# Running water on Mars?



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 29, 2015)

More like tool to push the leftist agenda. Looks like the science superfan believes these is another nefarious plot by Obama's Muslim Outreach Department to push the leftist agenda. I'm just surprised he didn't say it would lead to Obama becoming dictator for life. I think it'll be interesting to see how the rest of the republican party, particularly the most conservative members, react to this. Limbaugh has a pretty strong following, and politicians being politicians will probably trip oer themselves to pander to those voters who believe Limbaugh and that this is some leftist agenda point.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

I love Rush.  He's great fun to listen to --so long as you don't believe a word.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 29, 2015)

Unfortunately an overwhelming majority of his listeners are not like you, and they believe every single thing he says as if it was said by God.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Unfortunately an overwhelming majority of his listeners are not like you, and they believe every single thing he says as if it was said by God.




What's your basis for that claim?

I mean, if you had said that most listeners were very likely to believe many of the things he says, I could argue, but you've hyperboleed (verbing nouns ftw) that too far.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2015)

*sigh*.  Rush is a sadness.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> What's your basis for that claim?



You ever listen to his show? 



> I mean, if you had said that most listeners were very likely to believe many of the things he says, I could argue, but you've hyperboleed (verbing nouns ftw) that too far.



So you could argue it if I said that his listeners are very likely to believe what he says, but you can't argue that they believe every single thing he says as if it came from God? I would think it would be far easier to argue the latter.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> *sigh*.  Rush is a sadness.



I think you mean hilarious!  

On topic, I was just listening to Rush and a caller had just started talking about the all the liberal plot water on Mars when the radio cut out for over a minute.  Coincidence or vast left wing conspiracy?  What don't they want me to know!?!


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 29, 2015)

Well Rush would know. He's been on Mars for years now. He should do simulcasts with Art Bell.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well Rush would know. He's been on Mars for years now. He should do simulcasts with Art Bell.



Of course Rush knows, that's why the Left used their satellites (probably the same ones they used to put water on Mars) to stop him from saying it by interfering with the radio waves!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You ever listen to his show?
> 
> So you could argue it if I said that his listeners are very likely to believe what he says, but you can't argue that they believe every single thing he says as if it came from God? I would think it would be far easier to argue the latter.




Yes, I listen about four times a week for periods of anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes.

No, I still disagree that Rush's listeners are anywhere near that monolithic in belief of him.  There a core that are, but I'd put that at less than half of his listeners.  That, in turn, is a small fraction of the crackpots on the world, and to be perfectly frank, Rush's brand of crazy isn't actually all that crazy, competitively, and I rather like knowing exactly where those people are.

I come by my assertions via anecdote, in that I know a bunch of people that have/do listen to Rush, but only a few that are diehards.  In fact, the largest sample is people that used to listen to Rush and no longer do.  Granted, it's anecdotal, but at least it's something other than bald assertion.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you mean hilarious!




It would be funny if he were a human expression of Poe's Law, but I fear he actually believes his own material.  That ceases to be funny, at least to me, and leans to sadness.



> On topic, I was just listening to Rush and a caller had just started talking about the all the liberal plot water on Mars when the radio cut out for over a minute.  Coincidence or vast left wing conspiracy?  What don't they want me to know!?!




What they don't want you to know is that the audio engineer was a nincompoop?  Or that Rush is back on pills, and dozed off?


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 29, 2015)

you Americans is such funny people


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It would be funny if he were a human expression of Poe's Law, but I fear he actually believes his own material.  That ceases to be funny, at least to me, and leans to sadness.
> 
> 
> 
> What they don't want you to know is that the audio engineer was a nincompoop?  Or that Rush is back on pills, and dozed off?



Nah, Rush's an entertainer.  If he was genuinely that wrapped up he would have flamed out by now. You can't maintain that level of outrage for thirty plus years without going of the deep end*.  I don't doubt there a kennel of his beliefs in there, because that lends authenticity, but most of it is pandering.

*although, to be fair, maybe that's was the prescription drugs were all about.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well Rush would know. He's been on Mars for years now. He should do simulcasts with Art Bell.




More liberal lies! Obama is the one who went to Mars! http://www.wired.com/2012/01/obama-mars/


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> More liberal lies! Obama is the one who went to Mars! http://www.wired.com/2012/01/obama-mars/




Well, they _would _deny it.  Least transparent administration ever.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nah, Rush's an entertainer.



What is entertaining about this fascist crap? 







> “From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. *I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled.* If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society.”


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What is entertaining about this fascist crap?




That you don't see it as hilarious hyperbole?  I'm entertained by that.

