Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Oh my...now this statement is very disconcerting.

Your logic assumes this:

If one hates Rush Limbaugh, one must love Howard Stern.

However, did I once even imply that I loved Howard Stern? In fact, I cannot stand the guy. Any moron can resort to crass humor and cheap sex jokes. He is as predictable as Jerry Springer or those fucking stupid "Girls Gone Wild" videos. I find him to simply be a virus, whom I will only give credit for showing the weakness of government regulation in general in that it is more profitable to break the law and pay fines than to adhere to the law.

Regardless, I believe that Stern has a right to be on the air, and, even though I hate Rush Limbaugh, I will defend his right to be on the air as well.

My point of posting ratings statistics was to state the futility of proclaiming any one person the "king" of radio. You may state 20 million listeners per week for Limbaugh, but when stacked up against the 136 million per week who do listen to the radio, that statistic isn't that impressive, now is it?

I will grant you the reality that Howard Stern likely does get far less in ratings than Rush Limbaugh, but I honestly don't know why people lump those two together. They have nothing in common. Stern is not a political commentator, but a shock jock whose primary aim is to entertain.

Melon

1. I never implied YOU like Stern. If you noticed, I was replying to Zonelistner.

2. Yes, it may not be a fair assesment to compare Rush and Stern directly, but both have programs that center around themselves as the stars, and both attempt to entertain (though Rush's show is clearly more informative).

3. If comparing Rush to Stern isn't fair, it's certainly not logical to compare Rush to 136 million who listen to the radio for music, etc. What's MORE fair is to compare Rush to news-oriented television shows - O'Rielly, etc. Even if Rush doesn't beat those ratings, his are at least comparable.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
That is another thing to put into consideration. Clear Channel (divested from SFX) owns over 1/3 of all American radio stations, much thanks to ownership deregulation in 1996. Howard Stern is owned by Infinity Broadcasting (part of CBS), which is much smaller.

But there is also the fact that AM radio, in particular, is dominated by conservative listeners.

Of course, people like Rush Limbaugh and that fake "Dr." Laura Schlessinger are going to do fantastic with that kind of listenership, especially when owned by the largest owner of radio stations in the U.S., but the statistics are misleading. Radio listenership, in general, is in severe decline, compared to three decades ago, and AM radio is near financial collapse, sustained barely by the talk radio/news format. Rush has certainly found his home in right-wing AM radio, but floundered in the more ideologically diverse television market. The same with "Dr." Laura...how long did her TV talk show last?

What a silly argument this is becoming. I think I've made my point.

Melon

No, you haven't.

As you say, Clear Channel bought up so many stations because of deregulation in 1996. Rush debuted eight years prior, and was dominant by the time Clinton won in 1992. The suggestion that Clear Channel shoved Rush down everyone's throats is ridiculous.

(Amusing: Moore thinks Bush should have known about the Enron collapse during the 2000 election, when Enron stocks were still high - and you think Clear Channel is why is Rush is popular, when Rush was established many years earlier. That whole cause-and-effect thing is tricky.)

Further, the suggestion that Rush dominates because talk-radio is conservative is also ass-backwards. In 1988, everybody thought talk radio was local, that Rush's show (a national, daytime program with no guests) would fail immediately.

Rush didn't prosper from a beneficial environment; he was so sucessful he altered the entire environment. Rush has been such a pioneer that we can't imagine a radio environment that isn't conservative.

And it hasn't been from a lack of liberal competition, either; Mario Cuomo and others have tried to do for liberalism what Rush has done for conservatism, and they have failed.

As for the TV show, differences in media matter; Rush was attempting to produce a half-hour version of his radio show on television for late-night syndication in an environment dominated by the networks with niches already filled out by sitcom re-runs and trashy Springer-type shows. It was too different and never found traction.

But, of course, everyone has their missteps (see: Rattle and Hum, the movie), and Rush's success on the radio, in print, and online is not disputed seriously, and certainly not by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

[Achtung Bubba]

And while I'm here, Melon, I would like to remind you that you haven't explained this little quote:

In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

Where is the magical "general consensus"?

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
He is wrong, and you are wrong to agree with him.

Oh, dear Bubba, this need you have to be right, and the way you are such a big bully about it...it's just a cry for love.

*smooch*

[Calluna]

Just in case you missed it the first time, Bubba:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Oh, dear Bubba, this need you have to be right, and the way you are such a big bully about it...it's just a cry for love.

*smooch*

------------------
We plants are happy plants.

