http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/29ed89f440a313/www.msnbc.com/news/2039212.jpg

Rush Limbaugh admits to his national radio audience that he needs treatment
‘I Am Addicted to Prescription
Pain Medication’
True Confessions: Limbaugh built an army of admirers with his hard-right rants. But off-air, he was a lonely man who may have broken the law to feed his addiction. The real Rush

Oct. 20 issue — Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends. Bombastic and clowning on air, shy and bumptious off it, Limbaugh could count on 20 million “Dittoheads” and talk-radio fans to tune in five days a week. But it’s hard to find many people who really know him. He was a lonely object of mass adulation, socially ill at ease, at least occasionally depressed and, for the past several years, living in a private hell of pain and compulsion.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/979355.asp?cp1=1

....................But the mockery was instantaneous. Liberal mouth Al Franken (author of “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot”) hit the airwaves to relish Limbaugh’s greatest hits of hypocrisy and his sneers at celebrity dopers like baseball player Darryl Strawberry and rocker Kurt Cobain, and virtually every newspaper dredged up this 1995 quote from Rush: “Too many whites are getting away with drug use. The answer is to ... find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river.” The penalty for illegally buying large quantities of prescription painkillers in Florida can be five years in jail, and contrary to some published reports, prosecutors do go after users as well as pushers—especially if they want to make an example of a celebrity. **

i feel sorry for ole dude,... as a human... .but the rules are the rules bixxxach.... reap what you sow...and life is funny how you can go around crucifying people and then be held accountable of the same very thing you preached against... sad...:nono:

I feel bad for him. I don't think he shouldn't get any special treatment though. Do the crime do the time.

Heres an interesting story though:

Hearing Returns
Rush Limbaugh Can Hear Again
The Associated Press

Hearing Loss (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/limbaugh_hearing_returns020122.html)
ABC News: Limbaugh had an electronic device placed in his skull late last year, and the final hookup, which partially restored his hearing, took place Thursday.
"When you've had, in my case, over 50 years of normal hearing and to lose it suddenly, as I did, it's ... a shock," said Limbaugh, who went deaf last year because of an autoimmune inner-ear disease. "You adapt to it, as you have no choice, but you ought to try it."

Limbaugh, who has 20 million weekly listeners on about 600 radio stations, said his mind played tricks on him at times.

"I was hearing the soundtracks to Westerns," Limbaugh said. "It was as loud as can be. It was distracting. I knew I wasn't hearing it because those noises weren't being made."

Limbaugh had continued to do his show as his hearing deteriorated and eventually disappeared, using an elaborate setup at his South Florida studio involving transcribers and computer screens to read listeners' calls.

Relearning How to Hear

Limbaugh, a native of Cape Girardeau, Mo., said he is having to relearn how to hear. Voices are a bit fuzzy, like they have been recorded on a minicassette recorder, he said. But during one-on-one conversations, his hearing is about 90 percent normal.

"I am pretty dependent on what people's lip movements are, although that is improving every day," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh warned his listeners that telephone calls have so far posed the biggest problem for him, saying he'll have to "wait and see" if that improves. If not, he'll still use the setup devised when he was deaf.

Limbaugh said he never was really depressed about his deafness, and was grateful there was a chance he could regain his hearing.

"I was just constantly thankful ... for the era in which I was born because that is what has made this all possible," Limbaugh said. "That and the freedom we all have as Americans to invent and create and explore all these medical marvels."