ETA:  What entertains me about Rush is that he makes the same kind of statements about "liberals" that are often made about conservatives -- that they are horrible, evil, and stupid.  It's momentarily amusing to me to hear the rage this inspires when heard, but said hearer blithely makes similar sweeping statements about conservatives. 

That I hear Rush as very cutting satire.  Maybe that's unintentional, but that's what I hear -- he mocks everyone.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> That you don't see it as hilarious hyperbole?



Him saying that he wants to "get serious" would indicate he wants to be... serious and "openly admit" his fascist views. 

But you know, maybe it is more socially acceptable to just say it is humor. You'd still laugh if say he would make such an hyperbole about Jews, right? Cause hyperboles are funny.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> That you don't see it as hilarious hyperbole?  I'm entertained by that.




That the world does not seem him as hilarious hyperbole is, however, saddening.  My evidence includes (courtesy of Wikipedia):

In 1992, Ronald Reagan sent Limbaugh a letter in which he thanked him "for all you're doing to promote Republican and conservative principles ... [and] you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country."

When the Republican Party won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections, the freshman Republican class awarded Limbaugh an honorary membership in their caucus. 

On March 29, 2007, Limbaugh was awarded the inaugural William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence, by the Media Research Center, a conservative media analysis group.

On January 5, 2008, the conservative magazine Human Events announced Limbaugh as their 2007 Man of the Year.

On February 28, 2009, following his self-described "first address to the nation" lasting 90 minutes, carried live on CNN and Fox News and recorded for C-SPAN, Limbaugh received CPAC's "Defender of the Constitution Award", a document originally signed by Benjamin Franklin, given to someone "who has stood up for the First Amendment ... Rush Limbaugh is for America, exactly what Benjamin Franklin did for the Founding Fathers ... the only way we will be successful is if we listen to Rush Limbaugh."

Zev Chafets, whose book Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One was published May 25, 2010, wrote after the first primaries of the 2010 U.S. election season that Limbaugh was "the brains and the spirit behind" the Republican Party's "resurgence" in the wake of the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. In his May 20, 2010, New York Times op-ed column, Chafets pointed among others to Sen. Arlen Specter's defeat, after being labeled by Limbaugh "Republican in Name Only," and to Sarah Palin, whose "biggest current applause line—Republicans are not just the party of no, but the party of hell no—came courtesy of Mr. Limbaugh."


These are not awards and accolades given to a man who is entertaining for hyperbole.  These are things you give to someone who you think actually represents your position, and advocated for them effectively.  I'm sorry, but your characterization of him as merely a satirist does not match the evidence of his past.

The only good thing about it all is that it is largely in the past.  Rush's acceptance and influence is rapidly fading.  His ratings and ad revenue falling, and stations in major markets are, one by one, dropping his broadcasts.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 30, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I listen about four times a week for periods of anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes.



You should stop doing that. It rots your brain.



> No, I still disagree that Rush's listeners are anywhere near that monolithic in belief of him.  There a core that are, but I'd put that at less than half of his listeners.  That, in turn, is a small fraction of the crackpots on the world, and to be perfectly frank, Rush's brand of crazy isn't actually all that crazy, competitively, and I rather like knowing exactly where those people are.



Well, his brand of craziness may not reach Alex Jones levels, but that doesn't make it any better. What he says has an effect. He riles up the republican base, which in turn push their reps into trying to pass laws that are detrimental to large segments of society. Limbaugh has a large audience. He is pretty much the republican king maker. I prefer a nut case like Alex Jones because at least some of his ideas are entertaining.



> I come by my assertions via anecdote, in that I know a bunch of people that have/do listen to Rush, but only a few that are diehards.  In fact, the largest sample is people that used to listen to Rush and no longer do.  Granted, it's anecdotal, but at least it's something other than bald assertion.



I know a few people who listen to Limbaugh. Most of them are die hards that take everything he says as unquestionable truth. The minority of them believe that he is right, but they don't see his word as unquestionable. So it seems we both have anecdotal evidence. There is also this.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 30, 2015)

Goodness, it's like you're all talking about the Boogeyman.  

Umbran gives a list of accolades -- a nod from the President early in Rush's career, when he was far less bombastic; a honorary membership in the Republican freshman caucus one Congress; an award from a media group for being excellent in media, a conservative magazine of uncertain value (I've never heard of it and I've been reading politics heavily for decades) gave him an honor, and a CPAC award (btw, the bit about 'signed by B Franklin is intentionally misleading in that quote, it makes it seem as if B Franklin has something to do with the award when it's really just saying Ben signed the Constitution... weird) -- all over three decades?  Youch, that guy's setting the world on fire!  Then the list of times he's predicted or had an effect on an election are all confirmation bias because Rush says things _every election_ and things rarely come of it, so pointing out the few times (twice?) where it did isn't actual proof of his power any more than finding a nut is proof a blind squirrel can see.  

