Climate Change Discussion
- Thread starter hazmat
- Start date
- Views: 27469
- Status
tallyho8
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,551
- Tractor
- Kubota L4400, Kubota ZD326
Raddad said:
I think he is happy. Happy and tired. Now he would probably be unhappy if everyone kept their dogs locked up so he couldn't get a little target practice now and then.
turbo36
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,391
- Location
- Michigan
- Tractor
- JD X739 AWS (3), 2016 Toolcat, JD 2038R
MikePA said:
I can give you plenty of specifics but it still wouldn't matter to you because of your bias for Rush is the equal and opposite of my bias against him so it's just a waste of time arguing specifics isn't it?
N80
Super Member
I listen to Rush for about 8 minutes during my commute each day. Rush does pull a lot of stunts to get the media riled up, but its hardly a matter of getting caught in a lie. He sets them up and they fall for it. Its part of what Rush does. It makes the general media pretty mad and of course, they say he's lying. They hate falling for his stuff.
But the idea that Rush is fair and impartial is just silly. He doesn't claim to be, doesn't want to be and never misrepresents himself as a neutral party. He is up front with his biases, opinions and pre-conceived notions.
Rush does not believe in current global warming theories and neither do I, but admittedly, Rush's grasp of the intricacys of the debate seems to be quite poor, at least on the air. His approach to the debate is very simplistic, and some of it down right wrong.
I'm not a Rush fan. My 8 minutes a day are about as much as I can stand. But despite all the bombast and show, Rush often brings a very yeoman common sense to a lot of political issues and is right, at least theorietically, on a great many issues.
But the idea that Rush is fair and impartial is just silly. He doesn't claim to be, doesn't want to be and never misrepresents himself as a neutral party. He is up front with his biases, opinions and pre-conceived notions.
Rush does not believe in current global warming theories and neither do I, but admittedly, Rush's grasp of the intricacys of the debate seems to be quite poor, at least on the air. His approach to the debate is very simplistic, and some of it down right wrong.
I'm not a Rush fan. My 8 minutes a day are about as much as I can stand. But despite all the bombast and show, Rush often brings a very yeoman common sense to a lot of political issues and is right, at least theorietically, on a great many issues.
dmccarty
Super Star Member
turbo36 said:
Well, no, I dont think Rush is a paradox. I think the paradox is that the so called Journalist say that they are unbiased yet they are not in any way shape or form. Again, I have heard Rush ONCE around 1990 but I sure don't consider him a journalist. He is a talking head putting across his view point. I put him in the same boat as Oprah, Dr Phil, Donohue, etc. At least he says just Kidding which is more than most Journalist do.
On the other hand, Journalists run around with biased opinions that poison what they put out as Truth. That is a parodox.
And the media is part of this debate. Does anyone doubt which side of the Global Warming debate Journalist will support? Does this show up in their reporting? Does this then influence people whose only/main source of news is the main stream media?
Later,
Dan
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
Speaking of Oprah. Did she ever apologize or correct her reporting on Katirna? She made a big deal about all the murders and mayhem going on inside the stadium, but when we all found out that none of that had happened and was a total lie, she just stoped reporting it.
That is true of all the media. They will report just about anythign as being true, but when it comes out that they were wrong, they stop reporting it.
I don't even know how to give examples without going political, but time and time again they have accused the President of things only to have there accusations proven wrong. When that happens, they just stop reporting it.
Valery Plame is the best example. She and her husband blamed the administration of blowing her CIA cover, but now we know it wasn't the administration, and in fact a member of the oposite party, Richard Armatage. Anybody hear anything else about how terrible it is that her identy was revealed any more? It's a dead issue. One party is blamed for it and it's a national issue, then we learn the truth and it's not even news anymore.
There are so many examples of this that it's probably why so many people have quit watching the news or reading the papers. There is only one news station that is growing in viewership. The rest are declining. Some drastically.
Oh Yeah, I listen to Rush all the time. He has a fun way of making fun of what people say and also replaying clips of them saying the oposite thing. Sometimes as recently as a few months ago!!! He has never said he's a journalist and is completely honest is which side he suports. I totally disagree with him on NAFTA and still do. But his political remarks and insight are very good and to the point. He just doesn't know a good TV show from a bad one and is terrible at making a joke.
Eddie
That is true of all the media. They will report just about anythign as being true, but when it comes out that they were wrong, they stop reporting it.
I don't even know how to give examples without going political, but time and time again they have accused the President of things only to have there accusations proven wrong. When that happens, they just stop reporting it.
Valery Plame is the best example. She and her husband blamed the administration of blowing her CIA cover, but now we know it wasn't the administration, and in fact a member of the oposite party, Richard Armatage. Anybody hear anything else about how terrible it is that her identy was revealed any more? It's a dead issue. One party is blamed for it and it's a national issue, then we learn the truth and it's not even news anymore.
There are so many examples of this that it's probably why so many people have quit watching the news or reading the papers. There is only one news station that is growing in viewership. The rest are declining. Some drastically.
Oh Yeah, I listen to Rush all the time. He has a fun way of making fun of what people say and also replaying clips of them saying the oposite thing. Sometimes as recently as a few months ago!!! He has never said he's a journalist and is completely honest is which side he suports. I totally disagree with him on NAFTA and still do. But his political remarks and insight are very good and to the point. He just doesn't know a good TV show from a bad one and is terrible at making a joke.
Eddie
turbo36
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,391
- Location
- Michigan
- Tractor
- JD X739 AWS (3), 2016 Toolcat, JD 2038R
dmccarty said:Well, no, I dont think Rush is a paradox. I think the paradox is that the so called Journalist say that they are unbiased yet they are not in any way shape or form. Again, I have heard Rush ONCE around 1990 but I sure don't consider him a journalist. He is a talking head putting across his view point. I put him in the same boat as Oprah, Dr Phil, Donohue, etc. At least he says just Kidding which is more than most Journalist do.
On the other hand, Journalists run around with biased opinions that poison what they put out as Truth. That is a parodox.
And the media is part of this debate. Does anyone doubt which side of the Global Warming debate Journalist will support? Does this show up in their reporting? Does this then influence people whose only/main source of news is the main stream media?
Later,
Dan
You think Rush doesn't present himself as a journalist?
"I am America's anchorman"
Here is the link.
Who's a Journalist? It Depends. - washingtonpost.com
- Status