And then this article


Dear Rush,
What a surprise it came to the entertainment community - and the deaf and hard of hearing community - to learn that you have had a sudden hearing loss in one ear and will lose the rest of your hearing soon, to become totally deaf. All of the media articles on your sudden hearing loss say the same thing - that there is a big question as to whether you can continue in your role as a talk show host.
Yes, you can! You may have to make some changes in your lifestyle to accomodate the hearing loss and how you operate the show, but you definitely can!
First of all, you are not alone! Sudden hearing loss is more common than you might think. Or perhaps it is truly genetic, as indicated by your oral history, in which case you may want to familiarize yourself with the many genetic causes of hearing loss. Update 10/11: It has now been reported that your hearing loss is due to a rare condition called Autoimmune Inner Ear Disease.
Second, there are things you can do to alleviate your sudden hearing loss, and you are reportedly already aware of these options:
Join the Association of Late Deafened Adults. This is a national organization composed of people like yourself, who have lost their hearing later in life, sometimes a sudden hearing loss.
Get a cochlear implant. This is a tool that will enable you to continue to be able to hear the sounds you are missing. It will not make you a totally hearing person, but it will restore much of your functionality if you are a good implant candidate, and unless there are factors to prevent it, you should be one because you have already heard prior to the sudden hearing loss.
Buy a TTY and take advantage of the fact that national 711 service for TTY relays is now available! Keep the telephone number for your call-in program, but add the 711 number to the publicity for the number. Tell your viewers that to call you, they must now use a relay service.
At least one newspaper has speculated that you may be using voice-to-text technology to read a caller's words, typed by an outside service, on a screen in front of you. While this solution may be effective, it costs you money and relay services are free to everyone. Another advantage of relay is that if your voice changes to the point where your speech becomes harder for hearing people to understand (because of the hearing loss), it will not matter because a relay operator will voice your words directly to the caller.
Speech therapy may help you to control the "deaf voice" that you seem to be developing as a result of the sudden hearing loss. According to your own words, "it could well be that my voice is changing."
You may want to consider learning a little sign language, to ease communication now that you have a hearing loss. As my own hearing loss worsened over the years, I found that sign language filled in the communication gaps when reading lips and using what hearing I had.
We are confident that you can continue your job despite the sudden hearing loss, business as usual, with these modifications.
Sincerely,

Jamie Berke
P.S. Have you considered a switch to, or at least a delayed tape broadcast, on television? As a deaf person unable to hear the radio, I can not listen to your program. I find it ironic that you would want to stay on the radio when you can not hear your own program.

Originally posted by O. L. T.
....................But the mockery was instantaneous. Liberal mouth Al Franken (author of “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot”) hit the airwaves to relish Limbaugh’s greatest hits of hypocrisy and his sneers at celebrity dopers like baseball player Darryl Strawberry and rocker Kurt Cobain, and virtually every newspaper dredged up this 1995 quote from Rush: “Too many whites are getting away with drug use. The answer is to ... find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river.” The penalty for illegally buying large quantities of prescription painkillers in Florida can be five years in jail, and contrary to some published reports, prosecutors do go after users as well as pushers—especially if they want to make an example of a celebrity. **

God bless Al Franken for putting heat on right-wing hypocracies, lies, and double-standards. Read his books! http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Originally posted by lex400sc
God bless Al Franken for putting heat on right-wing hypocracies, lies, and double-standards. Read his books! http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Reading is not the best use of a book by Mr. Franken. However, they do make handy door stops.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Reading is not the best use of a book by Mr. Franken. However, they do make handy door stops.

The same can be said about the Bible :rolleyes: I wonder, have you even opened the book up, have you read it cover to cover, or are you basing this statement off your partisanship and the fact that this book threatens the merit of every right-wing personality that you hold respect for? Judging books by their covers speaks worlds about a person :rolleyes:

Originally posted by lex400sc
The same can be said about the Bible :rolleyes: I wonder, have you even opened the book up, have you read it cover to cover, or are you basing this statement off your partisanship and the fact that this book threatens the merit of every right-wing personality that you hold respect for? Judging books by their covers speaks worlds about a person :rolleyes:

What partisanship is revealed in my previous statement? What right wing personality are you assuming I have respect for by my previous post? You are assuming way too much from a two sentence post. I merely stated a dislike for an author whose book I have read, and whose views I do not share. Does that make me partisan? Please explain.

