|
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
|
Dave Dorsey |
Great points, Cojak. I also used to listen to Rush religiously. 3 hours of Rush, then 3 hours of Hannity, every day, Monday to Friday. Eventually I started to realize exactly the sorts of things you mentioned. There was no intelligent discussion on these programs, just reactionary bloviating to the news of the day for the purpose of riling up the faithful. Hannity especially I realized was actually as dumb as a box of rocks. He had a handful of go-to monologues that he'd deploy as arguments, and that was about it. Rush, I think, is much more clever. But it's still the same reactionary monologues. Certainly no debate, no challenge, no interesting or enlightening discussion
I learn a LOT more from the guys (and gals) who actually have liberal guests and interact with them in a respectful, intelligent way. When you respectfully let someone present a case, and then respond to it intelligently, that's when you're really advocating for the things you believe in. I think there are people in conservative radio today doing stuff like that -- Hugh Hewitt, for example. He's not afraid of having strong liberals on his program and letting them make their case. I think people like Rush, Levin, and Hannity are afraid of that because they don't actually have the knowledge or skill required to engage someone and illustrate the errors in their reasoning. So they just cut them off, or talk over them, or make fun of them. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 13654 1/4/19 11:56 am
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Resident Skeptic |
Dave Dorsey wrote: | Great points, Cojak. I also used to listen to Rush religiously. 3 hours of Rush, then 3 hours of Hannity, every day, Monday to Friday. Eventually I started to realize exactly the sorts of things you mentioned. There was no intelligent discussion on these programs, just reactionary bloviating to the news of the day for the purpose of riling up the faithful. Hannity especially I realized was actually as dumb as a box of rocks. He had a handful of go-to monologues that he'd deploy as arguments, and that was about it. Rush, I think, is much more clever. But it's still the same reactionary monologues. Certainly no debate, no challenge, no interesting or enlightening discussion
I learn a LOT more from the guys (and gals) who actually have liberal guests and interact with them in a respectful, intelligent way. When you respectfully let someone present a case, and then respond to it intelligently, that's when you're really advocating for the things you believe in. I think there are people in conservative radio today doing stuff like that -- Hugh Hewitt, for example. He's not afraid of having strong liberals on his program and letting them make their case. I think people like Rush, Levin, and Hannity are afraid of that because they don't actually have the knowledge or skill required to engage someone and illustrate the errors in their reasoning. So they just cut them off, or talk over them, or make fun of them. |
Sean is a bit much at times, but I would not call him dumb. Rush's format never was meant to have guests and on-air debates. It is simply meant to bring insight concerning the mindset of the left and nobody does it better. _________________ "It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 1/4/19 6:42 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
|