Homocidal_Squirrel's (heh, previous analogous pun was unintended) link just claims the same thing he claimed -- that Rush's listeners all believe him -- without any more support.  Heck, the very next page from the one you linked says that a sport reporter that knew Rush distantly happened to be in a place where he overheard Rush say that his politics are all for the money and he'd switch for a bigger paycheck (that sourcing cracks me up, btw) but that he can't be just for sale because he has lots of money now and an ironclad 8 year contract and why would he keep doing it if he's already rich?!  Thanks for that, it was a great laugh.

Limbaugh has a big audience, he says things people on the left are going to hate, and he says things people on the right are going to hate (much more of the former than the latter) but, at the end of the day, he has little power.  If he really commanded an army of 20 million (or half that) of dedicated true believers, you'd see far more effect from his rhetoric than you do.  But Rush is largely irrelevant except as a lightening rod.  As that, he's one of the best assets of the Republican party, but he doesn't have much pull on anything else. Most of his rants never actually result in anything at all.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 30, 2015)

For a guy who has so little power, there sure are a lot of republicans who are terrified of angering him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/steele-to-rush-im-sorry-019517

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/10/19/darrell-issa-is-the-latest-republican-to-apolog/172168

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...publican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tes-to-cross/2012/03/05/gIQAb5JZtR_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/20/37693/tiahrt-limbaugh-apology/

By the way, since you've referred to him as being an entertainer rather than your superior, it's time you apologize to Limbaugh.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 30, 2015)

I suppose it's a good thing I never heard of this Rush dude before. It would be sad if he had any actual influence in the US, though (not that it would surprise me...).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Goodness, it's like you're all talking about the Boogeyman.




No.  We are talking about a man who had significant influence, in his time.  Thankfully, his time now seems to have passed.  But, he's done a fair amount of damage that it is taking significant time to repair.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> No.  We are talking about a man who had significant influence, in his time.  Thankfully, his time now seems to have passed.  But, he's done a fair amount of damage that it is taking significant time to repair.



I'm confused.  You say be has significant influence because of a few isolated incidents, but then say his time is passed because...?  He's not losing venues it listeners, so I don't understand the metric here.


----------



## Janx (Sep 30, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> I suppose it's a good thing I never heard of this Rush dude before. It would be sad if he had any actual influence in the US, though (not that it would surprise me...).




ditto.


Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck feed a demographic of conservative extremists who don't trust mainstream media.  All the folks people like me think are nutjobs or right-wing extremists, probably spend a chunk of their day listening to those two.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm confused.  You say be has significant influence because of a few isolated incidents




I say he *had* influence, and that it is waning.

What you call, "isolated incidents," I call, "events indicative of a pattern."  



> but then say his time is passed because...?  He's not losing venues it listeners, so I don't understand the metric here.




He is losing venues and listeners, and more importantly, advertisers.  His attacks on Sandra Fluke in 2012 lost him most of his major advertisers, and they still don't want to be associated with him.  On top of that, his demographic is now white males 55+, and that limits how much he can draw in ad revenue.  

Since he can't draw major advertising dollars, stations are trying to dump him - many can't do it for contractual reasons, as they are part of a media conglomerate.  But highly-rated syndicated stations in Boston and Indianapolis have dropped him, and he got shuffled off to minor stations run by iHeartMedia in those areas.

At one time, Rush was the top rated radio show in Los Angeles.  He's now 37th.  In New York, he was 5th, and is now 22nd.  That's the two largest radio markets in the nation, in which he is now being outdone by Spanish-language stations and NPR.

He may still be the single most-listened-to radio program, but he's not what he once was.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I say he *had* influence, and that it is waning.
> 
> What you call, "isolated incidents," I call, "events indicative of a pattern."



I still say that's just confirmation bias, as Rush is always saying things and nothing happens because of it.  That it did happen to make a difference a few times (mostly around the big TEA party push, which unsettled a bunch of things during that time) doesn't a pattern make.  The long term pattern for Rush is nothing.




> He is losing venues and listeners, and more importantly, advertisers.  His attacks on Sandra Fluke in 2012 lost him most of his major advertisers, and they still don't want to be associated with him.  On top of that, his demographic is now white males 55+, and that limits how much he can draw in ad revenue.
> 
> Since he can't draw major advertising dollars, stations are trying to dump him - many can't do it for contractual reasons, as they are part of a media conglomerate.  But highly-rated syndicated stations in Boston and Indianapolis have dropped him, and he got shuffled off to minor stations run by iHeartMedia in those areas.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I still say that's just confirmation bias




It doesn't seem to me that you are particularly free of bias yourself.  You consider yourself a conservative, yes?  With that affiliation comes an emotional need to have conservatives viewed in a positive light (just like any group affiliation does).  It then serves your needs to dismiss or discount that which makes the team look bad.