[adam's_mistress]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
[B]I can't speak for others of course, but I for one disregard Moore; I think he's an damned fool. The only reason I'm taking his blatherings seriously is because quite a few of the forum members here think he's right. "So true", and all.

I'm not adamant because I think he's wrong (and he is), I'm adamant because a few of you are delusional enough to think he's right.

B]

Keep patting yourself on the back for a job well done, Bub. Keep flinging the insults and deeming those with opposing views as "not that bright." Go ahead, because, because from where I stand it looks like you've chosen to dominate this thread with your hateful, spiteful, and conceited know-it-all demeanor. Sorry 80'sU2, Bubba's fight is not the good fight. A good fighter with his heart in the right place wouldn't stoop to personal insults and jabs directed toward people with opposing views.

And why do you care, Bubba, if some people think Moore's extemists views are right? What are you trying to prove, that your views are better than anyone else's? Are you trying to prove your dominance in yet another thread in this godforsaken forum that breeds so much hatred for liberals and conservatives alike? What are you trying to prove exactly, that some people's opinions are wrong? Because as I see it you have a leg to stand on but you sound just as extremist as Mr. Moore, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Does Moore have a point? Maybe to leftists. It obviously pisses you off as much as it would piss off anyone on the other side of the great divide to listen to some of the tripe that Rush Limbaugh spews. Does your buddy Rush have a point? Sure he does, to the conservative right. You've managed to turn this Moore thread into a war against conservatives v. liberals, you against joyfulgirl and melon and whoever else decides to chime in - If you think you're right, then go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back, I'm sure it must be sore from you beating on it, and your arm must be tired from reaching around that far. Keep at it, since you're obviously much "brighter" than everyone else here. Opinions can't be wrong, can they?

I have nothing more to add to this thread, never had anything to add - neither a thumbs up or a thumbs down regarding what Mr. Moore wrote. His views are extremely leftist even for my taste and articles like these do nothing more than add to the great divide.

[Achtung Bubba]

Why do I care that people disagree with me?

First, it is because I believe this issue (whether Bush did something illegal/unethical/bad in the midst of the Enron collapse) is important; as people who help determine who runs the government, we need to know whether our politicians are trustworthy. If they are, these attacks should be shown to be so worthless that they have no effect on the government and its leaders. If they are not, then the government officials themselves should be investigated.

A pretty serious matter, I think, and one in which there is right answer: either Bush is guilty of some crime, or he isn't.

Second, it is because, on this very important issue, I am right.

I may come off as arrogant about this, I may hurt people's feelings by suggesting they're wrong (or not very bright for siding with Moore), but that doesn't take away from the fact that I am right.

Am I trying to prove other people's opinions are wrong? Yes, I am. And, yes, they are.


[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-02-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

And Calluna, I saw your pwecious widdle post.

Thanks, but no thanks, and please note that I was addressing Melon and NOT you.

Melon, I still await an answer.

[melon]

Bubba, you crack me up. I haven't responded all day, because I did a massive overhaul of my computer today, which included a hard drive format and an operating system update. It takes a while to get everything reinstalled and reconfigured. In fact, the only reason I'm online now is because I needed updated audio/game port drivers.

As for your insistence I address the Rush Limbaugh extremist paragraph, why not try taking a little trip north of the Mason-Dixon line outside of the Bible Belt and bask yourself in my home, which has been very nicely labelled the "Rust Belt." Limbaugh's "Rushisms" might strike a chord in your home environment, but they amount to nothing here. Most of the Rush fans up here used to live in the South.

I have no concrete statistics to prove this to you, but I don't have to: I've lived it. If that's not good enough, then it's not my problem.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
1. I never implied YOU like Stern. If you noticed, I was replying to Zonelistner.

Honest mistake on my part. My apologies...

3. If comparing Rush to Stern isn't fair, it's certainly not logical to compare Rush to 136 million who listen to the radio for music, etc. What's MORE fair is to compare Rush to news-oriented television shows - O'Rielly, etc. Even if Rush doesn't beat those ratings, his are at least comparable.

Comparing radio ratings to television ratings are like comparing apples to oranges. I could refer to Limbaugh's former TV show, but he was on syndicated broadcast television and O'Reilly is on the cable FOX News Channel. Cable is so watered down that few stations crack a 5 share (typically around 2-3 share). A show with that kind of a ratings share would be cancelled on broadcast television most definitely.

But Limbaugh's show did end up cancelled during his so-called rise in radio ratings. What should that tell you about the differences between radio and television audiences?

