Slashdot Mirror
Rush Limbaugh Begs Steve Jobs For Bug Fixes
jlgolson writes "Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh complained on his radio program about some problems that he was having with his Mac: 'Mr. Jobs, please help me. I know we don't agree on anything ... But can you put me to somebody that can get this going, because I know it's gotta work for most people. What am I doing wrong?' Eventually he shared that he was running into actual problems with Time Machine and Back to My Mac. Can you fix them?"
'stuff that matters' ???
The only reason Steve Jobs co-founded Apple was so that he could eventually get even with assholes like Rush Limbaugh. These bugs were invented just for him.
I wouldn't mind helping the whiner . . . make them worse.
This isn't signficant from a technical perspective-- one off problems occur quite frequently.
What it is is a high visibility problem by someone with a huge soapbox to talk about them from. I'd be shocked if Apple's PR types didn't treat this one with kid gloves, and use it for the marketing opportunity that it has the potential of being...
Get a PC!
Just send me your root account information.
- You publicly apologizing to every liberal that you've ever met.
- then the moderates
- then the republicans you've disappointed over and over again.
- A personal apology to each member of the Clinton family (including pets and household staff)
OTOH, I'd like to thank Rush for his persistent trashing of the only Republican who doesn't make me barf (J. McCain). I'm convinced his "anti-endorsement" helped McCain's image in the eyes of moderate Republicans.As for his computer problems, Rush can go frick himself. Same with Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, et. al.
Time Machine works just fine with Mail - you can restore one message or a whole deleted mailbox if you like. It wouldn't work with Entourage or any other mail program with a single massive database, or with an IMAP server, both for obvious reasons ...
Rush, Here's how to fix your Mac. - Get off drugs - Shower - Learn how to be nice - Lose weight - Volunteer for NASA flights to Saturn
Oh, lord. A story that brings together the Mac-vs-PC debate and the Conservative-vs-Liberal fight.
It's the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups of Internet flame wars. I predict a global meltdown of the entire Net within a week.
But from a glance at the last name I, for just a brief second, saw the article title as
"Steve, what happening? Look, I've got some problems with my Mac here, it's being a bit of a bother... yeah... so if could you come in on Saturday to fix it, maybe even Sunday... that would be terrific... mkay?"
Bugs are a part of life in the software world -- they're annoying and painful, but like death and taxes, there's no way of avoiding their existence.
But what I don't get is why this guy gets to have a personal forum on Slashdot to solve his problems. The guy is a vicious hypocrite who makes his living inciting attacking people all day and getting his audience angry.
Instead of the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" this guy puts forth a daily radio show full of hate and anger 3-5 hours a day (I don't know, I don't listen to the show) and I have heard the show and he is often inaccurate but very capable at seeding his audience with misconceptions and anger.
Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.
That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.
Not that I really want to dignify your post with a response, but I'm gay and you straight people can keep that son of bitch!
Someone from "high up" at Apple corporate ("a West Coast guy", he said) called his office on the morning of Valentine's Day. Now they've got IT people working it out.
Helping you would be welfare. You want a handout? What do you think this is, soviet Russia? Its leftist pinko commies like him that are ruining America. They want something for nothing, and they want you to pay for it. Well let me tell you about this little thing called the free market. It means if you want something done, you have to pay for it. Its the American Way. And if you don't like it, go live with the commies in China.
Oh what, it isn't supposed to apply to him?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I hope he responds with something like, "I'll come right down and fix it as soon as you fix the problems with your show, namely all the hypocritical, baseless, or just plain incorrect statements."
I think the "newsworthiness" of this article is that Rush appealed to Apple on his show.
Okay, I don't really listen to your radio program Mr. Limbaugh, but from what I can tell it seems your a complete jackass. However, as a life long IT guy, I've always tried to help out a user even if they are a nut case.
1.) Screen Sharing - Use VNC. http://www.redstonesoftware.com/products/vine/server/vineosx/index.html. Its free, easy to use, and if someone whines about it being insecure - kick them, hard.
2.) Email backup with Time Machine - You failed to mention just what email program you are using, I fear you may be using Apple Mail. If so you have you have my condolences as Apple Email is not truly an email program, but some sort of psychological test program designed at driving its users insane. I suggest using thunderbird - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/. There are many add-on for backup email. Again its free and easy to use.
Somewhere along the line Apple got this reputation that ANY thing they make is solid gold and perfect in all ways. I can assure you this is very much not true. Hopefully this helps and lets you get back to your insane rantings.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
He can probably be helped... unless he's already installed the 10.5.2 update. Those of us that made that mistake are totally screwed.
If it's that bad... why are you still using it?
Maybe I am somewhat new here, but this place seems to be overrun with Republicans.
Yeah, there's plenty of moderate opinions (known in America as "the left"), but the amount of right-wing posts and moderation here seems a little strange. (election year?)
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
...to the call center in India!
After all, Rush is a dyed-in-the-wool new-age Republican (a.k.a. neocon), who believes corporations have a Right to make a buck, even if by doing so they make life harder for the people in the very same society those corporations shelter themselves in, right?
Let him experience first-hand the consequences of that view.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
So that's why everyone would think I'm gay if I get an apple! It's all by design!
Its the vi/emacs vs gimp/photoshop debate. I mean any retar .........oh, you were right ... carry on.
;)Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Exactly the type of solution I was imagining....
...then really have fun.
You could make it simpler, though -- give him a few scripts to run on each computer in his network, entitled "defect_patch_432553.sh".
"You may get a few warnings, and you'll need to enter your password to authorize the changes -- yes, that's pretty normal when you're applying a custom patch like this, since it needs to make some changes to the underlying operating system, which is protected. Ah, it's all done now? Excellent."
the most vapid post I have read in a long, long time on Slashdot.
And I just finished up a lengthy back and forth with a Ron Paul guy - so that's saying something.
No one denies that bugs are a part of life. No one denies that we all have experience with them. The article is noteworthy - and Slashdot assigns it primarily, and appropriately - to the "it's funny" tag because, well, it's funny to hear a national talk show host discuss not only bugs with software, but to discuss them quite specifically. It's also fairly rare to hear bugs in a fairly niche OS get national play like that. Bonus points for Limbaugh using a machine manufactured by a company of which Al Gore is a part. As a Mac user, I even find myself sympathizing with him.
So grow up and deal with it. Yes, we all deal with bugs, but they rarely get this exposure.
And then there's this gem:
Before the Rwandan massacres, they had similar radio programs pumping the audience full of hate and anger with deadly results.
That kind of behavior has made him a wealthy man, but I don't see why it should get him any love from Slashdot, or any priority over anyone else who has technical issues.
It's hard to imagine a more asinine allusion. Really, you can't honestly be trying to compare the two, can you? I mean, this is either one of the sickest pieces of political posturing or the most feeble-minded reasoning I have read in some time - and like I said, I've been talking with Ron Paul fans, so that's really saying something.
Are we really going to equate Rush Limbaugh to these people? Oh, I'm sure we'll all get to hear some nonsense about him "stoking the flames of war with Iraq" or whatever, and you'll do your best to provide a tenuous link between Limbaugh and ongoing U.S. military action, but really - when was the last time Limbaugh got on the radio and told anyone to grab a machete and go murder their neighbors of a different ethnic group next door - really, when? Or are you just spouting nonsense? You even further your claim by arguing that he is getting wealthy off of such comments. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know...) twice as many people listen to his show as there are in the entire population of Rwanda. Where's the uprising?
So, assuming you believe that Limbaugh can lead a bunch of hillbillies or whoever to load up and start gunning down their neighbors, what do you suggest? Since you feel free to make allusions, should I? Should I assume that you believe we should regulate political speech? Should we prevent people from being paid for political speech? Should we only allow the good, happy, cheerful thoughts to be put out over the airwaves, so as to avoid the mere possibility of genocide? (A genocide which, as it just so happens to be, has never occurred in the U.S. and is exceedingly unlikely to occur?) Should we simply prevent criticism? Free discussion? Should we shut up radio announcers here who happen to express ideas you don't like because a bunch of a slaughter that occurred in the third-world that just so happened to use radio as a medium of passing along information?
The scary thing is that the government - and, one would assume, the party in government you yourself would favor - is trying to do that exact same thing with attempts to return to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". We just can't have people expressing their ideas over the radio, can we?
And you have the gall to refer to others as "Orwellian"? It would appear that we were reading very different copies of Mr. Blair's work.
Hell, I don't even like Limbaugh.
I am only saying that i don't understand when people say "ohhh MacOs!!" like if it was obviously that everyone should like and praise the Gods that it exists. Well, not. I think it's dull, and boy I have worked on it for years now.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
I don't know, I think it's tongue-in-cheek. Like, look: Rush is an idiot. That's worth something, right?
Spoken like somebody who has never actually listened to Rush's radio show.
Do have any ideas as to why that might be?
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
He had two: Time Machine didn't back up his mail (and can't backup web-mail that isn't on his computer), and the second was that he couldn't use Back to my Mac (because his router didn't support UPnP or NAT-PMP). What's a digital fruit peddler to do?
I hope he gets ignored by apple because going on your radio show and addressing yourself to the man in charge of apple is no way to get tech support. Maybe his listeners will come up with some fixes, and frankly I hope they do because then anyone having the same problem will benefit from hearing it on the air.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
That's right. They should have tagged it Viagra!
if (userName=='Rush Limbaugh')
{
ramdomError();
}
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Let me get this straight- you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?
Its been my experience that the people that most vocally accuse Limbaugh of hate speech have not formed that opinion through their own experience of listening to the show, but rather through what other media and Limbaugh's political opponents report that he said. Is that the case with you?
