Maxprop wrote:
Your point of view.

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

... I think you babble like a liberal whacko. My point of
view.

That's because your point of view is ignorant and incomplete. You have
been schooled to accuse people who disagree with you as liberals, as
though that were an insult rather than a rather plain descriptor.


... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.

.... He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves.

In that case, why was it that he portrayed welfare recipients as black?

... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?


I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?


I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.


He tried.

Oh, really? Any references?

I don't recall which Reagan cabinet member coined the term "voodoo
economics, but Bush 41 also criticized it in principle. Depite that, it's
generally thought of as a conservative appeal, certainly not that of
liberals.

It's thought of as nonsense by people with any education in economic
prinicples. Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief?

No, conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the marketplace.



I'm a fan of both, and have four of Buckley's books, albeit two are novels.
And I find it particularly interesting that both Heinlein's and Buckley's
views coincide about 80% of the time with those "sleazy demagogues" you so
despise.

Really? Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)? Is Buckley in
favor of starting wars of aggression and carelessly slaughtering anybody
& everybody in the other country (Hannity)? In all of Heinlein's books,
did he ever express approval of a regime that tortured it's critics
(Savage)?




I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views

No, by and large they are raging hypocrits and liars.


... are generally non-racist,

That's why Limbaugh stated just a few days ago that blacks are less
intelligent, and should stick to sports & music.


.... and do
their best to dispel liberal myths.

Which is why they simply make up stuff.

... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



.... Your venom toward them is same typical liberal
brand of dogma expressed by those who've never heard their programs, but
adopt the knee-jerk mindset of their detractors.

Since you're wrong about everything else so far, it won't surprise
anybody to learn that this is also incorrect. But one of the first rules
of being a caveman fascist whacko is the you must arrogantly insist that
everybody else is wrong, no matter how obvious the facts against you.

DSK

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:44:42 -0400, DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:


... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.

My condolences. If you get desperate, you might try large numbers of
OxyContin, Rush's drug of choice. They are said to kill pain and cause
deafness

DSK wrote:
.... Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



felton wrote:
My condolences.

Oh, it's not as bad as some of the music I'm forced to endure. Actually
Rush can be kind of funny once in a while. But he whines a lot... I
think of him as the Britney Spears of choice for fat angry underemployed
white men.

... If you get desperate, you might try large numbers of
OxyContin, Rush's drug of choice. They are said to kill pain and cause
deafness

Actually I have some sympathy for his drug problem, prescription
painkillers can run away with you. That doesn't excuse his blatant
self-serving hypocrisy though.

Rush and his ilk have almost destroyed conservative politics in this
country. They have replaced conservative ideals with an endless parade
of illogic and wishful thinking, and replaced actual campaigning with
character assassination. Their popularity proves Barnum's Law: "It is
impossible to underestimate the stupidity and bad taste of the average
American."

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power might
have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt Gengrich...

DSK

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power
might have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt
Gengrich...

DSK

Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

--------------------------------

Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences,
Portrayal in Mainstream Media

A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of
the University of Pennsylvania under the direction of
Joseph N. Cappella, Joseph Turow and Kathleen Hall
Jamieson and funded by The Ford Foundation and the
Carnegie Corporation of New York

7 August 1996

THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

[snip]

Table 2. Four Political Talk Radio (PTR) Groups

Demographics by Percentage -- Political Talk Radio (PTR) Listeners

Demographic Non- Limbaugh Conservative Lib/Mod.
Listener Listener Listener Listener

Male 47.2 61 54 54.8
Female 52.8 39 46 45.2

Age 18-29 22.1 18.8 16.9 14.9
Age 30-49 44.4 43.0 49.3 53.6
Age 50-64 19.1 21.3 19.1 16.7
Age 65+ 14.4 16.9 14.7 14.9

high school 10.0 03.3 03.6 06.8
HS graduate 35.1 31.3 21.6 26.7
Some college 26.7 30.8 34.5 20.6
College grad 28.2 34.6 40.3 45.9

Income $20 K 25.7 14.3 12.9 18.7
Income $20-30 K 20.5 21.9 12.1 19.0
Income $30-50 K 26.0 24.5 30.6 23.0
Income $50 K 27.8 39.3 44.4 39.3

