodge and say 'well, she'd never say that . . . .'

ETA: note the responses so far

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

I'd say we might've taken them more seriously if it weren't for their antics and hypocrisy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

What if Hell froze over and everything Michael Moore, Sunni Man, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turned out to be true?

 

[The Rabbi]

But what if they were telling the truth and laying out the real facts. Just for the sake of conversation, what would you say then?

I often listen to Rush Limbaugh. When has he not told the truth? What fact has he mentioned that is demonstrably false?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is how they interpret the facts. Thus Nancy Pelosi can crow that healthcare passed the House on a bipartisan vote because she had Republicans voting for it (OK, one). That isn't technically untrue, but it is a gross distortion and no one in his right mind would describe the House vote as bipartisan.
I assume that's how liberals view Rush, assuming they bother to take him seriously at all. The facts he mentions are true but they feel his presentation is. biased and unrepresentative of reality.

You can't be serious. Rush Limbaugh is all about universal premises. All Liberals are ... (fill in the blank); All Democrats are ... (fill in the blank); All non lassie faire capitalist are Communists (or socialists, marxists, radicals, nazi's, etc.); Women who demand equal rights are 'fema-nazi's'. Limbaugh's entire show is about keeping fear and hate alive; and so are the shows of Hannity, Savage, and Beck.
Histories, biographies and other factual and annotated sources of data do not generally stir the emotions, the shows noted above almost always do, and that is their intent. The former are intended to stir the brain, lay the foundation for critical examination of who, what, when, where, why and how; the latter answer these questions with a preconcieved conclusion that is ideologically pure.

Have you ever actually listened to the show? Because your response suggests the answer is no.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I won't go that far.

I have faith in our institutions. And I think things are working the way they were intended. Stupid is slowed down to a crawl, and then stopped before it goes anywhere. Those who want stupid are pissed, but that is the genius of Madison and Hamilton and the rest of them.

Alice? Alice, wake up...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

That would be impossible. A person who is a member of the church of Liberalism would consider that blasphemy and reject it.

What are the tenets of the "Church of Liberalsim"?

I hope they are less hypocritical than those of, say, members of many Christian sects. For example: Thou shall not kill, except it's ok for capital punishment, murder of abortion doctors, and even non-combatants in a time of war.

And indigenous populations who refuse to convert to Christianity, submit to colonialism, and work inthe factories....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

You propose an impossible scenario. Because the truth takes a backseat to "shoot the messenger" with most lefties.

It matters to them much less what the truth is, than in who is delivering it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No use in me even wasting my time Imagining this fairy tail of "Rush telling nothing but the truth".

You're much too young to already have such a closed mind.

Better be careful, you're already well on the way to giving yourself away... A 40-ish pretending to be 15.... (But who's been on message boards long enough to know about hidden messages?)

 

[MarcATL]

I often listen to Rush Limbaugh. When has he not told the truth? What fact has he mentioned that is demonstrably false?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is how they interpret the facts. Thus Nancy Pelosi can crow that healthcare passed the House on a bipartisan vote because she had Republicans voting for it (OK, one). That isn't technically untrue, but it is a gross distortion and no one in his right mind would describe the House vote as bipartisan.
I assume that's how liberals view Rush, assuming they bother to take him seriously at all. The facts he mentions are true but they feel his presentation is biased and unrepresentative of reality.

You have really gone off the deep end Rabbi.

One recent blatant lie was when Rushbo claimed that Sarah Palin's new book 'Going Rouge' was the best book on policy he's ever read.

Seriously...?!?? Are you EFFING KIDDING ME!??!?!?

*SMH*
.. ..

 

[slackjawed]

The biggest reason that there is no real debate, just attacks on the people you mentioned is because of the 'community organizer' and mentor to Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinksy.
Here are his "rules for radicals" that the progressives in both miserable parties have studied and have been using to further their agenda.

7. Tactics

"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)



That part that I put in bold is the exact point that many on the left and some on the right use instead of valid debate and arguments. Those that follow this line of thinking believe that the end justifies the means, and that ridicule of the opposing opinion is valid argument. This set of rules advocates personal attacks and villifying of opposite opinions will win debates by default. They would rather engage in distraction from the debate at hand by picking a target(those that disagree), freezing it (picking out some minor, even unrelated point and continuing to hammer the opposition on that point alone) and polorizing it ( making the debate a 2 sided issue of us vs them or good vs evil)
In other words, the polorization comes down to this; If (insert name of opposition) is wrong about (insert favorite issue here) then they are bad and wrong about everything.
It's too difficult for many to

 

[slackjawed]

I often listen to Rush Limbaugh. When has he not told the truth? What fact has he mentioned that is demonstrably false?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is how they interpret the facts. Thus Nancy Pelosi can crow that healthcare passed the House on a bipartisan vote because she had Republicans voting for it (OK, one). That isn't technically untrue, but it is a gross distortion and no one in his right mind would describe the House vote as bipartisan.
I assume that's how liberals view Rush, assuming they bother to take him seriously at all. The facts he mentions are true but they feel his presentation is biased and unrepresentative of reality.

You have really gone off the deep end Rabbi.

One recent blatant lie was when Rushbo claimed that Sarah Palin's new book 'Going Rouge' was the best book on policy he's ever read.