BTW, my degree is in telecommunication, and I took plenty of coursework in TV/radio. Trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about, at least with this.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Bubba, you crack me up. I haven't responded all day, because I did a massive overhaul of my computer today, which included a hard drive format and an operating system update. It takes a while to get everything reinstalled and reconfigured. In fact, the only reason I'm online now is because I needed updated audio/game port drivers.

As for your insistence I address the Rush Limbaugh extremist paragraph, why not try taking a little trip north of the Mason-Dixon line outside of the Bible Belt and bask yourself in my home, which has been very nicely labelled the "Rust Belt." Limbaugh's "Rushisms" might strike a chord in your home environment, but they amount to nothing here. Most of the Rush fans up here used to live in the South.

I have no concrete statistics to prove this to you, but I don't have to: I've lived it. If that's not good enough, then it's not my problem.

Melon

Oh, THAT'S your evidence? Pathetic.

You're basically saying that the general feeling from the town you live in is reason enough to think that "the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to."

Why couldn't I just say the same thing? Why couldn't I say that people in Michigan are more liberal than the rest of the country and you would see that if you ever stepped out of the Rust Belt?

Would YOU except that as evidence? I thought not.

In reply, then, something a bit more tangible:

1. Rush is still, far and away, the most popular radio talk show host in the nation - not just the Deep South, where our opinions count for little apparently, but the ENTIRE nation.

2. There are over two dozen stations in Michigan that broadcast Rush Limbaugh. Either a lot of Southerners have moved up to Michigan (and New York and California), or maybe - just maybe - there are even native-born fans in Michigan.

3. The nation itself has moved to the right, as evidenced by:

* The Congressional elections of 1994, in which Republicans became the majority party of both houses.

* The ensuing change in Bill Clinton, from an obvious liberal (the health care plan, stimulus packages, etc.) to a seeming moderate, even going so far as to agree to GOP budgets.

* The 2000 election, in which Gore did not embrace traditional liberal platforms and Bush embraced conservatism. The end result was that Bush gained more votes than Clinton did in '92 or '96.

* The success of Bias a recent book that confirms the belief of Rush and other conservatives that the mainstream media is liberal.

* The success of the FOX News Channel, a station that originally advertised on the Rush Limbaugh program. While not a conservative network, it's far less liberal than its counterparts at CNN - and FNC has been rewarded for moving away from liberalism, in that its ratings are higher than CNN DESPITE the fact that CNN is carried by more providers. And look at O'Reilly; certainly, he doesn't agree with Rush on everything, but I'd say he's far closer to Limbaugh than he is any liberal, and his ratings are stellar.


Those are the types of things you have to overcome to pursuasively show that Rush is being rejected by mainstream America, and all you present is your "life experience"?

You're right in that your own life experience should be enough to convince YOU, but that's simply not enough to pursuade me to agree.

As arrogant as some people in this forum think I am, at least I provide something more substantial when I make such a broad claim. When you asked for my argument earlier in this thread, I provided it, and the argument was a bit more than some fuzzy explanation about life experiences.

"I have no concrete statistics to prove this to you, but I don't have to: I've lived it. If that's not good enough, then it's not my problem."

In other words, you won't provide anything more to back up your claim. It seems to me, then, that you have lowered the bar when it comes to evidence that you are asked to provide.

I nailed you on this one, Melon, and I don't think you're able to admit.

[Danospano]

Wow! I posted this yesterday and it already has 55 responses? Sure, most of those are rants by Achung Bubba, but it's still impressive.

I haven't read all of the responses, but I looked over the first dozen and it seems like we are still divided into two groups. One group is composed of 80sU2isBest and to the greatest extent, Achung Bubba. This group believes that everything that Michael Moore states is an exageration or a ignorant, partisan remark. I suppose if Michael Moore believed the world was round, they'd disagree because he's Michael Moore, huh? Then there's the rest of us, who read all opinions and take truth from all perspectives. We know who we are, and we are better people because of this. Moore makes points, which are true. Sure, Clinton probably did twice as many unethical things during his tenure. We are not defending Mr. Clinton. I think the majority of high ranking CEO's and politicans ARE corrupt. So does Mr. Moore, and if you'd realize this, you'd know that he's not a partisan commentator, but pusher of truth.

Truth is almost always unpleasant. When I found out Santa Claus was noting more than a figment of my imagination I was shocked, angry and believed he still existed. Then I discovered that life isn't always full of Merlot wine and Silky roses. It's got a lot of crap in it, and the soon we all realize that, the sooner we'll be able to have faith and admiration toward our fellow citizens. Politicans and CEO's included.

