In the Dittohead tradition, an other "Limbistic phrase&

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-06-03 06:11pm

The other day, on Hannity and Colms, I heared a right wing columnist, use a phrase, like "feminazi," that I think is destined to resonate.

He refered to Amnesty International, as "Am Nasty, international."

To me, this ranks up there with "Gorbasm," (the warm tingly feeling you get when M. Gorbachov speaks. Dated) feminazi, and "ditto," as phrases that stick in your mind.

Whatever you think of the organisation itself, Am nasty international is a great turn of the phrase.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-06-03 06:15pm

PS, although I think Rush is funny, and good at his job, I don't agree much on the details with him. Admiration of his skill doesn't equate to agreement.

Can a moderator change the "&" sign in the topic tittle to " and deleat this sentance?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-03 06:20pm

Rush Limbaugh is extremely good at what he does, even if he is practically a mouthpiece for the Bush administration these days.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-06-04 12:27am

Durran Korr wrote:Rush Limbaugh is extremely good at what he does, even if he is practically a mouthpiece for the Bush administration these days.

Yes, he's very good at being popular entertainment. If one believes that Rush Limbaugh is a serious source of political news and commentary, then they've got problems.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 09:37am

That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-06-04 10:04am

theski wrote:That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.

Did they give up on Al Franken already? <chuckle> Al Franken

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-04 10:17am

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: If one believes that Rush Limbaugh is a serious source of political news and commentary, then they've got problems.

Sean Hannity definitely has problems then- pompous blathering cocksucker that he is

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 10:25am

theski wrote:That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.

Being the party of the intellectual has it's difficulties when the most popular format for commentary is anti-intellectual.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 10:36am

Pablo wrote:

Being the party of the intellectual has it's difficulties when the most popular format for commentary is anti-intellectual.

So that would be more leftist elitist bullshit..

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 10:59am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
theski wrote:That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.
Did they give up on Al Franken already? <chuckle> Al Franken

Franken would reduce the likes of O'Rouke to a quivering pile of dogshit

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 11:03am

Hamel wrote:

Franken would reduce the likes of O'Rouke to a quivering pile of dogshit

I'll take that bet.. but it will never happen because Franken can't even get on the radio>>

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 11:14am

theski wrote:I'll take that bet.. but it will never happen because Franken can't even get on the radio>>

It's next to impossible to get a big-time liberal on radio~ the station owners and corporate backers just won't have it.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 11:17am

Damm capitalists giving the majority what they want.. Gee I guess the system works..

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 11:43am

theski wrote:Damm capitalists giving the majority what they want.. Gee I guess the system works..

No, they're giving THEMSELVES what they want. They're telling the public what they want them to hear.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 12:24pm

Hamel wrote:

No, they're giving THEMSELVES what they want. They're telling the public what they want them to hear

Wrong.. If people didn't listen then no advertising no advertising no show.. The numbers of listeners doesn't lie..

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-06-04 12:33pm

You just keep telling yourself that.

Back when I listened to talk radio, the station played Rush and then had Alan Colmes on afterwards. Listening to Limbaugh was entertaining if nothing else and you could occasionally find a nugget of truth in the mountain of bullshit and exaggeration.

Colmes's show didn't even begin to compare. He had what I call 'O'Reilly Syndrome'. That's where the host constantly interrupts people with new questions before they can even start to answer the first one.

Never mind that he wasn't as entertaining as Rush. He lied as much, but that's nothing to be proud of.

In short, Colmes's show sucked both because it wasn't entertaining nor was it serious political discussion. Rush wasn't serious political discussion either, but he knew how to put on an entertaining show.

Jim Hightower's program was a decent liberal hosted show, but ABC failed to promote it properly.

theski wrote:

Pablo wrote: Quote:
Being the party of the intellectual has it's difficulties when the most popular format for commentary is anti-intellectual.

So that would be more leftist elitist bullshit..

Elitist bullshit is precisely why most liberal talk radio hosts suck ass. Learn from Limbaugh and don't talk down to your audience and you might win fans. Hightower came across as a decent guy. Colmes came across as a smartass who was trying to impress his girlfriend in a putdown match.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-06-04 12:40pm

Hamel wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
theski wrote:That is why the DEMs want a Rush of their own... ain't going to happen.
Did they give up on Al Franken already? <chuckle> Al Franken
Franken would reduce the likes of O'Rouke to a quivering pile of dogshit

O'Reilly perhaps, but not O'Rourke.
Franken isn't really all that good, but anyone can beat up on O'Reilly when he doesn't control the show because O'Reilly isn't a very good debater.

PJ was doing superb political humor and commentary when Franken was still a two-bit would be comedian making the cheap club circuit.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-04 12:47pm

Glocksman wrote: Franken isn't really all that good, but anyone can beat up on O'Reilly when he doesn't control the show because O'Reilly isn't a very good debater.