I have presented evidence - major candidates using his arguments and phrasing, him given accolades, analytical authors noting his was pretty central to the development of the Tea Party movement.  And you have given what, other than just denial? 

Simple question - what, if anything, would convince you?  I think at this point we should see what your standard of proof is.



> as Rush is always saying things and nothing happens because of it.




I think you're pretty selectively remembering the political discourse of the 1990s and 2000s.  But, until I know what sort of evidence is required for you to not dismiss it, there's little purpose in continuing to discuss.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It doesn't seem to me that you are particularly free of bias yourself.  You consider yourself a conservative, yes?  With that affiliation comes an emotional need to have conservatives viewed in a positive light (just like any group affiliation does).  It then serves your needs to dismiss or discount that which makes the team look bad.



I'm less concerned that you'd think, but stipulated.



> I have presented evidence - major candidates using his arguments and phrasing, him given accolades, analytical authors noting his was pretty central to the development of the Tea Party movement.  And you have given what, other than just denial?



The years and years of Rush Limbaugh being on the air, saying things about politics and candidates, making overbroad predictions so he can't be wrong, and having no impact whatsoever on the national scene.  That's my evidence, a huge gaping hole of nothing.  I can't offer specific evidence of nothing, because there's nothing there to offer except the nothing.  For the vast, vast majority of his time on the radio, Rush Limbaugh has had very little effect on the national political scene.  I can't prove this, no, but then you can't prove a negative.  You offered some legit evidence, yes, and stipulated it's good and true evidence.  However, compared to the thirty plus years of nothing, it's a vanishingly small amount of evidence.

And that's what confirmation bias is.  Not just bias, which we all have, but the specific bias that occurs when you only look at those data points that affirm your position and discount those that don't.  In this case, there's a huge amount that doesn't confirm that Rush Limbaugh is very influential on Republican and/or national politics, and a handful of instances where he is.  If you graphed the number of instances against the length of his career, they would be very lonely points.



> Simple question - what, if anything, would convince you?  I think at this point we should see what your standard of proof is.



I'm easy, more evidence that he's been influential.  Get the graph to look more spikey, and I'm your huckleberry.



> I think you're pretty selectively remembering the political discourse of the 1990s and 2000s.  But, until I know what sort of evidence is required for you to not dismiss it, there's little purpose in continuing to discuss.



In what way?  Rush saying outrageous things, getting into the news as 'how dare he', and angering the left?  I remember that pretty well.  If your test is 'Rush is a media phenomena" or "Rush has been a lightening rod", I've already agreed to that.  My contention is that he's not actually been influence on politics or politicians outside of occasional lip service (and most of your sites are just that -- lip service).  Rush doesn't get invited to strategy sessions, he very rarely gets interviews with prominent Republican politicians (the littler guys are more looking for exposure than a specific Rush stamp, so they can become bigger guys).  He doesn't get White House invites to discuss politics.  He never makes statements to the effect that he's going to get something changed or done because he knows he lacks the ability to do so and failure would actually affect his listenership if they realized how little power he actually has.  Rush is a paper tiger, and so long as you're wasting time fighting him, he's ecstatic.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 1, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Unfortunately an overwhelming majority of his listeners are not like you, and they believe every single thing he says as if it was said by God.




Additional responses omitted.

We are ending up debating whether a majority of Rush's listeners believe _every single thing_ he says.

That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense.  The debate hinges on the unreasonable _every_, which is immediately false.

Also, there is a conclusion (listeners here take a different view of Rush's statements, compared to a typical listener) which does not require the _every_ statement.  (There is another problem, in that we hardly have a handle on a typical EnWorld member, or at least I don't.)

If we shift our discussion to that difference, there is a lot more which is interesting to discuss.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Additional responses omitted.
> 
> We are ending up debating whether a majority of Rush's listeners believe _every single thing_ he says.
> 
> That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense.  The debate hinges on the unreasonable _every_, which is immediately false.




Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes.  It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm easy, more evidence that he's been influential.  Get the graph to look more spikey, and I'm your huckleberry.




With respect, you ought to be more specific.  You've already broadly dismissed *everything* presented as "isolated incidents" and "confirmation bias".  You leave little confidence that the next stack of stuff won't be similarly summarily dismissed.  "Just give me more" leaves us in an open-ended state, where I could keep digging up references, with you shoving them down a hole each time.  Intentional or not, it ends up as a variant of "moving the goalposts", in that you get to always say the goalposts are a bit further on, because you never actually set them in the first place.