Regarding the comment about the Bible: "Have you even opened the book up, have you read it cover to cover....?" Please explain.

Judging individuals by a two sentence post speaks worlds about a person.

I await your response. Remember, personal attacks are not allowed on CL.

Have a nice day!:)

Originally posted by rushgator2112
What partisanship is revealed in my previous statement? What right wing personality are you assuming I have respect for by my previous post? You are assuming way too much from a two sentence post. I merely stated a dislike for an author whose book I have read, and whose views I do not share.

The book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right is a book dedicated to debunking the lies, distortions, and myths of the right-wing in the United States. You "stated a dislike for... [these] views [you] do not share". Therefore you either (1) disagree that conservatives lie when they are systematically proven page by page to have lied, (2) or you think these revelations are meaningless (which is even worse).

You disagree with the liberal tone of and the liberal standing of the author. What viewpoint is left remaining then? The Conservative-Republican viewpoint perhaps? You are disagreeing with a registered Democrat, and his arguments against registered Republicans. You are essentially siding with or sympathizing with Republican liars.

If not then why do you disagree and dislike Franken's perspective against O'Reilly, Coulter, and company? Well since they are made into fool-liars, and you are unappreciative of these labels, you obviously have some attachment to them.

On the other hand, if you don't like these personalities or don't know who they are, then why are you disapproving of their portrayal in this book? Franken just described a bunch of dispicable people of which you would have no other knowledge of, and you are in essence offended by this?

As you can see, I made NO assumption of you. In fact if you reread my post, I merely posed a question to you and finished off with an undirected statement. As a person who read the entire book and your entire post, I made highly valid interpolations about you. I know everything the book stands for, and when you pointedly call it a worthless piece of literature, I now know what you stand for. Franken's book is largely factual and sprinkled throughout with antecdotes and humor. To say its contents is essentially useless is to show your hand. Despite this revelation, I was still careful not to label you outirght based on your "two sentences".

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Does that make me partisan? Please explain.

Yes. It's a book that candidly outlines the distortions and lies of the right-wing Republicans. You whole-heartedly dislike it, for no other apparent reason than because it does so.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Regarding the comment about the Bible: "Have you even opened the book up, have you read it cover to cover....?" Please explain.

Yes. I used to attend a private Christian school (Great Hills Christian School in Austin Texas) in which three hours of every school day was dedicated to Bible study. I also spent about two years at a non-denominational church in my town, every Friday and Sunday plus church retreats. I still own a 15-year-old copy of the Bible. I see where you're trying to go with this argument, but I never said that I myself think the Bible is nothing more than a doorstop. I said others can make that same argument... say Muslims? I you want to analyze my words, you should do a better job of it.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Judging individuals by a two sentence post speaks worlds about a person.

Judging, or making an informed opinion, about a person based on their own attitudes and sentiments is way different that judging a book by its cover, which I never accused you of btw.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
I await your response. Remember, personal attacks are not allowed on CL.

Never fear, I don't need to rely on personal attacks to embarass you ;)

Originally posted by lex400sc
The book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right is a book dedicated to debunking the lies, distortions, and myths of the right-wing in the United States. You "stated a dislike for... [these] views [you] do not share". Therefore you either (1) disagree that conservatives lie when they are systematically proven page by page to have lied, (2) or you think these revelations are meaningless (which is even worse).
This assumes that what Franken said is true. Obviously, people disagree over facts that has tremendous political implications. So, there is a third posibility that was not explored: "Therefore you either" (3) don't believe what Franken says in his books.

ul Originally posted by lex400sc
The book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right is a book dedicated to debunking the lies, distortions, and myths of the right-wing in the United States. You "stated a dislike for... [these] views [you] do not share". Therefore you either (1) disagree that conservatives lie when they are systematically proven page by page to have lied, (2) or you think these revelations are meaningless (which is even worse).