Lets take the Michael J Fox story that you mentioned as an example. Mr. Limbaugh stated on-air that he thought Michael Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson's symptoms in a political ad, and that he had done so for theatric benefit. It was clearly in Fox's best interest to make his disease look as debilitating as possible, and his tremors in the ad were much more pronounced than we usually saw from him. Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case. But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.
So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate? Unfortunately, the partisans have already made their minds up on the answer to that.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
So, you agree with him then? He said that before it was parroted by half a dozen talking heads.
But anyway, does your less-negative view of Sen. Cain mean you hate free speech, or just that you want to exploit Mexicans?
Oops. Broke my karma. Sorry.
Here's your sig.
If he doesn't want to fix it himself, can't he just hire a stupid and unskilled Mexican to do it for him? Rush, man, live up to your own principles.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Apple fanboi wants to help
knows this will be good for Apple
but HATES that guy.
Dammit.
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
This reminds me of that Mac Sucks video. True, most of these things don't happen in OS X (or so I hear. I don't use Macs), but it's still funny.
I made up my mind on that when I did my own research and discovered that Fox's movements during the commercial were actually indicative of high-dose L-DOPA use (necessitated by tolerance) rather than being symptoms of untreated Parkinson's disease.
That's nice and all, but the clip shows him admitting that he skipped his meds before speaking to congress. It has nothing to do with the political ad that Rush commented on.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Isn't that a bit...metrosexual? For him, I mean?
I've listened to his show. Years ago back before he was the poster child for what's wrong with the war on drugs. It wasn't that I dissagreed with his point of view, it was that it was so obviously shallow and completely lacking in anything beyond the moment's sensationalist vocal vomit, that I couldn't stand him. After claiming for years that drug users should be treated harshly, we find that this is just a bunch of hypocrisy, Rush would be the first to condemn the poor to suffer and the first in line for welfare and unemployment if he needed it.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Not taking meds != exaggerated symptoms.
Rush Limbaugh is a habitual lier. I don't say that as an insult. It's a well documented fact. When I was in college and Rush still had his TV show, my roommate and I would watch the show and throw a throw pillow at the screen every time he said something that was false or misleading. If we made it to a commercial break with ANY pillows left on the couch, then we knew we weren't up on our current events and needed to study.
I have no doubt that if HE had Parkinson's, HE would play up the severity of his symptoms. Instead, he says things such as that for feminists "the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur." The guy who dismissed torture at Abu Ghraib as "emotional release." Scientist after scientist has denounced him for misrepresenting their work for political gain. The guy who championed family values has been married and divorced three times.
He couldn't "inject more honesty in a charged political debate" if he had a turkey baster and a voltmeter.
The real problem with Rush having any real problems is that he is, by default, a distracting touchstone for flamewars. If it was reported that he thought the sky was blue, there'd be 1000 people saying "Yup, it is! And Michael J Fox is an asshole," and 1000 people saying "it's clearly gray, and that fucker is addicted to drugs," and one meteorologist saying "partly cloudy with high wind and a chance of rain later in the afternoon."
"So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?"
Limbaugh said what Fox was doing was "purely an act", that it was "really shameless of Michael J. Fox". Clearly that is not an attempt to inject honesty into a debate, because the first point is simply wrong, and the second is a biased opinion. Given the options you provide, I can only conclude that you think it was hate speech.
"Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case."
Which is pathetic, really - who else could be first to apologise for his words? And if you check your facts, you'll find he only offered to do so after he was forced to admit he was wrong, that Fox was displaying symptoms many people had seen before. Simple Christian morality would tell you to apologise after needlessly insulting a diseased man on air, and American principles would tell you that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But Limbaugh does not actually apologise even when he knows he is wrong; he requires that Fox proves his innocence first. His only "principle" seemed to be the cold hearted application of logic to find a way to fit the facts to support the conclusion he had already drawn, a conclusion that looks down on those suffering from disease. *That* is evil.
I'll do the obligatory "I listen to all forms of political commentary" cuz I do. I'm an avowed moderate. That being said, I listened to a lot of Limbaugh. He offended me often especially when making fun of the homeless and such. I think he has some price to pay in the afterlife for that. All of that being said, I found his detailed commentary and explanations of congressional votes very interesting. I must admit that, at times, he would show a cspan clip of a vote and explain, in layman's terms, what was happening. Amazingly, he had the ability to take boring, monotone events such as this and bring them to life. I would then go google the event and learn more.
Bottomeline: there's a bit more to him than meets the eye. Yes, he's a zealot, offensive, etc., but he is not useless. Everyone has something to offer, and we must glean what we can from all people in our lives whether we meet them in person, watch them on tv or listen to on the radio, or even read their thoughts from a book. Even Hamlet found Claudius intriguing at times.
Nietzsche had to look into the abyss to discover it looked back....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I don't see how Michael J. Fox did anything wrong, nor exaggerated anything. What you are implying is that if Michael J. Fox can get his tremors under control with some medication, then he should show that? Is that what Parkinson's is really like? Fox did nothing wrong by not taking his medication when trying to show the American people what it is like to suffer from Parkinson's. If anything, he was brutally honest. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word exaggeration. If Fox had put in an Oscar winning performance by making up all sorts of tremors he does not have, then Limbaugh would have a point. Fox did NOT do this, and you have shown that to be the case. Case closed. Limbaugh showed himself to be the despicable individual he is.
If I suffer from severe stomach pain and I need to describe it to you, are you suggesting I tell you it is really not that bad at all, because I pop a Tylenol 3 every hour? Is that really the extent of the pain I am feeling? Think about it if you really need to.
Your other point is baseless, as well. I do not like Limbaugh and I formed my opinion by listening to his show. He is insulting in every way imaginable. Limbaugh's job is not to find a valid argument to counter someone's statements or actions. His job is to find ways of vilifying the person Limbaugh takes issue with. If he can do so by invoking race or sex or physical features, he will do it! For example, if a Democratic politician has a big nose, Limbaugh will use that to call the politician names and assign a variety of immoral or criminal attributes to that politician. Why, so that his faithful listeners will associate the insults with that politician every time they see him. "Oh look, he really does have a huge nose, like Rush said! He's like Pinocchio, his nose grows every time he tells a lie! The bastard!" This is what Limbaugh is all about, and that is all. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to his program.
you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?
Hey jackhole, get a clue. When a bloated gasbag spews lies about an advocate for people with a debilitating disease, you're goddamned right he gets insulted. And when Rush mocks the disease's effects , shaking his body spastically around on camera to mimic Fox's illness, oh holy crap does he deserve to be insulted. Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh.
But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.
Guess what, you brain-dead moron? In that video clip Fox denies what he supposedly admitted, saying explicitly -- listen to your own video clip --
Which of course pustulent corpse-raper Rush Limbaugh quotes as:
Here, as usual, Rush listeners learn their facts about the world exactly backwards. It's the price you pay for giving a fat, impotent, parasitic slug-worm an invitation into your living room. Lend credence to the sneering ringmaster of a national freakshow and what happens is that you become stupid. Let me give you another example. If you'd bothered to learn something instead of lazily gulping down Limbaugh's diarrhea, you might have known that the visible tremors Rush was mocking come from the medication:
I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything. But the guy has to take his meds in order to be able to talk and move and interact with the world with some kind of normalcy. Without the medication, Parkinson's patients' muscles become rigid, their movements slow, and they even become unable to move at all. At the start of the filming day, Fox doesn't know if he's going to nail the ad in one take or is going to be there all day, so you can only imagine how carefully he plans out how much medication he's going to take and when, to ride the tightrope between his disease's wracking paralysis and the cure's tremors. Did he guess exactly right? I don't know, maybe not. Is Rush Limbaugh the biggest hate-smeared asshole the world has ever seen for second-guessing a prescription for someone he's never met, someone who is just trying to help a cause he believe
Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms.
Skipping medication is *not* the same as play acting. Popping pills isn't always as straight-forward as asprin, or as dreamy as acid. If people never see warts and all, then they're living in a world of tranqualizers.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
(statistics are not on your side)
That reminds me of the time there was a debate as to who was more intelligent, the viewers of "The O'Reilly Factor" or the viewers of "The Daily Show."
It's the fact that you expect people on slashdot to be smarter that makes the right-wing comments and moderation strange.
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Granted I've not been around forever, but IMHO this has been the case as long as I've been here. I have wondered whether the fact that right-wing views are so frequently and strongly expressed reflects a US/non-US split in /.'s user-base with US contributors (the bulk of users) being on the whole more right-wing than their European counterparts (the "significant minority" of ./ users).
I hear so much about how conservatives are evil jerks and liberals are "loving" and "tolerant." This is a prime of how stereotypes bite the dust.
It's ok to hate someone because I disagree with him!
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
BZZZZT!!! WRONG!!!!
The "symptoms" that Michael J. Fox was exhibiting (the twitching, etc.) are not symptoms of Parkinson's Disease, they are side effects of the treatment for Parkinson's disease. It's called dyskinesias, and it's a side effect of the Dopamine used to treat Parkinson's. He stops taking the medications before public events so those side effects aren't even worse than what we saw. The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease aren't twitching and swaying, they are rigor, slight tremor (that's slight tremor, not the uncontrolled limb swaying due to the dopamine), and bradykinesia (short, stopping movements).
But don't take my word for it. Look It Up.
So no, Rush was not right. He was wrong, and to the best of my knowledge he has still not apologized. As for further analysis of his motives and morals, I defer to my more enthusiastic Slashdot brethren.
Rush actually HAS a disability, which got hidden in his ADMITTED drug addiction. He's deaf (or was, before some implants) through complications. He didn't make a big deal of it until one day on radio he admitted it to his audience and went and got help. Hasn't spoken all that much more about it.