There isn't a whole lot of point engaging in that kind of discussion.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes.  It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"




Well that's only fair, as it's also how political discourse has progressed in The United States


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Discussions on the internet very often (maybe even "usually") drive to polar extremes.  It becomes "all or none", and we cannot usually handle a discussion about *some*, or "How much or how little?"




Yes, but maybe we don't have to do that here (drive to polar extremes)?

In the case of listeners views of Rush, there is something interesting going on.  Looking at two very simplistic characterization as points for comparison:

"That's absurd (and ugly).  It distorts the truth and interferes with gaining an understanding of the topic."

"That's amusing.  Not literally true, but true in the sense of capturing an essential feature of the topic."

I hear the original statement as saying that the second characterization is much more common than the first.

I find the different to be very of interest, since, when I listen to Rush and others of his ilk, I have to work to get to the second characterization, while the first occurs to me almost immediately .

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With respect, you ought to be more specific.  You've already broadly dismissed *everything* presented as "isolated incidents" and "confirmation bias".  You leave little confidence that the next stack of stuff won't be similarly summarily dismissed.



Let's do be fair.  I acknowledged and stipulated each of your events as true.  I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to equally stipulate that each even is also indicative of Rush's influence. The charge I'm disputing is that he had 'significant influence in his time'. Is all of that fair?

If so, then my contention is that the number of events you cited (around six iirc) over 28 years of national broadcasting is not sufficient to show he has had 'significant influence' even as I stipulate that each event was valid and true for your conjecture.  This is because he made political statements every day for 28 years but you only have six or so events in which that influence was noteworthy.  That's not enough.



> "Just give me more" leaves us in an open-ended state, where I could keep digging up references, with you shoving them down a hole each time.  Intentional or not, it ends up as a variant of "moving the goalposts", in that you get to always say the goalposts are a bit further on, because you never actually set them in the first place.
> 
> There isn't a whole lot of point engaging in that kind of discussion.



While I'm willing to agree that the risk is there, I'm not willing to accept that I'm the person that will move goalposts.  I get where you're coming from, but this appears as questioning my honesty without cause as I've never shown the behavior attributed.  I get that this is the internet, and you have to manage your time, but if the issue is that you felt I didn't set a hard enough goal, ask for a harder goal before you go into assuming I won't provide one because I'm not treating honestly.

If you would like a harder goalpost, then how about twice the number of distinct events you've provided, or at least 1 event every two years he was on the air.  That at least aligns closely enough to national election cycles for influence to be significant.  If you disagree, propose a counter metric.  We can haggle.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Yes, but maybe we don't have to do that here (drive to polar extremes)?
> 
> In the case of listeners views of Rush, there is something interesting going on.  Looking at two very simplistic characterization as points for comparison:
> 
> ...




Not sure I'd agree he captures anything essential half the time, but mostly the latter.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> That's debatable, but only in an uninteresting sense.
> 
> If we shift our discussion to that difference, there is a lot more which is interesting to discuss.



_That's_ debatable. What you find interesting may or may not be the same thing anyone else finds interesting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 1, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's do be fair.  I acknowledged and stipulated each of your events as true.  I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to equally stipulate that each even is also indicative of Rush's influence. The charge I'm disputing is that he had 'significant influence in his time'. Is all of that fair?
> 
> If so, then my contention is that the number of events you cited (around six iirc) over 28 years of national broadcasting is not sufficient to show he has had 'significant influence' even as I stipulate that each event was valid and true for your conjecture.  This is because he made political statements every day for 28 years but you only have six or so events in which that influence was noteworthy.  That's not enough.
> 
> ...



So your goal is a quantitative one rather than a qualitative one, correct?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So your goal is a quantitative one rather than a qualitative one, correct?




I could discuss qualitative.  What metrics do you have in mind?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I could discuss qualitative.  What metrics do you have in mind?



No, at the moment we are discussing your goal.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No, at the moment we are discussing your goal.




Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences.  I don't have any right now, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some.  Until then, I guess we can stick to the quantitative since you don't have a problem with that.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> _That's_ debatable. What you find interesting may or may not be the same thing anyone else finds interesting.




Eh, do you think there is a whole lot that is interesting about discussing whether Rush listeners believe _every thing he says as if it were the word of god_?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences.  I don't have any right now, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some.



If your interested, I'd be curious to explore quality. 

You deny his leadership and his influence, saying he is basically clowning around. But why would President Reagan give him an award if he was a clown? Why make a clown an honorary member of the Republican caucus? That would be bad for the Republican brand, right? If it were a zero summum game, why do it at all?

You say those things happened a long time ago and now his influence has diminished. Firstly, that would mean you do agree that he did have some influence at some point. I says he hasn't lost much of it, if he lost any.