You disagree with the liberal tone of and the liberal standing of the author. What viewpoint is left remaining then? The Conservative-Republican viewpoint perhaps? You are disagreeing with a registered Democrat, and his arguments against registered Republicans. You are essentially siding with or sympathizing with Republican liars.

If not then why do you disagree and dislike Franken's perspective against O'Reilly, Coulter, and company? Well since they are made into fool-liars, and you are unappreciative of these labels, you obviously have some attachment to them.

On the other hand, if you don't like these personalities or don't know who they are, then why are you disapproving of their portrayal in this book? Franken just described a bunch of dispicable people of which you would have no other knowledge of, and you are in essence offended by this?

As you can see, I made NO assumption of you. In fact if you reread my post, I merely posed a question to you and finished off with an undirected statement. As a person who read the entire book and your entire post, I made highly valid interpolations about you. I know everything the book stands for, and when you pointedly call it a worthless piece of literature, I now know what you stand for. Franken's book is largely factual and sprinkled throughout with antecdotes and humor. To say its contents is essentially useless is to show your hand. Despite this revelation, I was still careful not to label you outirght based on your "two sentences".



Yes. It's a book that candidly outlines the distortions and lies of the right-wing Republicans. You whole-heartedly dislike it, for no other apparent reason than because it does so.



Yes. I used to attend a private Christian school (Great Hills Christian School in Austin Texas) in which three hours of every school day was dedicated to Bible study. I also spent about two years at a non-denominational church in my town, every Friday and Sunday plus church retreats. I still own a 15-year-old copy of the Bible. I see where you're trying to go with this argument, but I never said that I myself think the Bible is nothing more than a doorstop. I said others can make that same argument... say Muslims? I you want to analyze my words, you should do a better job of it.



Judging, or making an informed opinion, about a person based on their own attitudes and sentiments is way different that judging a book by its cover, which I never accused you of btw.



Never fear, I don't need to rely on personal attacks to embarass you ;)

Rich, glad to see you still got game. I know I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine. Your hypothesis as to my views is somewhat limted by the labels you assign me. There is a lot of room for independent thinkers in the middle. Make whatever assumptions you wish, but I do not wish to debate you any further on this subject. To me, it's a waste of my time as is produces little or no tangible results. Nothing personal, of course, I'm just not one to debate a point for hours. Just my personal preference. Which means, you will, undoubtedly, get the last word. So be it.

I am pleased to see that you have a background in Biblical studies. Apparently I misconstrued your remark. I hope that you continue your studies and that more will be revealed to you in the future.

I'm glad to hear that personal attacks will not be resorted to. Just a friendly reminder. As to your reference to "embarassment", I'm unable to see how that factors in or is even possible, all things considered.

Have a nice day!:)

Originally posted by lex400sc
The book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right is a book dedicated to debunking the lies, distortions, and myths of the right-wing in the United States. You "stated a dislike for... [these] views [you] do not share". Therefore you either (1) disagree that conservatives lie when they are systematically proven page by page to have lied, (2) or you think these revelations are meaningless (which is even worse).



Me reading Al Franken's book would be like me asking you to read Bill O'Reilly's book. I choose not to support or put any money into his pocket. I'm sure O’Reilly makes some great point against Franken in his book as well, but you probably wouldn't believe him. It all depends on who your support. Everyone has a "history" which can be used against him or her at some point throughout their life.

Take Al Franken, he tried to be a comedian and failed, now the only humor he can come up with is against an already saturated market of personalities.

He is only funny to people who do not like the people he is referring to, to everyone else he is simply annoying and should be disposed of, like every other washed out comedian.

Its easy to crack jokes against a person who will not throw them back because of their moral obligation to be civil and professional. Al Franken looks for laughs, Bill O'Reilly looks for Facts.