White 77.5 89.2 83.5 79.2
Non-White 22.5 10.8 16.5 20.8

Conservative 32.4 70.0 47.8 19.5
Moderate 44.2 21.4 34.1 51.1
Liberal 23.3 08.6 18.1 29.4
Republican 26.3 61.4 44.8 17.8
Independent 38.1 24.8 29.1 39.0
Democrat 35.6 13.8 26.1 43.1


Political Knowledge and Participation

2. Regular political talk radio listeners are more likely than
non-listeners to consume all types of news media (excepting tv
news), to be more knowledgeable about politics and social issues,
and to be involved in political activities. This is true regardless
of the ideology of the hosts of the programs to which they listen.
In other words, Limbaugh’s audience is no more or less knowledgeable
or active than the audience for moderate/liberal or conservative
talk radio. However listeners to Conservative talk radio are more
likely to vote than are listeners to Limbaugh or Liberal/Moderate
political talk radio.

KNOWLEDGE

Survey respondents were asked a variety of questions about their
knowledge of political and social issues. They were asked about how
much they felt they knew about various topics in the news (e.g."How
much do you feel you know about the debate in Washington about the
budget?"). They were also asked factual questions about civics (e.g.
the percentage of the House and Senate required to override a
presidential veto), general information (e.g., the percentage of
welfare mothers receiving benefits for more than 3 years), and
current information in the news (e.g. the number of troops in Bosnia
who are members of the U.S. armed forces).

Two conclusions obtain. First, regular listeners of PTR have higher
levels of knowledge and correctly think they have higher levels of
knowledge than non-listeners. Second, regular listeners of Rush
Limbaugh, Conservative, and Liberal/Moderate PTR are no different
from one another in actual or reported knowledge. This is true of
civics knowledge, general factual knowledge about social and
political issues, and factual knowledge about things in the news.
The claims are based on knowledge and felt knowledge scores after
they are corrected for a variety of controls including education,
sex, gender, age, main stream media exposure, and ideology.

The audience of PTR may bring some special characteristics with it
to the medium which we are unable to measure. Or the content of PTR
may add to or facilitate the audience’s store of knowledge. What is
clear is that for the questions we used, no one audience of PTR --
Limbaugh’s or others -- is different in social or political
knowledge, from the other listeners.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

In previous surveys, PTR listeners have been shown to have higher
levels of political participation than others. Some hosts may
encourage their listeners to oppose or support specific issues. For
example, our content analysis of Limbaugh’s show suggested that a
substantial proportion of his time is spent on personal and
political efficacy.

Respondents were asked about their participation in political
affairs including contacting public officials, contributing money,
contacting newspapers or TV stations, and so on. Other forms of
participation include a general question on following what’s going
on in public affairs and government and reported voting frequency.

Regular listeners of PTR report higher levels of political
participation, closer following of politics and government, and
higher levels of voting than those who do not listen regularly.
These differences remain after a variety of controls for
demographic, party and ideological differences, and exposure to
other media. With one exception, which we will note in a moment,
those who listen regularly to Rush Limbaugh, Conservative, and
Liberal/Moderate PTR do not differ from one another in
participation, or the extent they follow "what’s going on in
government and public affairs."

The same findings (under the same set of controls) obtain on
measures of political efficacy ("people like me don’t have any say
...") and political meaninglessness ("there aren’t any important
differences between Republicans and Democrats ..."). Regular
listeners are higher in efficacy and lower in meaninglessness than
non-regular listeners (even after controls) indicating that they
believe that politics is important and they can influence government
and politicians. No differences were found among the three regular
listener groups.

One exception to this pattern which is not readily explainable is
that listeners to Conservative PTR report higher levels of voting
than any other group and this effect remains even after differences
due to audience characteristics and media exposure are removed.
Since there are no other differences in political participation,
knowledge, media use, or other obvious factors which would explain
these differences, we have an anomaly without an explanation.

As with knowledge questions, those who are regular listeners of PTR
have elevated levels of political involvement either because PTR
activates their involvement or because of some unknown
characteristics the audience brings with it to PTR. What can be said
is that the consumers of PTR are political activists.

