@The Overlord, what the heck are you talking about...
I didn't say you couldn't talk about him, or had a valid reason. I simply said, he has the ability to keep people talking about him.
How the hell did you get this...
Now see you said:
"He has the ability to make some people so angry that they speak incoherently and babble about nothing, and therefore never actually get their own ideas out there, only angry rants about him..."
Now see some people could take as a slam, that people criticize him for no reason besides unthinking rabid hatred.
If I hate the concept of infotainment, then I'm babbling about nothing, I'm talking about something I think is important.
Now that may not have being your intention, but the paragraph can make people think that it conveys that intention.
out of what I said?????
Calm down TO, I'm only Fiscally Conservative, not Socially Conservative, there is no need to read a slam into everything I post.
Alright fine, no real offense was taken. I wasn't really angry.
I love the way that Rush makes people lazy and ignorant, not the individuals themselves.
He's an enabler.
Say what you want but when I've listened to him - which has never been regularly - he's offered a clear point of view. Some of it well thought and insightful, some of it complete balderdash. My big gripe with him is his inability to give credit, when due, to any non-republican. It would undermine his credibility as a a journalist - if he was or if he had any start with, which he isn't and he didn't. But to deny he can layout a clear point of view, even if it isn't one you necessarily agree with in all or part, is kinda silly.
I could care less whether he has a clear point or not and the fact he is a complete hypocrite undermines any clear vision he may have.
Frankly he reduces complex issues to simplified talking points, that's why I don't like him. If he was well spoken person who delivered thought criticism of Obama, I wouldn't agree with him, but I could respect him.
In the list of people hurting discourse in this country, Rush is far from the top.
I mean you have a large section of the Democratic Party who try to hide socialism by using the word "progressive" and you have institutions that don't explain what "Capitalism is" what a "Free Market" is and what sort of government our Founding Fathers wanted.
You have respected liberals trying to call a "Public Option" a "Free Market" solution (due to the public option competing with private insurance).
I remember Alan Colmes actually tried to make that argument on the Factor the other night and Bill didn't even bat an eye at that comment. I lost every ounce of respect I had for Bill that night.
I don't see how just saying the Democrats are socialists raises the level of public discourse.
Just saying the Dems are socialists is like saying the GOP are racists, all it does is promote irrational paranoia, not civil debate.
Plus considering actually socialists don't think the Dems are socialist, how are they socialists? If Obama is a socialist, why do actual socialists criticize him and seem to get offended when someone calls Obama a socialist? Do you know more about socialism then socialists?
Socialists would have never approved of the bail outs, that against the ethos of socialism. So saying Obama is a socialist ignores the actual ethos of socialist. Socialists don't like him, because he does things that go against the ethos of socialist. The bail outs simply go against the ethos of socialist, just because something is big government doesn't make it socialist.