I find Rush at his best when he is doing analysis on the popular media. He breaks down - practically every day - the pronounced biases on the left of many media networks. True, there is a lot that goes unreported (which gives some credence to left-wing claims of right-wing media bias), but he shows how journalism is typically left of center.
is that he is enable to return the Republican Party to a time before W's presidency.
is that he is unable to return the Republican Party to a time before W's presidency.
I use Fedora. Does that make me an independent, or an asshole?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Compared to hearing himself, I'd call deafness a blessing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You Apple trolls have to get it straight: is a Mac more expensive or less expensive than a "good" computer?
Somehow I don't think running Vista will help him back up his web mail, which is apparently what he is expecting Time Machine to do.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Actually, let me fix your reply.
A personal apology to each member of the Clinton family (including pets and household staff)
A personal apology from each member of the Clinton family
There, that's more like it. Why should anyone apologize to them? They're a completely oily, power-hungry pair of triangulating, platitude-uttering, poll-driven sharks. They haven't changed a bit, and still haven't apologized for bringing FBI records on political opponents into the White House for campaign research, crucifying people in their travel office for their own misdeeds, getting Bill's staff to lie for him about his own lies in front of a judge, issuing pardons to rich fugitive felon/donors on Bill's way out the door, and so on. Why should anyone apologize to them, of all people? I have no intention of voting for Obama, but I think he deserves an apology from Bill, too. Just wait to see what the next several weeks of the Democrat primary campaign looks like - the Clintons have only just begun to get really desparate, and their machine is going to go into full politics-of-personal-destruction mode. They're the masters of it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
"It just works!!!"
love the taste, hate the texture
Rush Limbaugh and his chauffeur were out driving in the country and accidentally hit and killed a pig that had wandered out on a country road.
Limbaugh told the chauffeur to drive up to the farm and apologize to the farmer.
They drove up to the farm, the chauffeur got out and knocked on the front door and was let in. He was in there for what seemed hours. When he came out, Limbaugh was confused about why his employee had been there so long.
"Well, first the farmer shook my hand, then he offered me a beer, then his wife brought me some cookies, and his daughter showered me with kisses," explained the driver.
"What did you tell the farmer?" Limbaugh asked.
The chauffeur replied, "I told him that I was Rush Limbaugh's driver and I'd just killed the pig."
Disclaimer: this joke is not original...
Rush, I can fix it! I have just the thing to fix your problem. It's called a "Rootkit." We'll install it right away!
Who says the two are mutually exclusive?
This sig only exists because you are observing it.
I take it you've never seen Al Gore.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I too am amused by Limbaugh claiming to disagree ideologically with Jobs, though I have to note that Apple doesn't make obscene profits. Even stranger is that my harmless little post got modded flamebait - Limbaugh has made clear his hostility to McCain, Obama and Clinton, and he would definitely be prosecuted in Europe if he tried to broadcast the same sort of stuff there. Can it be that wingnuts get mod points?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
When you're happily biased and (like anyone) selective in one's facts, you can show anything you want. Rush is simply too biased to be reliable - he only shows that journalism is typically left of center to those already biased to think so. Anyone else would need a dissenting point of view, a bit of independent research, and the ability to form their own conclusions.
Well I *am* the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club and I forgive Rush. He is a great American just like Reagan.
Rush Limbaugh knows how to use a computer? A Mac specifically? I thought those were just the tools of the liberal media to spread porn and socialist ideas to our youth.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh
Come on, man, please don't insult My Friends, the Whores like that! They provide a needed service to the world. "Ralph" (not his real name), my 86 year old friend, would probably be dead if it wasn't for his whores!
Please don't compare Rush Limberger to whores.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You can sizzle in a molten steel shower too.
Time Machine didn't back up his mail (and can't backup web-mail that isn't on his computer)
If that means he's trying to back up mail he's reading through a web interface, than that's consistent with his straightforward lack of connection with reality I heard on his show after the damn radio station I was accustomed to listening to on the drive home replaced NPR with Rush.
If that means he's using an IMAP interface to gmail and Mail.app's damn "I'm not actually going to save your mail, I'm just going to cache what you've recently read" behavior is tripping him up, then I gotta say I have some sympathy with him.
Not enough sympathy to read the actual article and risk getting interesting in his problem: I'm smart enough to recognize when my hyperfocus is likely to lead me into behavior I may later regret.
At last, someone who really deserves Vista!
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
People have done a lot more shameful things than exaggerating illness to score political points. I don't see how a healthy does of initial skepticism, given the state of political discourse in the USA these days, is unreasonable.
While most of your point is valid (although unnecessarily vitriolic), I think it betrays your own hatred of Mr. Limbaugh (and probably his audience as well). It also demonstrates a reasonable concern by people with whom you disagree that you may be inclined to use your power as an editor here to silence and discourage opposing viewpoints.
Until you get your own feelings under control, you aught to re-consider passing judgement on others you perceive as fomenting hate.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Haven't you ever heard the old axiom "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?"
Ummmm...so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing? Please.
Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner). Try listening to Rush when he breaks stuff down, big guy - it's pretty telling.
BTW, EVERYONE is biased in media. There has rarely - if ever - been true objectivity.
First of all, Rush disclosed his disability before the drug scandal erupted. Secondly, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Boo hoo! I have a hearing problem too, so where's my oxycotin? He lost all creditability with me when he proved once and for all that he is just good old radio entertainer named Rusty masquerading as a conservative radio show wind bag.
Why would he? Eating crow isn't something you want to do on a regular basis. So what he's a saint because he got caught being a hypocrite and he prefers to lay low and hope the controversy eventually blows over?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Contrary to the earlier post that those most opposed to Rush get all their info from the media, not by listening, the truth is a very liberarian person like myself listens to Rush to find out what hogwash is being believed by the lemmings who retain citizenship, vote, and otherwise mess up this fantastic country. Rush is a Neanderthal with a gift for gab. Nothing more. Most of his listeners would never admit listening, like the lemmings do. We just need a hardy laugh or the information we need to counteract the Rush Virus.
Rant over.
You forgot the last two steps:
5. ???????
6. PROFIT!!!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
That the fat hypocritical bag of shit can even operate a computer.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Please give Rush Limbaugh the benefit of actually reading what Michael J. Fox said--he's admitting to 'tinkering' with his meds--but he did it not to be 'theatrical', but rather to be 'uncomfortable' during his presentation. I actually recall seeing the entire interview with Diane Sawyer, and I'm left with the impression that Fox *did* (at one time) deliberately 'tinker' with his medications so as to make himself 'uncomfortable' and to show the worst case scenario (or close to it) of the disease. I don't disagree that this makes a good selling point--and I'm certainly not saying NOT to develop a cure for Parkinsons Disease; but rather I'm saying that Michael J. Fox or Muhammad Ali should not have to resort to this level of trickery to make their point. That they do have to do this shows the shortcomings of humanity.
Rush Limbaugh is as much an actor as Michael J. Fox is--he's crass and obnoxious and is always far over the top; but he makes an occasional valid point. Just as Hillary or Barak or Al Franken make occasional valid points. But, those valid points are in the mind of the listener. Remember--most of what Limbaugh (and others of his ilk) is doing is merely providing their opinion. They opine and we listen. It's up to us to decide whether or not we agree with that opinion.
I also agree that Rush's mocking of the quivering experienced by Parkinson's patients was way out of line.
Personally, I prefer Glen Beck, but that's just me.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't p... down his throat if his guts were on fire, yeah it can probably be fixed somehow...
He points out some real insight, has a really sensible view of things, and idiot moderators are trying to mod him down. Mod parent up!
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...
You aren't listening. Slight tremors is one symptom of the disease. The others are much, much worse. Given the choice between shaking more and being completely unable to move, Fox chooses to take the medicine with the chance of increased tremors so that he can move his body.
Please give Rush Limbaugh the benefit of actually reading what Michael J. Fox said--he's admitting to 'tinkering' with his meds--but he did it not to be 'theatrical', but rather to be 'uncomfortable' during his presentation. [...] I'm left with the impression that Fox *did* (at one time) deliberately 'tinker' with his medications...
Here's what Fox actually said:
Fox is explicitly denying the "impression" that you claim you have. You are using a quote from Rush Limbaugh, who chopped off the preface "It isn't as if," which gives the quote the exact opposite meaning.
And then you chastised me for not using the "entire quote." Wow.
I mean maybe you want to say Fox is a big liar or whatever, but to selectively edit his quote to pretend he's saying the exact opposite of what you say he's saying...? C'mon.
What Fox was saying was that he didn't do anything special with his meds that way, but (as he's explained elsewhere) he has good days and bad days, and it did seem somehow appropriate for him to be having a kind of bad day on that particular day. These two things can both be true.
I know you already said you like Glenn Beck, but... try to think for yourself please. Sheesh.
I really hope you never have to deal with Parkinson's yourself. I watched my grandfather change from a confident, erudite, decorated World War II veteran to somebody who could barely hold a fork because of what the disease had done to his nerves. For Rush to accuse Fox of faking his symptoms for sympathy was at best ignorant and at worst inhuman, and it is just as insulting to turn it around and claim that Rush was somehow on the side of the truth like some sort of crystal bastion of justice.
"I'll debate you with one hemisphere of my brain tied behind my back."
Well, Rushie, looks like you can finally put that fallow mass of inert grey matter to some use after all. And who knows, maybe that other half of your brain might actually be smarter than the one you claim to use. That is, of course, not saying a whole lot.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Apple does a lot of rigorous testing on all of the platforms and configurations that they expect will be used by their customers.