To 93Lexo, rush, and SCLex:


Before you even begin to assess Al Franken or his book you should FIRST READ IT. I don't care if you don't want to support him or not, that really is no excuse for ignorance: sit in Barnes in Nobles for a half hour and read a few chapters in the store. That's how I got involved in a book that I otherwise had no information or opinion on. If you ever decide to read it, I'm sure you'll finally come to terms with the fact that this is not a book about Franken's opinions. This is a book that uses researched, documented facts (that you can verify yourself on Nexus) against the right-wing liars exposing the many hypocracies, inconsistancies, and mythologies in their tired rhetoric------as the title of the book would have implied if you weren't so fixated on who the author was. Bill O'Reilly was incredibly pissed off at Franken for his book that he went on a tirade on stage before 200 publishers at a joint conference. That was earlier this year and to this day O'Reilly has been unable to prove that a word of Franken's was a lie or defamatory (not even for legal purposes, just for self-preservation).

Al Franken looks for laughs, Bill O'Reilly looks for Facts.

This is the funniest misconception yet. O'Reilly doesn't look for facts, he looks for reactions and ratings. His whole show is based on infortainment: it starts as a legitimate political issue then the quality of programming deteriorates as he makes a spectacle out of bashing his guests and detracting from productive, civilized political discourse. He fullfills the same Neanderthal curiosities and urges we have in watching couples argue in public, or two guys in a bar fight. The Jerry Springer crowd I call them. Walter Cronkite refers to O'Reilly and Co. as the 'shouters'. "I don't watch the shouters. Those that attempt to really explain the situation of the day, I find very useful, very helpful. But not ones that are purely for entertainment, which I where I put the shouters." O'Reilly is like many other shock jock personalities (Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh): they distort the truth to their own liking and incite anger and resentment amongst their listeners and ultimately America. O'Reilly's goal is essentially to divide America, not based on the facts but by distorted opinions. Read Franken's chapter of O'Rreilly. O'Reilly complains that the issues aren't addressed enough, but he himself is the one that sidetracks every discussion and turns things personal. You hold these guys in such high standing, yet you are too afraid to read all the negatives on them, under the guise of "I don't want to support him". You are all too well trained by Fox News to examine only half the truth.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
This assumes that what Franken said is true. Obviously, people disagree over facts that has tremendous political implications. So, there is a third posibility that was not explored: "Therefore you either" (3) don't believe what Franken says in his books.

If you read the book, you would see that the facts are pretty hard to argue otherwise. Your assumptions and arguments against this book can only get you so far without having opened it at all ;)

I wasn't arguing against Franken's book, I was showing that there are differing opinions as to what is stated in his book. That is, some people don't believe what is said or they make contrary logical connections between the facts and the conclusions.

Originally posted by lex400sc
To 93Lexo, rush, and SCLex:
You hold these guys in such high standing, yet you are too afraid to read all the negatives on them, under the guise of "I don't want to support him".


Please remind me where I have ever "Held these guys in such high standing." I was making a point which is still true.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Rich, glad to see you still got game. I know I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine.

I would gladly re-examine my views if you only gave a valid reason to. But so far you haven't made any bit of a convincing argument for me to do so. I merely posed a series of questions for you to think over and ask that you explain yourself when you say this book's only value is as a doorstop. If you come into this forum, don't think you can get away with an incidiary hit-and-run one-liner post and not have your values and views scrutinized. That is the nature of this forum.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Your hypothesis as to my views is somewhat limted by the labels you assign me.

Then give me a proper label that fits your perspective in regards to the above hypothesis. I thought I was pretty thorough myself given that Mr. Franken's book is completely factual. If you can prove that his book is not factual, then you have an argument, go with it.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
There is a lot of room for independent thinkers in the middle.

And I would acknowledge them if they explained themselves.

Originally posted by rushgator2112
Make whatever assumptions you wish, but I do not wish to debate you any further on this subject.

Fine, then we can just discuss.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
Please remind me where I have ever "Held these guys in such high standing." I was making a point which is still true.