I'd agree with that, considering the essence of O'Reilly's rebuttals start with "oh" and end with "come on"

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-06-04 02:56pm

Hamel wrote:
theski wrote:Damm capitalists giving the majority what they want.. Gee I guess the system works..
No, they're giving THEMSELVES what they want. They're telling the public what they want them to hear.

Errm, no. Shows filled with right-wing conservative ranting seem to be quite popular in the United States. You have radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who manages to capture an audience of at least 20 million listeners spread out among a number of lucrative advertising markets. You can't ram something down the consuming public's throat unless they open wide and say 'shovel it in!'

That's why you get a lot of 'right-wing' radio these days. It's in demand, people want to hear it. It's not there because some giant amorphous blob of media mega-corporations is shoving it down people's throats. They only do that with pop-music and we've all seen what happened there!

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 03:55pm

theski wrote:Pablo wrote:
Being the party of the intellectual has it's difficulties when the most popular format for commentary is anti-intellectual.

So that would be more leftist elitist bullshit..

Name me a main-stream conservative who is also an intellectual.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-04 04:25pm

How about William F Buckley and Bill Kristol

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-04 04:48pm

theski wrote:How about William F Buckley and Bill Kristol

William F. Buckley is just a smart man who couches his editorials in intellectual language. He falls prey to the traditional traps of dealing solely in black and white. Shades of gray are the trademark of philosophy. There's also some of his opinions, like Onward Christian Missionaries, which are rather stupid. How to moderate Islam? By making strenuous attempts to sieze it's people for Christianity and mocking its holy texts.

Bill Kristol is probably the best person you could have named, though its worth noting that he started his career on the left.

To avoid a misunderstanding here: When I said that the Democrats were the party of the intellectual, I didn't mean the party of the smart person. Intellectuals are a specific subsection of the educated population at large. It's not necessarily good either (witness the far-left citadels of the university campuses, which are intellectualist but produce nothing of note and tend to evaporate after graduation). And they are very often elitist and incapable of understanding the common person. That's why the Right wing has been ascendent for some 20 years now, because Intellectualism has been the foundation of the Democratic party since the 60s; it's a foundation that lacks flexibility and mass appeal.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-04 04:57pm

Listen, Hamel, if you want to see how well left wing talk radio does with people, listen to pretentious elitist assholes on NP fucking R. There's a reason left wing talk radio doesn't succeed and it's because no one wants to hear it.

And your claim that the big bad corporations are just forcing left-wing personalities off talk radio is bullshit. If corporations didn't want to spread left-wing viewpoints, no one would be printing and selling books by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (and for quite a hefty price, too - it's ironic that a hardcore anti-capitalist like Chomsky has no problem charging college kids up the wazoo for his books. I guess there's good money to be made in anti-capitalism.). Corporations are interested in catering to consumer demand, and if there was a demand for left-wing talk radio, we've have it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-04 05:04pm

Listen, Hamel, if you want to see how well left wing talk radio does with people, listen to pretentious elitist assholes on NP fucking R. There's a reason left wing talk radio doesn't succeed and it's because no one wants to hear it.

Mmm. Quick question. My father claims that NPR is not really left-centric. How would you go about rebutting this, if it is infact untrue? I'm not really knowledable about radio-politics.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-04 05:09pm

Durran Korr wrote:Listen, Hamel, if you want to see how well left wing talk radio does with people, listen to pretentious elitist assholes on NP fucking R. There's a reason left wing talk radio doesn't succeed and it's because no one wants to hear it.

Elitest, elitest, elitest. If you want to hear radio personalities and the like talking down to people, tune in to any rightwing radio station. The holier-than-thou and racist Bill Cunningham, the smug Sean Hannity, "wetbacks" Bill O' Reilly, shock-jock libertarian Howard Stern. All either "elitest" or assholes that get a rise out of being, well, assholes!

And your claim that the big bad corporations are just forcing left-wing personalities off talk radio is bullshit. If corporations didn't want to spread left-wing viewpoints, no one would be printing and selling books by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky

So, to prove that liberals aren't being blackballed from radio, you bring up Chomsky's successful books? Huh?

(and for quite a hefty price, too - it's ironic that a hardcore anti-capitalist like Chomsky has no problem charging college kids up the wazoo for his books. I guess there's good money to be made in anti-capitalism.).

Capitalists are the only ones that should be making money now? You learn something new everyday.

Corporations are interested in catering to consumer demand, and if there was a demand for left-wing talk radio, we've have it.

They're also interested in hiring stooges that spread propaganda that suits their interests. Limbaugh isn't a self-made man, he was propped up by millions of dollars and advertising from ABC and other corporate entities. Furthermore, by employing the 'it's in demand' excuse, you throw away any bullshit claims of a liberal media. Similar crap is happening to the TV networks, too.