Can you really blame them for not bothering to test for compatibility with Republicans?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Jobs needs to tell Rush that it isn't a real Time Machine and he won't fit inside it. Problem solved.
In the US "left of center" means somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Hell they can't even spell centre right. You guys ought to get a real English-English spell checker.
Godwin's law already... that was quick. I do love a good non-sequitur in the morning.
No one's denying that Japanese Internment was wrong, but really - can it actually be compared with the concentration camps?
How many millions were gassed in those internment camps? How many hundreds of thousands were massacred, slaughtered? The internment camps simply aren't the same thing as concentration camps. They're not a good thing, of course, and no one's denying that, but they're not the same.
I would be surprised if Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or especially Michael Savage didn't call for violence against Muslims.
Your conspirational mind isn't the issue here - it's fact. Have they called for such violence? Do you have any evidence of such calls to violence? And let's assume for a moment that there were such calls to violence - then where's the genocide? Limbaugh supposedly has 20 million listeners - where are the mass killings?
It doesn't matter what you feel, only reality matters. And here's the reality - there is no evidence of such mass violence, and far, far less to attach it to talk radio.
I understand that, as a "progressive", you feel you must limit speech for the good of the people. Just understand that those of us who value the constitution have another opinion.
His hearing trouble was not HIDDEN by his oxycontin abuse; his hearing trouble was likely CAUSED by his oxycontin abuse.
Which might explain why he didn't make a big deal of his hearing trouble on his radio show.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Sorry Rush, you may think those are the problems, but in reality, you problem isn't OS X. It's karma.
-- sudo.ca
Rush has an iPhone too, which he is constantly expressing his love for. He says he wants copy/paste, which I thought was a good idea.
I completely agree. As a moderate liberal I find it frustrating that the vast majority of "liberals" don't see the hypocrisy in their condemnation and virulent tirades to shut down or muzzle Limbaugh. Love him or hate him, he has the same right to free speech as anyone else.
"While yes, there are those on the left who say one thing and do another, there are just as many, if not more, folks on the right who are just as hypocritical."
WHO CARES?
If you're doing something wrong, it is completely irrelevant that someone else is doing it too and in no way absolves you.
Saying "he did it too" is the kind of thing that belongs in an elementary school classroom, not in a discussion amongst adults. And yes, that applies just as equally for the people who scream "BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!" every time someone says something about Bush.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR LEADERS WHO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN.
"You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites."
I see no claim of that anywhere. Nowhere in the post is any attempt to claim that it is only liberals that are hypocrites. No other claims were forwarded, or even implied.
It is not ok if liberals behave hypocritically, even if every single non liberal does behave hypocritically. Sadly, your reaction is all too common, despite the fact that so many Slashdotters profess to be more educated and enlightened.
Well, I'll step up I guess and do what you didn't. Yes, liberals behave hypocritically. The question is not whether it occurs, but whether it benefits the greater good when it happens. Hypocrisy is not by itself an indicator of anything except a willingness to reconsider one's position if necessary. I would hope my leaders would do that, specifically, if they realize a previous policy decision had failed.
See how easy that was? I was able to derail the "hypocrisy" argument without resorting to 3rd grade rhetoric. It saddens me that people genuinely think an appropriate response to criticism of their leaders is to denounce the other guys choices.
"I will not give in to George Bush. I will not become fearful."
Too late. You're clearly so afraid of him that you'll blindly defend people who don't deserve it. The way to "not give in" is to INSIST that your leaders are better, and answer for what they do, not cover up criticism of them with attacks on the other side.
Riced-out comes from 'rice burner.' Implying that Japanese cars burn rice instead of gasoline. Is that racist? I'd love a car that ran on rice.
Originally, the term referred to a certain subset of Japanese who liked to make their cars look fast without actually spending much money one them. They would add huge 'fart-cannon' tailpipes, park bench sized spoilers (even to front wheel drive cars), VTEC and red R stickers (even to non-Hondas), and outrageously ugly paint and body jobs. Eventually, the term came to refer to anyone that did ridiculous things to their car to make it seem faster than it actually was. The term isn't really racist in practice, it has a meaning similar to 'poser.'
Reminds me of a post a long time ago when I said, "Gentoo is for ricers." Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I have listened to his show, and he is an ignorant bag of crap the represents everything that is wrong with the country.
He is a radio wave troll only interested in flamewars and not solution. The type of a person that would vote for his party even if he thought they where wrong. One who makes excuses for his party, and spreads lies about the other party.
you know, a New-Con.
Just as a reminder Neo-Con aren't true conservative, from a fiscal point of view.
If you believe in being fiscally conservative, you back things the are fiscally conservitive REGARDLESS of party.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You have a very interesting definition of American left-wing politics. I'm guessing you lie somewhere around Stalinist-style military-forced Marxism, then.
My biggest criticism is that he purports to tell us what liberals think, believe, and do. Yet I live in very liberal NorCal, and nobody I know fits the description he sells (and his listeners take as gospel). He's not my spokesman, so I don't know where he gets off telling people I want higher taxes, surrender to bin Laden, socialism, communism, etc etc etc. Sure I insult him plenty, but I don't purposefully misrepresent his views.
It's not the insults, it's that his strawmen get in the way of any meaningful debate. I can't talk politics with my parents (Rush listeners) because I have to first convince them that opposing warrantless eavesdropping doesn't mean I want terrorists to blow up the local mini-mall while we all hold hands and sing kumbaya on communist bicycles because we've banned cars and ownership of personal property.
If we can't get past that, how can we even start to objectively discuss the empirical results of single-payer health care?
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
It's called Projection.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
And then comes this: On one machine, this one here in New York, I have found a way to restore a single message or a multiple list of messages from wherever the Time Machine archive is. Um... what? He's mucking around on the Time Machine volume? Yeah, I can see if you know what you're doing, you could do a restore by nabbing files off the volume, I don't know why you'd want to. Particularly if you don't actually seem to know what's going on. Safer to stick to the GUIfied (and a bit over done) interface.
(Okay, so it's very pretty zooming through time and space like that, they just need to add the Dr. Who theme music to make it complete, but it's kind of a "show offs!" thing.)
I also don't see this "whole thread" at the Apple support forums. I don't know what he's talking about there either.
I begin to suspect a short between the keyboard and the chair.
Oh and Limbaugh isn't exactly poor. Why is yapping into his microphone instead of, oh, buying a support contract or something?
This is just proof that those sycophantic Repugnicant fat slobs with microphones are just moronic idiots lacking even the meager technical prowess of a used Kleenex.
Come-on, gimme some Dittos.
Actually the OxyContin was prescribed for extreme back pain that was compounded by a botched surgery to correct said back pain. It had nothing to do with his hearing loss.
Anarchist! how in the hell is the FBI going to install a keylogger remotely if you use Fedora?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It wasn't prescribed for hearing loss (and why should it? not being able to hear doesn't "hurt"), but long term abuse of pain killers can cause hearing loss. Why do you think he didn't really want to talk about it too much?
"But this one goes to 11!"
... if anyone had a highly-rated comment actually addressing the problem.
Other than one guy who said "Time Machine works for me", I see nothing technical as of the posting of this comment.
Come on, Apple fanbois with current kit! I'd chime in, but my most recent machine is a G4 Mac Mini running 10.4.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Do you expect the gays who are also the productive people you want breeding to give up and "go straight" and have kids?
Do you expect straight people who are the productive people you want breeding to "give up" and not have kids if gays are allowed to marry?
Please explain how allowing two guys who love each other and live together to formalize their relationship will decrease the number of productive people breeding. Please explain how it can make any difference whatsoever, except with the slight possibility of gay marriage ADVANCING your cause? Because productive gay people might just be more likely to become parents if they are allowed the increased stability and benefits of marriage.
This space available.
Riiight. While people like Hilary voted us into that war...and actually maintain a credible reputation running an antiwar campaign. I'm no ditto, but I'll take the cheering over the voting any day...
From reading TFA, t's not 100% clear what email application he's using. Given Limbaugh's long-time Mac user status, he might be using something like Eudora, which stores email as one file per folder. Mail.app stores each message in a separate file, which works much better with Time Machine.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Actually, I think that automatically dismissing somebody who disagrees with you as an "ignorant bag of crap" represents everything that is wrong with the country.
The assumption is that if you want the other side of the argument, you're smart enough to research it for yourself. Limbaugh only presents one side of the issue because he feels that the other side already has adequate representation. It's understandable if you don't agree with that position, but it doesn't invalidate it.
And Hillary is pico user - ugh.
If you don't believe me, you can use Amazon's book search to check out the quote and the context.
In his actual testimony, he said that medicine and "hundreds of little tricks" made it possible for him to hide his symptoms. If anything, the "theatrics" were the HIDING of his symptoms, rather than any emphasis of them. I don't disagree with a thing that he did, he wanted to show people what the illness had done to him.
Yup.
Niggardly comes from a Scandavian language, and just happens to sound similar a racist term that refers to black people. Other then sounding similar, there is no connection. On the other hand, "ricer" is a derogitory term for Japanese, that then applied to a subset of the Japanese, that then applied to people who were similar to that subset regardless of race. Because the origin of the term is racist, it has racist connotations that niggardly does not.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
2) Open debates.
Not really. Go to a left wing meeting and say you think blacks are genetically less intelligent.
This brings up an interesting point. I can't take credit for it; Stephen Jay Gould was the first person I heard it from.
Suppose in fact the Negro race is, say one percent less intelligent than the Caucasian race? (ignoring the difficulty of defining intelligent). Is that in any way a justification for abuse, discrimination, or slavery?
I'd say both left- and right-wingers all too often jump into a strawman argument, failing to see what the real debate should be about.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I didn't claim to invalidate Limbaugh's position. I pointed out that if you accept his position as proof of anyone having liberal bias, you are being rather non-critical in your thinking.