In 2009, not too long ago, Michael Steele as leader of the RND agreed with you and said this about Limbaugh: 







> "the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."



 Now, if Limbaugh had no influence inside the Republican party and among conservatives, that would of been that, right? There would have been a concensus among Republicans that he was a clown. The head of the RNC isn't even elected by the public, so he isn't beholden to voters like other politicians are. Yet he had to apologize to the clown and call him a leader. 







> "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not." Steele later issued another statement to say that Limbaugh "is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize."




How is that, qualitatively speaking of course, not a sign of Limbaugh's importance, influence and popularity among Republicans and conservatives?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If your interested, I'd be curious to explore quality.
> 
> You deny his leadership and his influence, saying he is basically clowning around. But why would President Reagan give him an award if he was a clown?



It wasn't an award, it was a letter.  Rush was the biggest national radio host with a conservative oriented program in the US at the time.  I've never denied Rush isn't on the right, I've said he has little actual influence. A letter from an ex-President isn't exactly a glowing representation of political power considering there was a sitting Republican President at the time that didn't say anything at all.



> Why make a clown an honorary member of the Republican caucus?



Who said clown?  I said he was an entertainer, and intentionally says things to upset people with liberal sensibilities.  He's a lightening rod.  He lightening rodded very well that year, and the Republicans were high off of winning a massive landside in Congress.  They were giddy, and Rush was a well known phenomenon at the time.  But, and this is kinda key, the thing he did that year was talk up the Contract with America.  He didn't propose anything new, and that was carried everywhere.  Hard to credit Rush with that win, at best he had a small effect.  That all of the newly elected members decided to slap him on the back doesn't really show much qualitatively.



> That would be bad for the Republican brand, right? If it were a zero summum game, why do it at all?



An appeal to zero sum logic in a situation (politics) where it clearly doesn't apply is kinda confusing to me. 



> You say those things happened a long time ago and now his influence has diminished. Firstly, that would mean you do agree that he did have some influence at some point. I says he hasn't lost much of it, if he lost any.




No, I said neither thing.  I said the incidents were isolated, meaning they were not representative of the continuity of his being on air as a national broadcaster.  I've also never said his influence has diminished -- that was an argument from Umbran.  I've been pretty clear that I don't think he's ever had substantial influence.  Your arguments aren't applicable to what I've been saying.  They might be good arguments if you find someone to apply them to, though, so don't feel discouraged; someone might show up any minute and help you out.




> In 2009, not too long ago, Michael Steele as leader of the RND agreed with you and said this about Limbaugh:  Now, if Limbaugh had no influence inside the Republican party and among conservatives, that would of been that, right? There would have been a concensus among Republicans that he was a clown. The head of the RNC isn't even elected by the public, so he isn't beholden to voters like other politicians are. Yet he had to apologize to the clown and call him a leader.
> 
> How is that, qualitatively speaking of course, not a sign of Limbaugh's importance, influence and popularity among Republicans and conservatives?



That's the first really good point I've seen and a solid point in favor of the argument that Rush is a Republican leader.  My only qualitative contention is that Steele often stepped on himself, and fumbled around the leadership of the party for the two years he was in. He lost very convincingly in the next election.  The time that Steele was in was a very precarious one for Republicans.  They had just lost to Obama and were losing seats in Congress.  They were are a local minimum of power.  That's when Rush has the most influence -- when the Republicans are least in power -- because his small influence is magnified in the search for as many votes as possible.  I rest this argument against by noting that no other leader of the party has rushed out to announce Rush as a conservative leader.  Granted, they don't insult him, either, they just ignore him.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Eh, do you think there is a whole lot that is interesting about discussing whether Rush listeners believe _every thing he says as if it were the word of god_?
> 
> Thx!
> TomB



Sure, why not?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, I had thought you were interested in a qualitative test and might have some preferences.  *I don't have any right now*, but would be interested in hearing yours if you have some.  Until then, I guess we can stick to the quantitative since you don't have a problem with that.



My question was about _your_ goal. I just wanted to make sure that later on you don't change your goal later on and dismiss examples provided to you as 'just minor instances' or 'really not that big a deal.'


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's the first really good point I've seen and a solid point in favor of the argument that Rush is a Republican leader.



That's the _first_ good point you see that is a good solid point in favor of Rush being a republican leader? Really? That's also the _first_ link I posted. That suggests that you dismissed points without actually considering them. That's bad form.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> My question was about _your_ goal. I just wanted to make sure that later on you don't change your goal later on and dismiss examples provided to you as 'just minor instances' or 'really not that big a deal.'