[Achtung Bubba]

If you read what I wrote, you would also note that I had reasons for stating my opposition to Moore, and I gave those reasons.

I would restate them, but if you didn't read them the first time, there's no sense stating them again.

I also don't believe that EVERYTHING Moore says is an exaggeration or outright lie. He ended his "letter" with the following:

Michael Moore

And that is his name, as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Danospano:
Then there's the rest of us, who read all opinions and take truth from all perspectives. We know who we are, and we are better people because of this.

Hate to tell you, but there's only one truth; the other perspectives are not true, or at least further from the truth.

If you are to suggest that one can "take truth from all perspectives", you reduce truth to a mere opinion, a preference, subject to relativism. As an objectivisist, I believe in the existence of only one reality; if that makes me narrow-minded, so be it.

Truth is not always pleasant, fair enough; but so too are lies. It seems to me you're suggesting that Moore's rantings are true because they are so unpleasant. That suggestion simply does not hold up.

It's great, fine and dandy, to critically listen to and read all opinions - I certainly read Moore's piece and formed my opinion from that, and I'd appreciate if those who try to pigeon-hole me as a reactionary at least read why I disagree.

Again, it's great to review all opinions - that to me is open-mindedness - but you can't accept them all. Doing so makes you a fool.

A man who will stand for nothing will fall for anything.

[Matthew_Page2000]

Would the conservatives here sound so frantic if they didn't think there was some merit to Moore's charges? Nope, they'd laugh it off.
Instead we get multiple paragraphs on how "stupid" and "dangerous" liberals are. And incredibly a flame war on the merits of Rush Limbaugh.
The next few months are going to be a lot of fun.

MAP

[Matthew_Page2000]

Is there any doubt how conservatives would have responded if during a Democratic Presidency something similar had happened with a company that gave a majority of its campaign contributions to liberals? Conservatives would start screaming for impeachment ten minutes after the story broke and they know it.

MAP

[Rono]

I still try to figure out if bush listen to rush and if this is the fault of clinton.

And do not tell me that i am of topic, ....

[Achtung Bubba]

A few things, MAP:

1) I have no doubt that if we conservatives didn't reply, the comment would be made that we couldn't reply, because we know Moore's right.

The idea that I would call a liberal stupid because in my heart I know he is right is absurd. At the very least, if I *DID* think he was genuinely wrong, I'd be saying the EXACT SAME THING. You can't use it as evidence to your idiotic theory.

(Though I am beginning to see why some of you so support Moore: his skills at reasoning are just as poor.)

I can't speak for others of course, but I for one disregard Moore; I think he's an damned fool. The only reason I'm taking his blatherings seriously is because quite a few of the forum members here think he's right. "So true", and all.

I'm not adamant because I think he's wrong (and he is), I'm adamant because a few of you are delusional enough to think he's right.


2) I think the next few months WILL be fun, and not for the reasons you suspect. We've already seen Daschle and others go from the Bush-must-have-helped-bail-Enron-out argument to the Bush-didn't-help-but-he-should-have argument to the weak "appearance of impropriety" argument.

The liberals are going to search and search for anything to pin on Bush, becoming more and more absurd, and I suspect they will find NOTHING.

Fun times.


3. No conservatives that I know are saying that investigating Enron is a bad idea. Enron should be investigated, and will be; if something turns up that indicts the Administration, that too should be investigated. The fact is that conservatives want investigations when they are warranted. That they would investigate a Democrat is irrelevant.

And I believe most of us would wait until we have substantial evidence before WE demand an impeachment.

But if we are going to start down this long road of comparing this to the dozen "-gate" scandals of the Clinton years, let's make one thing clear: Even assuming the worst - that Bush's behavior was altered by the campaign contributions of Enron - at the VERY least, he was influenced by his fellow Americans.

And not Chinese Communists.

[Achtung Bubba]

Just in case you missed it the first time, Melon.

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
And while I'm here, Melon, I would like to remind you that you haven't explained this little quote:

In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

Where is the magical "general consensus"?

[Dogbongo]

Right on joyfulgirl
(thanks for the post Dano)

...finding myself under the rule of yet another one-eyed king.

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Bubba is STILL da man.

Diamond

------------------
"...The big guy is made of STEEL." - Bono as we stood together on stage at Boston #4, June 9th, 2001.

---
-curious? click
links for
Bono/Dimon-
Bos.4 Story
Pics..

http://www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/

http://members.aol.com/diamondbruno9/