Incidentally, that's an awful assumption. People do not always want the other side of the argument, propaganda often relies on reinforcing existing prejudices, and it's unlikely that someone as intelligent as Limbaugh is unaware of this.
All religion requires a suspension of disbelief.
Like bridges and monster trucks, the more widely disseminated the religion, the more massive the suspension.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Change the mail app to the open source Eudora. Email is stored as plain text and easily recovered.
Back to my Mac doesn't work unless I'm on the same subnet. Use another program - I use Timbuktu Pro. Version 8.7 works fine with Leopard and I have five Macs and an XP box running Timbuktu and I can access all of them any time FROM ANYWHERE. Timbuktu will even use Bonjour where the machines are close enough.
As for Mr. Limbaugh's hearing - he did it to himself through his opiate abuse. If I were Apple, I'd revoke his license to use OSX 10.5 (*READ THE EULA - it can be done*) and he can turn his Macs into Windoze boxes. This should be done purely as a preventative step to avoid a lawsuit from the "Excellence In Broadcasting" Network that the Mac is a machine that facilitates dopers and, specifically Rush's dope habits. Rush always has somebody else to blame - better to nip this one in the bud and take his computers' OS away. It is that or dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
FWIW - I've been using Macs a lot longer than the Big Fat Idiot - I still have a working LISA.
instead of Y axis+.5 meters
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
No, the term ricer comes from 'rice burner,' referring to Japanese cars, not people. If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide a link and I will retract my statement and apologize to any Japanese I may have offended.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing?"
There is absolutely no logical path from my pointing out that Limbaugh does not provide an objective opinion, to the conclusion that I believe journalists are right wing. If that kind of willful misunderstanding (or simply poor logic) is indicative of your objectivity, you're only supporting my case.
"Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner)."
Exactly. There's no clear case to make that the media as a whole displays a liberal bias, but Limbaugh will have plenty of material given to him to make a compelling argument irrespective of the truth of the matter.
Yes, everyone is biased, and not just in the media. But if you accept the opinion of someone who chooses an extreme bias, to the extent that his career, power and finances depends on it, you're a fool.
Methinks the patients are running the asylum 'round these parts... Nice to see such professionalism from /.
It's not a news program, it's an opinion/editorial/commentary/entertainment program. If it doesn't serve either the purpose of 1. entertainment or 2. expressing the hosts opinion, why should it be a part of the show? And if this has been a successful model for the show, why should he change it?
Is it the hosts' responsibility if his audience is "non-critical in their thinking"? I certainly don't think so.
Yes there is bias, but there are ways to minimize it's impact.
:People say "The Daily Show" is biased, when in fact it is not. It
Not exactly earth shattering news there.
However the media isn't as biased as people say. Whenever a news station says something unflattering abut a party, that party immediatly starts screaming bias. Usually as an effort to confuse the issue.
Example:
s just in the last 8 years the republicans have done some monumentally stupid things, and they where in control of all three branches. SO guess which party is going to be looked at by a show whose goal it is to make fun of political things?
It ripped on Clinton, but quite frankly nothing Clinton did compares to the stupidity of what Bush has done. If you can't see that then you are self delusional.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
ah, i see. forgive me for not being fully up to speed on all the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The point they missed out on is that is perfectly fine to have sympathy for Limbaugh and Bennett the compulsive addicts, but Limbaugh and Bennett the gigantic hypocrites deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. And yes, Limbaugh is the epitome of hypocrisy on drugs: You claim he is wrong 100% of the time.
No I didn't. I said "anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
You think Republican = bad
There you go: just like Rush, you make stuff up.
Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.
No, they don't. There are some corporate tools that need to be primaried out of office, like Feinstein and Rockefeller. Take FISA for example: both those Democrats along with a dozen others voted for telecom immunity, but 31 Democrats voted against it. Whereas ALL the Republicans that showed up voted for it.
I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point).
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: after decades of vicious attacks on them, liberals by and large make sure their shit is on point. Whereas conservatives invariably toe the ideological line, facts be damned. Case in point: single payer health care. It costs far less money and provides better care than that which private insurance provides, period. Yet they continue to scream "socialism" and fight it.
Clearly he is going to switch to Vista and is trying to make a big splash.
It's his type. Probably influence by his Ballmer associations of late.
Seriously, if in a year he is not touting Vista I will be so shocked I might actually listen to him again.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple was evil to CoS?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Finally someone who speaks the truth! People too often in these slashdot forums say something to the effect of "I can't believe all the right-wing rhetoric I see in here (slashdot discussions)".
I challenge the grandparent of this thread to identify at least 5 serious posts in this thread which illustrate his claim.
While obviously emotionally charged, the parent post is not flamebait and should not be modded as such. In fact, the parent brings up the interesting points of insurance and shared benefits. Bringing up these points makes this a legitimate counter-argument, hence it is not flamebait. May I suggest a mod of "off topic" instead?
I got this UID *last* time existence happened.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Hi, I'm a Mac...
And I'm Rush Limbaugh...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Because an asshole is never independent. He's always hanging out with either some pussy, or some cock.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I too had a close relative pass away from Parkinson's disease, so I have seen how bad it gets. But the point is that even though the symptoms that Fox that appeared with in front of congress and in that TV commercial were caused by his condition, they were not representative of his daily life. He normally counteracts and controls some of the symptoms, but he chose not to for the TV cameras. That is manipulation.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Because you seem to be wandering all over the logical landscape rather than directly responding to anything I'm posting, I'll make a few quick points and hope one of them is still relevant:
If we're talking about what Limbaugh "should" do, note I didn't say he should do or change anything.
If we're talking about his audience, note I do not talk about Limbaugh having any responsibility for them. (note: you seem to be fond of straw man arguments.)
If we're talking about news vs. opinion programs: Don't forget that except for ideologues and the weak minded, we all know we have the right to our own opinion but not our own facts. Limbaugh's a smart guy, so he knows this and corrects himself when necessary.
If you just acting as an apologist for loud mouthed arseholes, then of course you have the right to your opinion.
Eh, I extrapolated a little too far from your statement (you were a couple of words short of stating the media was full of right-wingers, and I read it in and it wasn't there. Unless that's your opinion.)
My bad.
"Daily Show" is remarkably LESS biased than most media, actually. They really don't hold much back on anyone.
If you know what to listen for, you'll figure out fairly quickly who is slanted where, though. That is, if you care to listen...I pretty much stick to headlines (Drudgereport tends to be the best one, even though it's hardly a glorified news-link front page).
If you liked that, here's some REAL comedic genius:
Q: What's the difference between an Anonymous Coward and you?
A: None. You are both a humorless, pucker-assed twit without a clue.
(Hint: I said it for the joke value because it's funny, not just for the cheap pot-shot. I couldn't care less about Rush, really. Get a sense of humor. Or a life. Whatever...)
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
This video is a perfect example of Rush Limbaugh defending freedom of speech. Simple put, he's awsome!
Life is not for the lazy.
Ummmm...so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing? Please.
I don't think you know what "liberal arts" are. Liberal Arts in the academic context has nothing to do with political affiliation, and more to do with an academic philosophy based on balancing practical knowledge with more esoteric cultural studies and arts. Thus you can't just go to school for your MBA, you must also take some humanities. A Liberal Arts school is one with a focus ON humanities, I'm guessing.
"Liberal" has many meanings. If I make liberal use of butter in my recipe, does that mean I'm intoning the "Communist Manifesto" over my butter?
Looking at the 3 big cables news networks, I don't see any latent bias, left or right. Fox is mainly right leaning, CNN is slightly to the right with Beck, but Dobbs is schizophrenic enough to balance that out. MSNBC leans hard to the left with Obermann, but not too far because of that Tucker guy balances that out. But then again these networks are about ratings, and part of ratings is finding audiences. People want to hear what they agree with, thus all niches are filled.
The journalists themselves have less to do with any perceived bias then the corporate executives, who are generally more right leaning, and who select journalists based on what perceived audience they want to convince to watch ads.
Thanks to the FCC, there really isn't that much difference between newspapers and TV, since they are largely owned, and controlled, by the same people. Ditto with radio. These "bias" is again selected by corporate folk, to align the selected media towards the perceived audience.
Actually the media is leaning MORE leftward now, thanks to a groundswell of disgust in the Republican policies of the last 12 or so years (since the Gingrich coup taking the House), and especially of the last eight. Before the anti-war movement got authentic grass-roots groundswell status, the media was largelly right leaning in coverage. I heard NO critique of the war, or the rampant attacks on American freedom from the media until it became popular despite the media.
That said, this might be my selection bias, just as the leftist media theory could be due to yours.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
First you say
"no one is entitled to their own set of facts"
Then you say
"anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
I'd like to see your source for this. What facts did you use to determine it "very likely" that his is 100% full of crap?
Or are you making up your own set of facts? Or are you going to cop out and pretend that your declaration was just an "opinion", in which case, what makes your inflammatory, factually incorrect opinion any better than his?
Everyone who remembers as far back as A2206411411 knows perfectly well that this was The Swamp, that CmdrTaco has captured the island with the reset switch, and that you boost your rating by removing Fraggles with the Black and Decker chainsaw.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Rush is an idiot. A few years ago he was whining about the minimum wage. If you're going to argue strongly against something, you should at least be well informed.
"It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour,"... "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."
- Rush
"75 percent of the people earning minimum wage are teenagers"
- Rush
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130005
Given at the time minimum wage was $5.15/hr, and less for tipped employees (in Wisconsin it was $2.33/hr at the time) he wasn't even close. Not to mention that teenagers only make up about 1/3 of minimum wage employees.