Ah, so it's suspicion that I'm arguing dishonestly that's motivating you to ask trap questions so you can pin me down on behaviour I haven't exhibited yet?  Maybe, and this is just spitballing, if I move my clearly stated goalposts you can accuse me of moving goalposts _then_?



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's the _first_ good point you see that is a good solid point in favor of Rush being a republican leader? Really? That's also the _first_ link I posted. That suggests that you dismissed points without actually considering them. That's bad form.



I had actually missed your post somehow. Apologies.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, so it's suspicion that I'm arguing dishonestly that's motivating you to ask trap questions so you can pin me down on behaviour I haven't exhibited yet?  Maybe, and this is just spitballing, if I move my clearly stated goalposts you can accuse me of moving goalposts _then_?



 I'm just helping you clearly state your goal. 



> I had actually missed your post somehow. Apologies.



 That's one internetz for me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 2, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> It wasn't an award, it was a letter. Rush was the biggest national radio host with a conservative oriented program in the US at the time.



And reaching that many people doesn't translate into influence over Republicans and conservatives!?



> I've said he has little actual influence.



Size is a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. 



> I said he was an entertainer



And that means it is impossible for him to have influence? 



> He's a lightening rod.  He lightening rodded very well that year, and the Republicans were high off of winning a massive landside in Congress.  They were giddy, and Rush was a well known phenomenon at the time.  But, and this is kinda key, the thing he did that year was talk up the Contract with America.  He didn't propose anything new, and that was carried everywhere.



Ok, so he talked up the Contract with America. He promoted it. He said positive things about it and Republicans to his large audience. It had an impact on his audience and on their voting. That isn't influence!? 



> Hard to credit Rush with that win, at best he had a small effect.



Well, if he had an effect, that is influence. The size of the effect is quantitative, something we aren't discussing here. 

Also, to be clear, I didn't credit Limbaugh with any win. No one in this thread said that Limbaugh is the only person responsable for Republican wins or policies for that matter. What people in the thread have said is that he has influence on some of the Republican base and that has repercutions on the party, its politicians and policies. How much influence is a quantitative argument and we aren't discussing that. And to be clear, having influence doesn't mean he is the only one with influence on Republicans. 

He can affect Republican perceptions of issues and that is Limbaugh's real power. Did he participate him the negative perception the Republican base had of Speaker Boehner? Or The Affordable Health Care Act? Does he influence the gridlock in congress by saying compromize with Democrates and Obama is a bad thing? Does he has a influence on Republican perception of global warming? You might say it is a small influence, but that is influence. His voice contributes to shaping opinions and ultimately policies among Republicans. 



> That all of the newly elected members decided to slap him on the back doesn't really show much qualitatively.



Well, qualitative means quality. Here we have some of the Republican party elite thanking him for his influence in their election to congress. It is hard to get a better (quality) slap on the back, wouldn't you say?



> An appeal to zero sum logic in a situation (politics) where it clearly doesn't apply is kinda confusing to me.



Maybe it is the wrong expression, but if Limbaugh had no influence, why invite him in the caucus in the first place? They made him a member of the caucus just because they found him entertaining? Not to thank him or score points with some voters? 



> I said the incidents were isolated, meaning they were not representative of the continuity of his being on air as a national broadcaster.



I think you're overstating what influence needs to be. For you it seems that a person needs to have an impact each election to be called influencial. Wouldn't you say that if a person talks about politics to a large segment of the population almost everyday, that the person will have some influence on that segment of the population when it comes to politics? Even if he is an entertainer?



> That's the first really good point I've seen and a solid point in favor of the argument that Rush is a Republican leader.



Thank you. My next set will be at 8 pm. You need to be 18 or older, cause it gets a little blue.  



> My only qualitative contention is that Steele often stepped on himself, and fumbled around the leadership of the party for the two years he was in. He lost very convincingly in the next election.  The time that Steele was in was a very precarious one for Republicans.  They had just lost to Obama and were losing seats in Congress.  They were are a local minimum of power.  That's when Rush has the most influence -- when the Republicans are least in power -- because his small influence is magnified in the search for as many votes as possible.  I rest this argument against by noting that no other leader of the party has rushed out to announce Rush as a conservative leader.  Granted, they don't insult him, either, they just ignore him.



Or are afraid of him. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...publican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> And reaching that many people doesn't translate into influence over Republicans and conservatives!?



Never claimed he had no influence.  Not going to bother restating my position since I've said it multiple times.  Go back and reread.



> Size is a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one.



No, size is qualitative, it's a quality something has.  A qualitative argument is on things you count.  You can count big things and you can count not big things, but the value of big is qualitative, not quantitative.