Just a recent example:

Al Franken looks for laughs, Bill O'Reilly looks for Facts.

That statement pays O'Reilly far more credit than he deserves considering all the lies he commits then denies when confronted with them. I think that statement is actually backwards: Al Franken looks for facts, Bill O'Reilly looks for laughs.

And just to be fair, I did a Google.com search on "Al Franken is a liar" and came up with this pathetic hodge-podge of scantily articulated garbage: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=al+franken+is+a+liar mostly if not all dictated by overtly right-wing web forums and focus groups.

The main lie that Franken is accused of over and over again is a PRANK that this SATIRIST committed in the past where he sent out letters to conservatives claiming he was writing a book about abstinence called 'Savin' It' and asking them to provide examples of times when, as younger people, they were tempted to have sex but didn't?

In a Star-Telegram interview, Franken responds to the allegations....

Q: Wasn't it misleading to the people who got the letter -- John Ashcroft, Condoleezza Rice and the others?

A: Whether it was clear to John Ashcroft, I don't know, but what matters is that I wasn't misleading readers. I don't think anyone could be fooled by a letter that was clearly a prank, and if comparing that to what Ann Coulter does in her books is the best critics can do, well, it's not much. I'm not trying to mislead readers; I'm not using things other people have said out of context.

Compare my prank letter to this, what Ann Coulter does in her book Treason. She's writing about New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. She writes that he blamed 20 years of relentless terrorist attacks on "religious fundamentalists of any stripe." In her end notes, she says this was from a column on Dec. 26, 2001. On a Nexis search, you can see his column was about a funny idea to make people fly nude. He said that would make things safer because religious fundamentalists of any stripe would never be caught dead flying nude. What she does isn't a prank. There's such a difference.

And that's about the summation of all of Al Franken's lying, which is even questionable as a lie considering it was intended to be a prank. All things considered, this is quite a pathetic show from the right in response to 8 years of Al Franken's right-wing bashing.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Just a recent example:



That statement pays O'Reilly far more credit than he deserves considering all the lies he commits then denies when confronted with them. I think that statement is actually backwards: Al Franken looks for facts, Bill O'Reilly looks for laughs.

You can't use that, Because you have it backwards... Technically, Mr. Oreilly's show is "suppose to be" about facts, and most of the time it is factually correct, regardless of his attitude towards guests on his show. You can base all of your criticism against his past if you like, but that is not what his show is based on. This being said, I have never stated that I support him or care for anything he says. In turn that means I have never held him to such a high standing ". Al Franken's build his carrier on laughs and being a comedian at the same time bashing on political figures he does not care for.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
You can't use that, Because you have it backwards... Technically, Mr. Oreilly's show is "suppose to be" about facts, and most of the time it is factually correct, regardless of his attitude towards guests on his show. You can base all of your criticism against his past if you like, but that is not what his show is based on. This being said, I have never stated that I support him or care for anything he says. In turn that means I have never held him to such a high standing ". Al Franken's build his carrier on laughs and being a comedian at the same time bashing on political figures he does not care for.


If you want to categorize the goals of the two, you should organize it properly:

Reaction:
O'Reilly: anger
Franken: laughter

Method:
O'Reilly: distorted facts, lies, and facts
Franken: truth and facts

Agenda:
O'Reilly: spread rhetoric and propaganda
Franken: raise awareness of the right's rhetoric and propaganda

And if you don't favor O'Reilly, why do you feel the need to stick up for him? If you read Lies and the Lying Liars, the guy is a pretty weak, pathetic shell of a man.

Originally posted by lex400sc
If you want to categorize the goals of the two, you should organize it properly:

Reaction:
O'Reilly: anger
Franken: laughter

Method:
O'Reilly: distorted facts, lies, and facts
Franken: truth and facts

Agenda:
O'Reilly: spread rhetoric and propaganda
Franken: raise awareness of the right's rhetoric and propaganda

And if you don't favor O'Reilly, why do you feel the need to stick up for him? If you read Lies and the Lying Liars, the guy is a pretty weak, pathetic shell of a man.