Seriously...?!?? Are you EFFING KIDDING ME!??!?!?

*SMH*
.. ..

You disagree with his opinion that her book was the best on policy he ever read. That is as much your right as it is his to express his opinion.
I don't listen to rush, but I have heard him several times. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he said this during a 'commercial". He plugs everything on his show, after all he is a PERFORMER and must answer to his sponsors. If his sponsors tell him to sell books, he sells books, and says what he needs to to do so.

 

[xsited1]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

That would be impossible. A person who is a member of the church of Liberalism would consider that blasphemy and reject it.

Hey boy, the church of liberalism just kicked your collective Conservative asses in the last election, and we will get the beginnings of a real Health Care System this year

Isn't it funny how you tried to insult me, yet I'm not a conservative so your insult means nothing?

 

[xsited1]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

That would be impossible. A person who is a member of the church of Liberalism would consider that blasphemy and reject it.

What are the tenets of the "Church of Liberalsim"?

...

I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan, but I agree with most of what she said here:

Coulter argues that liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, yet bears all the attributes of a religion itself.[2] Coulter argues that the tenets of the liberal "church" are:

Creation myths (theory of evolution)
Sacraments - Coulter compares abortion to "virgin sacrifice"[3]
Holy Writ (Roe v. Wade)
Martyrs (from Alger Hiss to Mumia Abu Jamal)
Clergy (public school teachers)
Churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
Doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokespeople from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
Cosmology (Big Bang, in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

That would be impossible. A person who is a member of the church of Liberalism would consider that blasphemy and reject it.

What are the tenets of the "Church of Liberalsim"?

...

I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan, but I agree with most of what she said here:

Coulter argues that liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, yet bears all the attributes of a religion itself.[2] Coulter argues that the tenets of the liberal "church" are:

Creation myths (theory of evolution)
Sacraments - Coulter compares abortion to "virgin sacrifice"[3]
Holy Writ (Roe v. Wade)
Martyrs (from Alger Hiss to Mumia Abu Jamal)
Clergy (public school teachers)
Churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
Doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokespeople from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
Cosmology (Big Bang, in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why that horse faced beeatch stole my idea. I have been speaking of the con religion for years.

Cons have no origional ideas I guess.

 

[xsited1]

What are the tenets of the "Church of Liberalsim"?

...

I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan, but I agree with most of what she said here:

Coulter argues that liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, yet bears all the attributes of a religion itself.[2] Coulter argues that the tenets of the liberal "church" are:

Creation myths (theory of evolution)
Sacraments - Coulter compares abortion to "virgin sacrifice"[3]
Holy Writ (Roe v. Wade)
Martyrs (from Alger Hiss to Mumia Abu Jamal)
Clergy (public school teachers)
Churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
Doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokespeople from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
Cosmology (Big Bang, in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why that horse faced beeatch stole my idea. I have been speaking of the con religion for years.

Cons have no origional ideas I guess.

They both have their religions. So I take it you're a member of the Blue Team?

 

[MarcATL]

You disagree with his opinion that her book was the best on policy he ever read. That is as much your right as it is his to express his opinion.
I don't listen to rush, but I have heard him several times. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he said this during a 'commercial". He plugs everything on his show, after all he is a PERFORMER and must answer to his sponsors. If his sponsors tell him to sell books, he sells books, and says what he needs to to do so.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that an allegedly educated, well-read, intelligent, political talk show host such as Rush Limbaugh has found THE best book on policy in Sarah Palin's picture book!?!?!

WoW!!

On top of that, are you saying that you promote outright LIES just to sell a book and/or placate the sponsors?

Considering you are a Right-Winger, I can understand why you hold that position.

 

[txlonghorn]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

those types will never tell the full truth.


Just a pipe dream.

Also since their "truths" differ so greatly it is impossible that they are all telling the truth.

But what if they were telling the truth and laying out the real facts. Just for the sake of conversation, what would you say then?

You're wasting your time...they can't allow themselves to give the hated right any possible credit, theoretical or otherwise.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan, but I agree with most of what she said here:



Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why that horse faced beeatch stole my idea. I have been speaking of the con religion for years.

Cons have no origional ideas I guess.

They both have their religions. So I take it you're a member of the Blue Team?

I belong to no team. I am a team of one.
Although I do agree with some of their concepts and I also agree with many concepts of true fiscal conservatism.

I realized during the Reagan years that conservatism was a faith based religion. Thie has been reinforced over the years.
Keep trying tax cuts have faith that they will work this time...

 

[MarcATL]

If ALL of these goons were telling the absolute truth, America would actually be a third world country in the throws of abject poverty and under the rule of a tyrannous despot.

We'd all be doomed.

I think I'm beginning to understand why the average RWer is such a nutjob...YIKES!!!

 

[xsited1]

Why that horse faced beeatch stole my idea. I have been speaking of the con religion for years.

Cons have no origional ideas I guess.

They both have their religions. So I take it you're a member of the Blue Team?

I belong to no team. I am a team of one.
Although I do agree with some of their concepts and I also agree with many concepts of true fiscal conservatism.

I realized during the Reagan years that conservatism was a faith based religion. Thie has been reinforced over the years.
Keep trying tax cuts have faith that they will work this time...

That's good to hear. So did Obama get your vote in 2008?