Between that and his hypocritical drug garbage, I have no respect for the man, or his listeners.
Can you explain what you mean by the media tending to be leftist? Is it just because journalists tend to be liberal or Democrats? To me, the media favors the right because they focus on the "unimportant" or superficial issues that Republicans usually do better with instead of real issues that matter. I'm not saying Dems do better with the "real" issues, just that Republicans sound good when they're talking about "pro-life" and other such things.
I'm not trying to pick a side here either, I just honestly don't understand why people think the media leans to the left. Could you give a couple real examples?
Okay... so as someone who apparently knows dink about Parkinsons Disease, let me (a Ph.D in Neuroscience with an emphasis on Motor Control) fill you in on your ignorance there. The jerky movement that Fox displayed came from the fact that HE WAS ON HIS MEDICATIONS! It's a symptom of being on LDOPA for too long. Most patients prefer the jerky actions to the locked in state they'd be in otherwise. Fox never admitted to going off his medications. If he had... he wouldn't have been moving very much at all. Rush still was an asshat for making fun of him. It's a plain and simple fact (you know... one of those things that that that tub of lard often neglects).
My bad.
Fair enough. As for my opinion, I'll certainly provide a few facts: My only absolutely regular reading is The Economist. Occasionally I pick up a Financial Times, and I've subscribed to the Harvard Business Review ever since doing my MBA in the US. Today I was job hunting via The Times (I'm based in London) which is well known as a conservative paper here. So yes, I know the media is full of right wingers because I read them, even in a country where I can get state funded news for free.
The bias of the media is towards making money. Some do so by staking out an attention seeking, pandering ideology - Rush Limbaugh being a good example. Some by trying to provide an attractive product for their customers, which means information biased towards the target market's tastes. Therefore there is no more bias than already exists in the population. Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, for instance, changes sides in Scotland vs. England according to the local politics. Which is why to a European, looking at the US with its centre right and far right politics, with a population clearly split fairly evenly between the two, it's just funny to hear the "liberal bias" claim. Claiming to be out-numbered or otherwise threatened is simply the oldest trick in the book.
This is great! Jobs has been reduced to being a Help Desk technician... Im lovin it!
You will note that the parents post claimed (and the video from Fox confirmed) that "Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms".
This has everything to do with the political ad, along with his testimony to Congress.
HAHAHAHA!
After attacking democrats for years, he finally gives in to pleading to a prominant corporate democrat for help. Boy, I love the sweet smell of irony in the morning.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
...just because its English doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing... I believe it was George Bernard Shaw that described the UK and the US as two nations separated by a common language. Of course, even within the US, generations may differ as to understood meanings. Language was once upon a time a received cultural tool passed along from generation to generation. However, with modern society change occurs so fast that generations are inventing their own dialects. I encountered this with my daughter who enjoined me not to swear. I explained that the expletive I had use was an obscenity and not an oath, and that in fact I never swore. I pointed out that there are obscenities, oaths, invocations and curses, as well as characterizations that are none of the above (.e.g "twit") and that they are all quite different. It made her so mad she's now getting "A"s in linguistics in college and has apparently found a career.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Regardless of what the religious lot think, marriage is essentially an economic arrangement. It's achieved via different ceremonies but still does the same thing - establish potential social and economic alliances between families. There have been decades of anthropological work done all over the world and one of the social commonalities is the economic nature of marriage. There is rarely any "love" involved. The parents tell the child who they'll marry. Divorce is frowned upon because of the economic disarrangments it causes. Any valuta exchanged usually has to be returned and because the arrangement is generally between the parents, guess who is really put out? In this society the economic burden of failed marriages tends to be more spread out. And as far as gay marriages are concerned, failure in a gay marriage would actually be far less burdensome socially. So there aren't any real arguments against it. Religion is not an argument.
What bugs me about the GP is is the "eugenics" view embedded in the idea as expressed. Evolution and "eugenics" antithetical concepts though most people would not know why.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Also - should we not have invaded Afghanistan, then?
If you listened to that show he was discussing about how the media is making a big deal that he's not behind McCain and yadda yadda, well he said that the worst thing he could do was to support McCain because then all the liberals and independents would leave McCain because of their aversion to Rush. He said that the best thing he could do for McCain is to openly support Obama. Then this topic comes up and some caller or some tech guy he was talking to said that he should stop saying that he uses Apple and to openly support Microsoft to crush them. I thought that was funny.
Left is about freedom?
WTF are you talking about?
What century did you grow up in?
How many millions does the left have to kill before it's claim on being for the people is no longer credible? Wasn't the twentieth century enough? Even calling National Socialism a draw the left still indisputably owns Communism, Maoism, Stalinism...undoubtedly the highest mega-death total of any political philosophy.
Face it leftest economics requires control (it's called a command economy for a reason). Control requires power. Power corrupts. There will never be a functional 'real' left wing government anywhere for long (e.g. Venezuela).
Further you have an incorrect impression about religious political affiliations in the US. Christianity (self claimed) is about evenly split R vs. D. I believe in the last election they went about 60% R. It varies depending on how many polling stations the church busses can hit in on election day ('Vote Early and Often' as they say). Both sides cheat like dogs using churches as bases of operation.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Select a group of countries with 'similar enough' backgrounds (e.g. Western Europe, North America, Australia. Alt Asia.)
Take % of GDP spent by the government, plot it on the X axis.
Take whatever measure of economic health your want (try to be reasonable) plot it on the Y axis.
There's your answer.
If you don't see economic health peaking and dropping at some level of taxation you picked a butt headed economic metric. Try again with GDP growth/year. Try unemployment if you can find real numbers from ANYBODY. Try median wealth (gonna be hard to get good numbers on that). Attempt to find numbers that can't be fudged too much.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Slashdot is always an interesting place to post :)
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
So you agree that Mr. Limbaugh was wrong. According to your post and proof Fox did not exaggerate his Parkinson symptoms, he merely exposed them.
-rd
At issue wasn't just Rush accusing Michael J. Fox of misrepresenting himself, it was also the bobbling around making light of a serious illness which will eventually kill Michael J. Fox. It was another asshole move. That's what caught Rush as much grief as anything. The larger problem in my opinion was Rush's typical practice of accusing Fox of essentially lying with zero evidence of any impropriety. Of course, Rush was also 100% wrong in his 'analysis' but I'll get to that in a second.
Well that seems clear cut. I always thought motive was irrefutable proof.
Actually he was 100% wrong and he DID appologize.. briefly. More below
Nice cut clip. I like how the video ends mid sentence. I like the part where she says he does it on purpose then he says he doesn't do it on purpose. The disease makes you catatonic. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/parkinsons-disease/DS00295/DSECTION=2 It STARTS with tremors and ticks but Fox has had this for a long time. He's in the phase where he is normally rigid, even to the point where he has trouble swallowing.
Rush said Fox didn't take his medicine so that he would appear out of control. Of course Rush had no idea what he was talking about but that's never stopped him before. On October 26th, Rush 'apologized' for speculating that Fox didn't take his medicine and then immediately stated that he purposefully took too much. Hey, if you throw enough crap at the wall maybe some of it will stick. Fox responded that same night on the CBS Evening News, stating that it's difficult to gauge the correct dosage and that the dosage that day did kick too hard.
The Mayo Clinic article that I quickly found points out the dosage is a moving target.. Your medication needs may change over time, and the drug dosage and timing may require adjustment. For these reasons, you and your doctor will work together to design a program that best suits your needs, especially as the disease progresses. And of course, pulling slander out of his butt isn't enough. Rush not only knows what M.J. Fox is thinking (well, maybe the 2nd time around) but he also seems to know that the Democrats wrote the tremors into their script.
Here's the kicker. Only Rush can do something and then immediately lie about it, then do it again and still have an audience that doesn't get it. Straight from the pie hole of Rush..
Now without looking up the original transcript (though I should) let's give Rush the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he didn't say the word "faking". He only said Fox intentionally took too much medicine or he was intentionally exaggerating. That's totally different than faking. Of course he then says Fox was totally not faking when he was faking by intentionally overdosing. Congratulations for being a ditto head. It'd be too much, I'm sure, to realize he's calling you sheep.
P.S. Probably my favorite Rus
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
Socialism, I'd like to point out, leads to something called a "deadweight loss." Value isn't transfered from one party to another, it's destroyed.
Beyond a discussion of "empathy" and how fair it is for me to have more or less money than someone else needs to exist the point that socialism (beyond a certain mild point) makes everyone poorer. That is because taxes - the only pragmatic way of enforcing greater standard of living and wealth equality - lead to underproduction. That statement is a fact. As work becomes more costly and less rewarding, people do less of it (no ideology required).
So not supporting tax-funded social programs need not in any way imply ambivalence towards your fellow man. At some point, a larger piece of a smaller pie is still a smaller piece. It's hard to argue that promoting policy that recognizes that fact is somehow black-hearted or selfish. And it's also irritating to those of us who do advocate low taxes and domestic spending for reasons other than our own selfishness.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
*Pfft* I remember all that. You've got to come up with something a little more impressive than all of that for a 3-digit ID.
I mean, you're like someone in their 60s talking about how they remember when Duran Duran was at the top of the charts and denim jackets were in.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
"Well, thats not what Fox said about his congressional testimony. He wrote in his book that he made a deliberate choice to modify his medications before his appearance to give the most "startling" visual impression that he could (page 247 of his book "Lucky Man")."
Actually... that's not exactly what I remember. He said he deliberately chose to be on his medications so that people could see his dyskinesia. This is besides the point however, Rush explicitly accused him of exaggerating his symptoms and "acting" which Fox WAS NOT doing.