An Metet wrote:
Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it. Limbaugh caters
to the lowest common denominator and spews so much blatant falsehood
(like the other day when he was whining about Alan Greenspan's record
with the Fed) that you'd have to be a retard, with a very short memory,
to believe half what he says.

At one point some years ago, Limbaugh described himself as 'an
entertainer, not a journalist' and said that he just made stuff up
because it was easier than doing research. He also said that most of his
audience were "morons"... that was his word, not mine. Since then I
guess he has made so much money that he guards his off-show comments
more carefully

...One exception to this pattern which is not readily explainable is
that listeners to Conservative PTR report higher levels of voting
than any other group and this effect remains even after differences
due to audience characteristics and media exposure are removed.
Since there are no other differences in political participation,
knowledge, media use, or other obvious factors which would explain
these differences, we have an anomaly without an explanation.

I can explain it easily. It is due the average Limbaugh listener's
pathologic rage against the Clintons. He pushes this button almost
daily. His listeners get all stoked with righteous indignation, then
they get out there and vote, dammit!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
An Metet wrote:
Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it......

I believe it was true back in 1966 when the White House was supplying him
with plenty of punch lines, but not now that Clintoon and his crowd of
comedians have been replaced by The Shrub and friends. What surprises me is
that no left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub
certainly provides lots of material.

What surprises me is
that no left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub
certainly provides lots of material.

The answer to that and not surprisingly why Libertarian radio attracts
listeners while their counter-culture equavalents do not is the same.
However your are wrong in saying their is no equivalent. The basis is simply
mindset. Radio require some mental acuity and ability to reason. The
equivalent to radio is TV and in some cases movies. TV requires no
attention span nor thinking ability. Nor in do movies (and I draw a
distinction between 'movies' and 'film.' The equivalent to Rush Limbaugh is
probably somebody like Jerry Springer, or the evening news provided by the
former 'major media.' Radio and it's equivalents invite discourse, debate,
the use of logic, facts and reasoning. TV, along with most movies are
propaganda efforts. The main purpose of which is to program those who
respond to 'emotion.' Two of the most recent and most successful
propaganda pieces though belong to the movie industry, not to television.
They are "Starship Troopers" and "Primary Colors." The former catered to the
idea that if you see the movie you don't have to read the book and the book
contains ideas supremely dangerous to the left wing mind set. So it's
purpose was to stop the spread of 'ideas.' Primary Colors was quite a
different piece of propaganda. It's purpose was to promote the notion that
no matter how immoral, untrustworthy, dastardly a person might be or for
that matter a 'statement' might be it's "OK" if they fully support the
accepted ideology. The phrase, vote for the lesser of two evils; i.e.
support evil if it supports the cause is an example. However in an open
debate the underlying premise of Primary Colors could not survive, while
the political and social philosophy espoused in Starship Troopers (the book)
would flourish.

M.

"Support a return to the two party system . . .vote Libertarian."

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

The problem with the left is that they can't combine their passion with
their logic. The things they believe most passionately are illogical.

It seems, leftwing arguments can't work without all the pretty (or
disgusting) images to distract the unwashed. Leftist dogma is conveyed
best in things like fast-cut Michael Moore movies.

Most of the conservative talk hosts (those that take callers) put their
critical callers up first. They like to debate and win their points.
It's fun and it makes for good radio. None of the lame liberal talk
shows that I've heard do that. They just preach to the choir. Boring.

DSK wrote in message ...
I can explain it easily. It is due the average Limbaugh listener's
pathologic rage against the Clintons. He pushes this button almost
daily. His listeners get all stoked with righteous indignation, then
they get out there and vote, dammit!

DSK

I agree 100% Doug, Rush is a asshole overweight pill taking retard.

But Im still going to vote for Bush.

Joe

Will you tell us why?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
I can explain it easily. It is due the average Limbaugh listener's
pathologic rage against the Clintons. He pushes this button almost
daily. His listeners get all stoked with righteous indignation, then
they get out there and vote, dammit!

DSK

I agree 100% Doug, Rush is a asshole overweight pill taking retard.

But Im still going to vote for Bush.

Joe