You are making the wrong comparison. How can you compare a comedian who you only hear about during instances that he can crack a political joke about people he dislikes. Oreilly is open and out there all the time.

You claim that I hold Oreilly to such high standing, when infact I do not. I will admit that I agree with some of the things he says, but not most. I don't even watch his show. I happen to have Talk Radio playing though my office speakers so I listen to some of the issues and topics he discusses. He is also on the air EVERYDAY and he puts himself in the position to HAVE TO TALK about issues or he wouldn't have a job, where as Franken has the ability to ONLY have to speak out publicly when he wants to or when it suits him. I'm sure there are plenty of things hiding in Franken closets that just aren’t publicly known and might not ever be.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
This being said, I have never stated that I support him or care for anything he says. In turn that means I have never held him to such a high standing.
Same here, I have defended him on occasion, but I disagree with some of his views. He is not as right-wing as some people think. For example, he is against the death penalty, he's for allowing people to smoke dope in their own home, and he's for rights for homosexual couples.

One of the things I disagree with him is in regards to rap music. He says it causes people to become degenerates, but I think rap music is a reflection of some partys of society.

Originally posted by 2Lexus430s
You are making the wrong comparison. How can you compare a comedian who you only hear about during instances that he can crack a political joke about people he dislikes. Oreilly is open and out there all the time.

He is also on the air EVERYDAY and he puts himself in the position to HAVE TO TALK about issues or he wouldn't have a job, where as Franken has the ability to ONLY have to speak out publicly when he wants to or when it suits him. I'm sure there are plenty of things hiding in Franken closets that just aren’t publicly known and might not ever be.

You have a point there. Franken only writes books in response to the lies he hears these guys perpetuating every day and he himself is only a commentator on others' performances. The two political books he wrote were the result of years of anger at hearing these guys get away with their lies. He wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them as reactions and afterthoughts.

Coming off the success of his last book, Franken has expressed a real interest in hosting a 3-hour daily television show, nationally syndicated of course. He's working out the details with the network right now as I understand it. I hope his show comes into production. I'd like to hear more from him and I'd like for his thoughts to be more accessible as well.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I disagree with some of his views. He is not as right-wing as some people think. For example, he is against the death penalty, he's for allowing people to smoke dope in their own home, and he's for rights for homosexual couples.

One of the things I disagree with him is in regards to rap music. He says it causes people to become degenerates, but I think rap music is a reflection of some partys of society.

So are you saying you agree or disagree with abolishing the death penalty, legalized marijuana, and gay rights? I happen to support those causes too. As for rap music, I think it's a way for the younger generation to express their teenage angst and rage and for others an expression of societal rage. I used to listen to it all the time, but for the most part I've grown out of it since. I think mainstream rap has gravitated towards the degenerative aspects of the genre. Radio rap has found great success in the objectification of women, casual sex, homophobia, glorification of violence, violence as a solution, use of drugs, selling of drugs, and heavy heavy materialism (including defining a person by what they own/wear). What you don't hear much is rap and hiphop that centers around perserverance, the hard-knock life, the ghetto, discrimination, racism, etc. O'Reilly isn't a big rap fan, so whatever rap he sampled toreach his conclusion fit his arguement best (ie: Brotha Lynch Hung, X-Raided,etc). There is of course the exception, such as Tupac, Biggie, etc. It's just a shame they're dead.

Originally posted by lex400sc
So are you saying you agree or disagree with abolishing the death penalty, legalized marijuana, and gay rights?
I agree with abolishing the death penalty, legalizing marijuana, and gay rights.

Right on....so it appears as if we are both social libertarians. I think most people inherantly are, they just don't recognize it. :)