"I don't get to listen to Limbaugh's show more than a couple times a year, but I actually was listening the day he made these comments, and given the context, I think it is absurd to characterize anything he said as "making fun" of Fox."
I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program. Watch the video and listen to the whole segment, and it's obvious that El Bimbo was a) Making fun of Fox's disease and b) accusing him of faking or exaggerating his disease for political gain.
So in line with the parent thread, why should Mr. Jobs help a bully when it will just facilitate his continued bullying?
"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
sounds like he identified a real problem, but reached the wrong conclusions based on partial information.
please bring concrete examples.
you have not brought any evidence to support this claim.
and what exactly is wrong with divorce? family values isn't about sticking together no matter how much you totally can't stand each other. if you would have said he cheated on his wives that would be a different matter.
What I have a real problem with is people who force the world into their view, like the Europeans making nation states out of the Arab tribes they conquered. Why not try to understand reality according to what it is, rather than according to how you would like it to be? not all people want to just live and let live. some have ideals beyond just surviving, or material thriving. some people won't be nice to you just because you are nice to them. bullies get encouraged by weakness. worse of all, real hate exists today, no less than before. the best way to get rid of racism is to stop using racist term like "African American" or "white".
different people have different goals, and they can conflict. therefor, progress for liberalism is total backwardness for a conservatism. what I really can't take is when people assume only their ideals exist, so therefor when conservatives make progress on their goals, it annoys me that liberals talk as if it's objectively moronic because it conflicts with the liberal's goals. it is not moronic, it is simply an attempt to solve a completely different problem that arises from having a completely different purpose. it would be moronic if it was trying to solve a problem the liberals face, but it doesn't.
And as it turned out, Michael J Fox had a history of manipulating his medication to get the greatest visual impact in his public appearances in favor of stem cell research. Rush was wrong on the specifics of his manipulation in that ad- he didn't skip his medication, he took too much of it- for which he offered an adequate apology.
And were you aware that the Rush-hating media sped up the video clip of him demonstrating Michael J Fox's actions when they played in on TV in an attempt to make him look bad? I can't believe that is the media you chose to trust...
Rush was describing what he saw to a radio audience. Most of the audience had not seen the ad yet unless they live in MO, and they were used to seeing a normal looking Michael J Fox on TV every week. Rush was being descriptive. He wasn't mocking.
And Rush's accusation that Michael J Fox was "either acting or off of his medication" was essentially proven. It turns out that he didn't skip his medication for the ad (like he had done previously for his congressionaly testimony), but instead he had taken too much medication. Either way he manipulated the situation to get as much sympathy as he could for his cause (which, by the way, was a bill that he had never read himself supporting stem cell research that has never produced anything but cancer, let alone a cure for any disease).
Please re-read what you originally wrote. Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox for exaggerating his symptoms. That implies that Fox was faking; that the tremors were not real and he faked it to get more sympathy for his cause. That is the point of the whole controversy over the issue. I did not read anything into your comments, you made them clear. You wrote that Limbaugh was right because Fox admitted to not taking his medication before taping. My response took issue with your logic and you have not refuted it. In fact, you wrote "I don't see any problem with Limbaugh pointing out what Fox had done." If Limbaugh had stated that Fox did not take his medication and that he, Limbaugh, had a problem with this, then you would have a point. Limbaugh strongly implied Fox was faking. This was a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight away from the issue and attack the messenger. That is what I already stated Limbaugh does.
And, if you think that's entertainment, well, I hope you will give that some thought.
No, all Rush did was point out that Fox appeared week after week in a TV drama and other Television appearances without any apparent symptoms, but when he appeared in a political ad with the very sharp political accusation that George Bush and Michael Steel didn't care about people like him, things were strikingly different. That is a pretty obvious manipulation, and it is perfectly valid to point that out. You will note that Limbaugh's harshest words were for the politicians who were behind this manipulation of Fox for their own political gain.
That's easy enough. People write books about his lies. Amongst them:
Or, read any of Rush's own books -- but you'll have to do all the fact checking yourself. But you may be able to pick out plenty without doing a lot of research, such as when he says in See, I Told You So that "There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived." (There are fewer than 2 million Americans claiming native ancestry now, but there were between 5 million and 15 million Native Americans in 1492. Or, sticking to the same theme from the same book, Rush said "There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492." In fact, there is a quarter billion fewer acres of forest. But those aren't honest mistakes. Those are lies.
Still need evidence that he is a liar? How about Rush saying that he's glad the mid-term elections are over so that he doesn't have to lie for the Republicans anymore? "There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress. Some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at. And it has been difficult coming in here trying to make the case for it when the people who supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves."
Really? The only claim there is that "I have no doubt ... ." That is, it is my opinion. Consider it original research, but I assure you that it is my opinion.
Well, he met his last wife via Compuserve in 1990. In 1992 she divorced her then husband. She married Rush in 1994. In 2000, she bought a house of her own. In 2004 they were divorced. He has been married a total of 16 years to three wives and spent more than seven of those years separate from his wife. Rush told the Palm Beach Post that "Marriage is about raising children. That's the purpose of the institution." He has no children. He has no interest in making a successful marriage. He has said, "If you want a successful marriage, let your husband do what he wants to do." And that makes him a complete hypocrite.
A good question for Rush.
"you are -- subjectively, and in my opinion -- a moron." - why?
BTW, thank you for your pointers, I just wanted to know that you have something beyond your personal bias backing your claims, but I still might check them out.
You're confusing opinion content with news reporting. Journalists who form initial reports, as a rule, are left-leaning, and that bias leaks through most of the time (though not blatantly). You really have to know what to look for.
BTW, I've my MA in history - I know very well the liberal arts world, which is part of the reason I left it.
One is precisely that journalists tend to be liberals and vote overwhelmingly Dem.
The prime example that you're looking for is Dan Rather's reporting on the whole GWB "AWOL" non-issue - he let his personal political opinion get in the way of good reporting. He may actually have been partially right, but underestimated the ability of the internet to search his claims out. Also, there is a decent amount of NON-reporting coming out of Iraq - the only headlines you see are who has been blown up. Success stories, stories with extreme detail, and some sort of attempts at really digging into the whole complcated situation (which is what Iraq is - this is not a black and white issue) gets washed away.
Also, you need to differentiate between journalists and media ownership. Editorial content tends to come from some of the money guys who control WHAT is reported - and thus you get the idiocy of Britney and Paris and other sensationalist issues. It's not about agenda or left/right - it's about money. The reporters themselves tend to be lefties.
I'll go a little step further - the bias of media OWNERSHIP is toward making money - which is why there is a lot on both sides of the aisle that is underreported (or poorly done).
To make that statement strongly implies that ONLY the ownership is biased towards making money. This requires the assumption that journalists are never biased by the desire to be well paid, a famous pundit, or generally just have reliable, professional income. It doesn't stand up to the most cursory inspection.
It is a useful thing to believe if you wish to justify a believe that the media has a liberal bias, of course. How convenient.
No, but they're the ones paying the bills and making the most out of what you see on television...and they're the ones with the ultimate editorial control. They're the ones who put up the whole Britney-Paris claptrep and the "if it bleeds, it leads" type stories on the front page.
True - there are plenty of journalists out there ready and willing to go the sensationalist route out there, but the reason which they are is because of the guy who cuts the paychecks and a stupid viewing audience.
There may be millionaire journalists out there, but they aren't the ones pulling the purse strings and who reap the ultimate benefits.
Couldn't agree with you more on that one.
But follow the implications: the ownership is right wing and has control not just editorially but also through the ever present "keep the boss happy" dynamic. The result recently (i.e. under a conservative government) is a media diet that heavily supports the conservative agenda by ignoring the oversight role of the press to focus on the trivial. There are just as many right wing pundits as left, and an entire right wing news channel (or comedy channel to non-Americans) in the form of Fox. Against that backdrop, and taking into account the fact that many people who are left wing when young but right wing when older, and I don't see the basis for giving much credence to the fact that journalists graduate from liberal institutions. Universities generally are liberal institutions, but clearly the adult population is not heavily split either way so just how much influence can they have in practice?
So I find the "liberal media" claim difficult to believe. Often when it is used, the context suggests the intended meaning is not "that section of the media which is liberal", which would be fine. Instead it has distinct overtones of "the media has a left wing bias, so ignore what others have to say and listen to me for the truth", which is disgusting and generally corrosive to informed debate - something the US is in dire need of.
Media ownership isn't necessarily conservative - they are more likely to be overwhelmingly corporatist (please don't confuse the two - they may overlap, but are not the same thing). Ted Turner isn't exactly the right's best friend...and Rupert Murdoch you pointed out is more along the lines of sensationalist than right-wing.
If you think that the everyday media here completely supports the government completely, you're watching something different. Sensationalist has sold under any administration, particularly the last two (as Clinton was a bit of a sensationalist president), and doesn't necessarily help. Think about Iraq - we RARELY hear positive - just body counts - and to pretend that the situation there is completely negative is ignorant and idiotic...and the lack of challenge to Hillary or Obama is amazing...neither has had to answer a difficult question yet or make a serious positive stand.
I think that we're seeing two sides of the same coin here...we have similar opinions and come to similar conclusions somewhat based on political bias.
No. It is precisely that kind of lazy thinking and willing acceptance of bias that is the problem with America today. Such attitudes have spoiled what used to be the greatest country on Earth.
Your initial point was that a pundit at one end of the political scale shows how the media is biased against his point of view - I say that's not possible. You say there is a liberal bias, I say there is not. These are not similar conclusions, these are opposites. And in the post above, the casual statements of distortion and bias are exactly the kind of thing I was posting against.
