Yes, that’s right! Rush Limbaugh is by far the most accurate and most correct person in the news industry.
There are so many ways that one can get one’s news and opinions concerning world events. TV, newspapers, the internet, and radio are but a few of the choices that are available to today’s consumer of news. Rush Limbaugh though, commands a wider audience than any other individual purveyor of news and opinion currently available to the American people.
Many times so.
Of all the places that consumers of news could choose they choose Rush Limbaugh more than anybody else. That choice is a vote of confidence on the value they place on the information and opinions he offers. It is a vote on his accuracy and correctness.
Among consumers of news their is an overwhelming majority who beleive in the truth and accuracy of Rush Limbaugh over anyone else out there as demonstrated by their choice of news source.
With such a consensus among consumers of news, a consensus that has remained in place for over a decade, it is fair and accurate to pronounce the debate over. A consensus among news consumers has been reached. Limbaugh is the most accurate and correct.
Because of this overwhelming consensus, we will no longer treat Limbaugh deniers with the tolerance we have shown them in the past.
Well, I dunno, Scylla, whenever anyone calls Limbaugh on the incorrect facts in his “news”, somebody tells us he’s merely an entertainer. Which way would you like to have it?
Is this “somebody” the same person who is saying he is incorrect? His shows are fact-checked for accuracy by an independent firm and he enjoys a consensus amongst news consumers as most accurate.
Really, the issue is seemingly beyond debate and those who are “excusing” Rush for “innacuracies” by claiming he is “entertainment,” are nothing more than Rush Deniers throwing up the red herring of excusing his behavior to impugn his accuracy.
I’m surprised you hadn’t already figured that out. Pretty obvious, really.
If I wanted to watch Stephen Colbert, I’d watch Stephen Colbert. And in fact, I do want to, so I should go watch him. But I don’t see the point of this thread.
I’m sure that Rush must be a Creationist with that logic. Since majority of people in the U.S. appear to support creationism, that must make it so. And since very few people continue to support President Bush and his war on Iraq, clearly that has been an error. I’m glad we’ve clared that up.
You’ve failed to extrapolate the argument properly. With Rush Limbaugh we are not describing a simple majority of opinion as you seem to be with creationism or as regards Bush.
A simple majority is one thing. A consensus is something else. Since Rush Limbaugh enjoys many times the audience of the next nearest competitor, he has a true consensus, not simply a majority.
How about with you trying these on for size? After you refute these, and tens more that I can provide, we all can move on to discuss Rush’s alleged “accuracy.”
Oh, piffle. Rush does not have “many times” the audience of CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC. He has “many times” the audience of the next most popular blowhard pundit. You started this off with a claim for “news” and he is not in the “news” business.
(And I do not know whether you or he is deliberately misusing the word “consensus,” but you make no point by making that false claim. A consensus occurs when everyone agrees to the same point (or agrees with reservations, but agrees to go along with a point). Rush has no better than a supermajority as long as anyone at all is listening to O’Liely or Hannitoons or even Al Franken. I’m not sure whether it would be better that the falsehood originated with you (saving Rush from the ignominy of having one more lie exposed) or from Rush.)
That is all very well and good, but you have totally and completely failed to actually address the argument submitted for debate in this thread. Coming from you, such a complete and total failure is not unexpected.
Nobody, least of all me, is disputing that there are some ignorant “Rush Deniers” out there, living in a fantasy who take issue with the Great One’s accuracy. That these misguided groups and individuals exist is a fact I have already stated.
We can simply dismiss these “Rush Deniers” and their arguments out of hand, as fantasies. The debate is over. It is no longer open. It is no longer reasonable to tolerate such viewpoints, or treat them with a respect.
Rush Limbaugh has a clear consensus among consumers of news speaking for his accuracy.
Mediamatters nothing more than a smear cite seeking to capitolize on Rush Limbaugh’s popularity and reputation by besirching it.
It enjoys no such consensus among serious consumers of news. It and you are dismissable and unworthy of serious debate.
Michael Moore had Fahrenheit 9/11 carefully fact-checked by a team of attorneys before he released it. Are you willing to stipulate to the film’s accuracy on that basis?
