Well, hello.........of the six articles, only one had anything to do with facts, the rest were his opinions.
You really kind of have this backwards. Limbaugh obviously has opinions like everyone else, and he has a forum where he can express them at will. HOWEVER, it is the liberals who chronically complain that Limbaugh plays loose with the facts, or in liberal parlance, "is a big fat idiot".
The reality is that Limbaugh SELDOM slips up. His analysis is cutting, I believe fairly honest, and most importantly -- I've yet to hear a liberal criticism of Limbaugh, other than on an ad hominem basis, that cannot be refuted.
And you are missing my point.......if Rush mainly is stating opinion, then its very difficult to find fault with him, or to catch him at a misrepresentation.....after all, we are all entitled to our opinions and they don't have to be based on fact. Of course, this approach may be by intent, and to that, I would have to say he's clever...he comes off smug and knowledgeable. But frankly, it doesn't take a genius to state one's opinion over and over again while dodging criticisms of slip ups or misrepresentation.
If you want to criticize the guy, I'd think it reasonable to suggest that you listen to his program for a week, then come back here and let everyone know what you found untrue, and to even argue those points you disagree with.
There is very little that's untrue because most of it is his own views. Right now, on his site, he claims that blacks get little help from Dems. I disagree.......many blacks were the beneficiaries of the Clinton economic expansion during the 90's. However, its very difficult to argue the point because the relationship between Clinton and blacks can not be drawn as a direct line like between A and B. In fact, the line is very indirect and its legitimacy can be questioned easily. And for the same reason, its difficult to disprove his claim; again because the causality is not direct.
Another article is about how Dems can't get over that they are wrong about Bush. Again, how can that be argued. Its not my take on the situation but how many Dems would you have to poll to disprove his point. And the whole subject is so subjective. In fact, there is little there there with which to argue because its Rush's opinion nothing more, nothing less.......and he certainly doesn't support his position with fact. If he did, it would be much easier to discredit him but again, he's clever. And for the record, I know many Dems/liberals, including myself, whose view of Bush has only worsened with time.
A fourth article talks about Gore's book sales and is mostly kitchen gossip and back stabbing. To me, its an example of fluff and silliness. What is the point of trying to discredit him........its stuff of a small mind.
And still a fourth article suggests that it would be stupid profiling food.....putting the country of origin on labels and then placing them on the food in question. While I agree with his conclusion, its not because of his cutting analysis.......there is none. He comes to his conclusion because it just doesn't make sense to him and I have to agree.........but who cares. Where is the substance? Where is the brilliant analysis? Where is the thoughtful introspection and thought provoking conclusions? There is none.
Like I said, if Rush is an example of the right's la créme a la créme, I am not impressed.
his article had turned into an accounting 101 class........very boring!
You can criticize the article as "boring", but it did a fair job of presenting the facts. Unfortunately, the FACTS about taxes and social security ARE pretty boring, and that's why the vast majority of people haven't a clue. I think his article was totally clear -- almost all taxes are paid by half the people.<
So what? That's the tax system deemed most appropriate for our society.
The subtext is, of course, that this is a grossly unfair arrangement and it would take a whole more "Bush Tax Cuts" to make it approach anything that a reasonable person could conclude is "fair".
Of course, the rich would say that this system is unfair. Its unbelievable to me.....you want people making 20k a year to pay the same proportion of taxes as the guy making 250k per year while simultaneously paying all their own expenses including health insurance. This can only be the position of a well fed, rich, elitist fat cat who's only experience of poverty is the size of the allowance provided him by his parents while at college. Roughing it was driving a car two or three years old, and having to double to save money.
Well, go for it but don't be surprised when our homeless population increases dramatically. Come to think of it wasn't that one of Reagan's more ridiculous solutions to our problems........he cut off aid to institutions and hospitals. The result was the release of thousands of patients, increasing our crime rate and doubling our homeless population almost over nite. Its why the Reps. have a hard time keeping the attention of the poor.......they think like very rich people who rarely see seen a callous except when they play polo.
There's reason for the term, noblesse oblige.....don't forget the fate of M. Antoinette. Its a lesson the rich can't or won't learn to their own regret. |