> And that means it is impossible for him to have influence?
> 
> Ok, so he talked up the Contract with America. He promoted it. He said positive things about it and Republicans to his large audience. It had an impact on his audience and on their voting. That isn't influence!?
> 
> ...



I started to respond these individually, but I realized I was just typing that I never made that argument and you should go back and reread.  



> Well, qualitative means quality. Here we have some of the Republican party elite thanking him for his influence in their election to congress. It is hard to get a better (quality) slap on the back, wouldn't you say?



Then define a less quality backslap.  You can't do a qualitative analysis unless you're distinguishing between the relative quality of a group of the same things.  So, for backlslaps, you'd have to have a measure for which backslaps are better than other backslaps.  You've just counted a backslap and presume it's of high quality.  Doesn't work like that.



> Maybe it is the wrong expression, but if Limbaugh had no influence, why invite him in the caucus in the first place? They made him a member of the caucus just because they found him entertaining? Not to thank him or score points with some voters?
> 
> I think you're overstating what influence needs to be. For you it seems that a person needs to have an impact each election to be called influencial. Wouldn't you say that if a person talks about politics to a large segment of the population almost everyday, that the person will have some influence on that segment of the population when it comes to politics? Even if he is an entertainer?



See statement above re: not my argument.



> Thank you. My next set will be at 8 pm. You need to be 18 or older, cause it gets a little blue.



Excellent.  One hopes you'll be better prepared for your next set, and could possibly address the things the other posters have actually said.  A second act of setting fire to strawmen won't be nearly as interesting.



> Or are afraid of him. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...publican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/



Yup, I'd agree Democrats are afraid of him, which is why they take every opportunity to attack him over anything controversial he says.  Most Republicans go, "oh, Rush is a jerk again," and move on.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2015)

About half the things Rush says are serious.  The other half are him joking to see how much he can tweak the liberal media noses and see what he can get them to repeat.  You can hear the difference in his tones.

I occasionally listen to him for the comedic value.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 4, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Never claimed he had no influence.



So why did you want to discuss if he was influencial, a quality, in the first place?



> No, size is qualitative, it's a quality something has.



Being infuencial is a quality someone has, or not. Amount of influence is quantity. Limbaugh's influence is in limited in quantity according to you, so he has little impact on Republicans, but you do agree he is influencial, a quality.



> I started to respond these individually, but I realized I was just typing that I never made that argument and you should go back and reread.



So, if you agree he has influence, why deny he has that quality? The amount of his influence is another subject matter.



> Then define a less quality backslap.



The award for outstanding achievement in the field of excellence. 



> You can't do a qualitative analysis unless you're distinguishing between the relative quality of a group of the same things.  So, for backlslaps, you'd have to have a measure for which backslaps are better than other backslaps.  You've just counted a backslap and presume it's of high quality.  Doesn't work like that.



Now you're not debating in good faith. You might as well say that you ignore the value of being named an honorary member of North Dakota's Argusville's chamber of commerce.



> See statement above re: not my argument.



Actually, you've said many times Limbaugh was an entertainer to diminishing the scope of his importance and influence.



> Yup, I'd agree Democrats are afraid of him, which is why they take every opportunity to attack him over anything controversial he says.  Most Republicans go, "oh, Rush is a jerk again," and move on.



Except the article I linked was about Republican leadership being afraid of him...


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 7, 2015)

Good news. Some people think The Martian film is based on a true story. Trump is so gonna be the next president. http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/the-martian-is-not-a-true-story#.xtZr3GbQA


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So why did you want to discuss if he was influencial, a quality, in the first place?
> 
> Being infuencial is a quality someone has, or not. Amount of influence is quantity. Limbaugh's influence is in limited in quantity according to you, so he has little impact on Republicans, but you do agree he is influencial, a quality.
> 
> ...




You're continuing to misrepresent my arguments in favor of one you supply.  I can't answer many of your points because they pertain to arguments I'm not making, and I'm disinclined to respond to the few that don't because they're spin-off arguments from ones you're misrepresenting.  If you'd like to make an attempt to read what I've said in the thread and discuss that, I'm game.  Otherwise, enjoy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 7, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're continuing to misrepresent my arguments in favor of one you supply.



Which qualitative argument are you talking about?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Which qualitative argument are you talking about?




Pick one.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 7, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Pick one.




Help me out.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Help me out.




My posts start at post number 2.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 7, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> My posts start at post number 2.




Qualitative discussion starts at page #5. What argument from there do you think I ignored or didn't understand?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Qualitative discussion starts at page #5. What argument from there do you think I ignored or didn't understand?




We've been around on this already; I've already said my piece.  I've enjoyed this sparring, but I rather think it dull forum fair for others.  Enjoy!


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 7, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> We've been around on this already; I've already said my piece.



What was it?


----------