"Completely supports" is an absolute, and a complete distortion of accusing someone of failing their oversight duties. It's logically equivalent to saying that the Democrat Congress completely supports Bush. This is the kind of nonsense that propagandists use.
The presence of sensationalism is a given, but what are the actions of the Clinton administration that you feel did not receive coverage because instead they chose to discuss Britney? I don't recall any time where the entire planet was wishing to God someone would start challenging the Bush administration on its various abuses of their own country's principles.
The reason you rarely hear positives about Iraq is because positives are rare. To believe the situation is generally (as compared to completely) negative is not ignorant and idiotic, but to talk once again in absolutes is.
What are the questions that are not being asked? Lack of experience, ties to slum landlords, an extremist liberal voting record, attendance at a Muslim school, divisive politics, failure to deliver on heathcare reform, relying on familiarity rather than achievement, voting for the war but claiming to be against it -these questions have all been asked. What is the difficult question you feel should be asked?
Because Obama seems such an impressive candidate, I've gone through his policies. They're more than detailed enough, especially when you consider that whoever becomes the presidential candidate will have to change their policies to represent their party and not just their own point of view. The role of the President is not to write policy, but to lead the nation. So what is a "serious positive stand"? Or are you just using vague accusatory questions as per standard smear tactics?
Bzzzt. Rush said that the Michael J Fox in the ad was so different than the Michael J Fox that he saw every week on Boston Legal that he thought Fox was "acting or off his medication". These words have meaning, you know, and you look like an ignorant sheep when you feign outrage based on a few words that Rush's political opponents cherry pick out of an entire monolog.
Okay... so another prize for "You've missed the point!". As mentioned in the thread above, he wasn't off his medications in the commercial. So Rush was wrong on both counts as he wasn't a) acting or b) off his medications. His symptoms were normal symptoms of people on his medications. I've seen it ALL THE TIME in PD patients. And I did listen to the WHOLE segment when it first came out (with and without video) so I'm not relying on a few words cherry picked by his opponents. The drug addled gas bag puts his foot in his mouth just fine without the help of others. Maybe you should actually listen to what he says and watch what he does sometimes.
Second, the quote excerpted above from Fox's bio says that he "manipulated" his medications by going off it in the congressional testimony. So I fail to see how him showing the true symptoms of his disease is being manipulative when giving congressional testimony on the nature of his disease. But then again, I'm not the one picking on someone with Parkinson's Disease or defending those who do.
"Completely supports" is an absolute, and a complete distortion of accusing someone of failing their oversight duties. It's logically equivalent to saying that the Democrat Congress completely supports Bush. This is the kind of nonsense that propagandists use.
So do you fall somewhere in between the whole left-wing/right-wing media debate, or do you discount the media altogether? Some of the angles I think you seem to take promotes a right-wing media that MOSTLY supports the presidency, but from this side, I can't see how - and I've studied this (not just taken Rush's word for it).
The presence of sensationalism is a given, but what are the actions of the Clinton administration that you feel did not receive coverage because instead they chose to discuss Britney? I don't recall any time where the entire planet was wishing to God someone would start challenging the Bush administration on its various abuses of their own country's principles.
How about few real challenges to Clinton from the media? Outside of the whole Lewinsky deal, which I felt they were almost forced to report on, the Clintons have had few challenges - especially recently - from the media. Tim Russert has been one of the few to call Clinton to carpet, and there has been little that doesn't challenge her pre-prepared answers to pre-prepared questions.
The reason you rarely hear positives about Iraq is because positives are rare. To believe the situation is generally (as compared to completely) negative is not ignorant and idiotic, but to talk once again in absolutes is.
I cede your point on the "completely" - stupid adverbs - but the point remains that too many reporters were holed up in hotels in Baghdad than out in the field like the initial invasion. I understand why many think it's "generally" negative, but I don't believe it's as bad as the mass media makes it out to be and not as good as the administration pushes.
What are the questions that are not being asked? Lack of experience, ties to slum landlords, an extremist liberal voting record, attendance at a Muslim school, divisive politics, failure to deliver on heathcare reform, relying on familiarity rather than achievement, voting for the war but claiming to be against it -these questions have all been asked. What is the difficult question you feel should be asked?
Most of which were out of the Clinton campaign before hitting the media, or filtered from them FIRST. Several of those points they were riding or pointing at before I saw any other reporting from mass media.
Because Obama seems such an impressive candidate, I've gone through his policies. They're more than detailed enough, especially when you consider that whoever becomes the presidential candidate will have to change their policies to represent their party and not just their own point of view. The role of the President is not to write policy, but to lead the nation. So what is a "serious positive stand"? Or are you just using vague accusatory questions as per standard smear tactics?
You pointed out several items - such as the war - which weren't positive stands for Obama. Clinton is especially bad about moving all over the place to tell people what they want to hear, and all we hear out of Obama's camp is "change." I shouldn't have to dig deep to find what they stand for, and I haven't quite found it, outside of general party principles, which I oppose most of the time anyway.
Looking up a web site with the exact same name as the candidate before shooting off your mouth is hardly "digging deep". Some people are happy to hear only what they want to hear, I guess. A few quick points, because it's probably wasted on someone who needs to be spoon fed:
The bias appears right wing to me, because to a Brit both your parties are right wing. To the extent that the US media failed to hold a conservative adminstration to account even as treated the Constitution with contempt and generally screwed the US to no apparent benefit, it is certainly difficult to see a liberal bias.
What are the things the Clintons were not challenged on by the media? Anything on a scale measured in dead Americans, trade and budget deficits, or significant increases in foreign ownership of US assets?
During an internal selection process, it simply isn't the media's role to create the news and invent questions to satisfy the nutjobs in the other party. Filtering out smear tactics is entirely appropriate. You're concluding the media is biased on by doing what it is supposed to do.
Obama's stance on the war has been consistent. If you don't think that's positive, then you really are as biased as you're pretending not to be. If you think voting to fund troops stuck in a war zone is the same as wanting to bring those troops home, you are quite simply wrong.
Here is probably the biggest factor in our discussion - Euros have been removed for so long from decent right-wing politics that it's hard to recognize the good parts about it, or sometimes to even consider valid points that can have reasonable arguments (firearms for self-defense, pro-life positions, free market medical care, etc).
What are the things the Clintons were not challenged on by the media? Anything on a scale measured in dead Americans, trade and budget deficits, or significant increases in foreign ownership of US assets? Hillary hasn't been answering tough questions lately. Little about gun control, what she'll really do about Iraq or Afghanistan, how she plans to pay for ANYTHING she's promoting...I know that Europeans love the Clintons. I'm not sure if you can see how devisive a figure she is over here - she's one of the few people those of us on the right may be afraid of, because we see her almost as an outright Marxist.
During an internal selection process, it simply isn't the media's role to create the news and invent questions to satisfy the nutjobs in the other party. Filtering out smear tactics is entirely appropriate. You're concluding the media is biased on by doing what it is supposed to do. I thought you considered them to be the arbiters of accountability? There isn't any question they SHOULDN'T ask, in ANY stage of the electoral process. She should answer the same questions she would answer in the general election - which she will have to or be hit hard by the Republicans.
Obama's stance on the war has been consistent. If you don't think that's positive, then you really are as biased as you're pretending not to be. If you think voting to fund troops stuck in a war zone is the same as wanting to bring those troops home, you are quite simply wrong. Quite the contrary - it's a good vote if you're on the left. Funding the troops should be seen as a protection measure for them - it does NO good for them to be unfunded...it won't get them home sooner and it gets them the resources that they need. However, all that is heard out of the campaign is mostly the "hope, change, we can" stuff...but it's going to wind up being probably something along the lines of left of JFK politics.
At some point, lowering taxes to the point where hospitals, roads and schools are no longer supported also makes everyone poorer.
Taxes in the United States are now higher than in the rest of the western world. Per capita, the USA spends more in taxpayer money on hospitals, roads, and schools than any western nation. The problem is that health care is not rationed, we have a huge continent to build roads for, and schools are consistently getting milked by powerful local political groups as a source of patronage jobs.
This is my sig.
"All he did is prove that Open Debate is not a license to waste time"
This is why you fail. YOU don't get to decide what is a waste of time at an open debate.
As I said, you fail totally.
Oh, give me strength. I grew in Hong Kong, whose market was freer than the US prior to the handover to China. I've got an Ivy League MBA and private health insurance. This year I celebrated New Year in Dallas. I hardly think I'm ignorant of the advantages of conservative thinking.
On the other hand, do you have any clue what left wing really is?
Irrelevant, in case you weren't aware of the issues of the day.
You may not like her answers, but don't give me the "questions not asked" bullshit
Same answer again. There's broad agreement on the Democrat side on policy, so why not leave this until it's more entertaining when the Republicans try and claim anything other than a complete fiscal cockup?
No, there are three other branches to get through before you get to the fourth. Further, holding the elected government to account in the media for its actions is not creating the news - it is reporting it. Going through the minutiae of a candidate's background for anything that might be turned into a scare tactic (he once went to primary school!) would not be intelligent coverage of a candidate selection process. Spending a year or two ensuring every single President of the USA dragged through as much irrelevant shit as possible before taking office would simply not be a good system.
Do you spend much time in reality, out of interest? Time is a finite resource. Smear tactics take up time, distract from worthy issues, and add no value. The challenge is to know what questions SHOULD be asked, not to make whiny idealistic statements like some hippy who doesn't work for a living.
This kind of line is the problem with the Republicans currently. You're too scared to answer a question straight. Too dishonest to say right at the start of the conversation that you're right wing. Too self-obsessed to understand the world outside your borders. It's a shame. I wonder how long it will take you to recover.