Who Is Better

[eeally]

Limbaugh is just so awesome! In a way the greatest of all time!

Hannity has a flair and the way he man-handled Combs. He is the most Fair and Balanced! He does not just just hit the Dems with the facts...he actually makes me think there are some people who will never get it! He is a Visionary...

Beck....his passion is unsurpassed. He had a guest say that an attack on US soil is what we needed to wake people up and I agree. Another terrorist attack on our soil would teach all the Lib's a lesson.

And Beck did not disagree.....I am so proud of his patriotism. And when Bush rolled out the first Bailouts.....most conservatives would have been up in arms and organized a tea party....well not these 3.

True soldiers, I mean Generals of the Conservative Movement to get us back to the Values that made this country great...........

WHO IS YOUR FAVORITE?

[eulesseagle]

Michael Savage. Best analysis. KLIF at 7pm in the dfw area.

Limbaugh.....too much self adulation.

Hannity........the most extreme of the bunch.

Beck............too much b.s.

Ingram........i would say #2.

"the great one".....reminds me of someone running fingernails down a chalkboard & the rude!!!....just refuse to listen.

Greg Laurrie(sp).....UFO's, Atlantis, conspiracy theories and end of the world chatter.....this guy is a "stoner's dream."

I will say that they are are pro Americans and I do appreciate the work they do for the troops.

Unfortunately, as some may suspect, I do not get my "marching orders" from any of them. I don't have TV/cable so I just read a variety of daily world "rags" on the net and analize it myself. When I did have TV/cable there was too much "extremism on both sides" to get a fair analysis.

Edited July 22, 2009 by eulesseagle

[eeally]

Laurrie is Greatness....

[untbowler]

can not stand Limbaugh, Hannity is a narcissicist.

Liked Savage but he is extreme. Prefer Andrew Wilkow and Mike Church and Mark Levin right now, with Levin being a little grating.

[EagleGreen]

None of them have a "no spin zone".

[forevereagle]

Why isn't none an option? If these guys are so good and know all the answers, then why don't they run and make the country a better place? Kind of like movie critics, they claim to know more than the people actually out there creating the work, but they can't actually do it. I don't listen to them either.

[hickoryhouse]

Why isn't none an option? If these guys are so good and know all the answers, then why don't they run and make the country a better place? Kind of like movie critics, they claim to know more than the people actually out there creating the work, but they can't actually do it. I don't listen to them either.

Not that I care about them, but I will give it a shot...

These guys are entertainers not politicians. As such they make more money entertaining than they would as politicians. Therefore, they choose the route of making more money, this is a capitalistic society.

[forevereagle]

Not that I care about them, but I will give it a shot...

These guys are entertainers not politicians. As such they make more money entertaining than they would as politicians. Therefore, they choose the route of making more money, this is a capitalistic society.

And we all just enable them by listening to them tell us opinions that are just meant to stir things up. They are just a different kind of shock jock.

[hickoryhouse]

And we all just enable them by listening to them tell us opinions that are just meant to stir things up. They are just a different kind of shock jock.

They could be shock jocks, they could be editorialists, they could be whatever it is that you want to belive. They are entertainers the same way that Bill Mahr, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Bill Press and Al Franken (before he ran for office to make more money)

The only difference is the conservative guys generally have significantly higher ratings, so they make more money and don't have to run for office, again see Al Franken.

[forevereagle]

They could be shock jocks, they could be editorialists, they could be whatever it is that you want to belive. They are entertainers the same way that Bill Mahr, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Bill Press and Al Franken (before he ran for office to make more money)

The only difference is the conservative guys generally have significantly higher ratings, so they make more money and don't have to run for office, again see Al Franken.

Well, none of the names you mentioned are very entertaining to me. I just don't get why we let people who can't perform the jobs they scrutinize tell us what we should think about the people who do. And why we let these people dominate our opinions. Rush has almost as many people spouting his "opinions" as Oprah.

[hickoryhouse]

Well, none of the names you mentioned are very entertaining to me. I just don't get why we let people who can't perform the jobs they scrutinize tell us what we should think about the people who do. And why we let these people dominate our opinions. Rush has almost as many people spouting his "opinions" as Oprah.

Some of them have, for example Mike Huckabee with his Fox News show. I will also have a bit more respect for Franken if he ever gets back into the entertainment businessthanks to his current political post.

I do think that it is all about money though, these guys are good at making peple listen pay attention to them and apparently the talk show route pays significantly more

Essentially all being a politician is is getting more votes, aka popularity contest. I think that if Rush or Hannity or whoever else were to try and run for the senate in their home state, they would have a pretty good chance of winning. They are good entertainers and that generally make good communicators ala Reagan, Arnold, Jesse Ventura etc.

I don't think they would suck as elected types, I also doubt that they have the stones to do what they say on their shows either, except for Franken because he aligns pretty closely with Nancy Pelosi... My point is that just because they choose not to do something doesn't mean that they don't at least have a modicum of credibility when talking about that very subject.

Edited July 22, 2009 by hickoryhouse

[EagleD]

Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck?

Isn't that like deciding between syphilis, gonorreah, or herpes? It's kind of fun when you are getting it, but ultimately, you don't really want any of them.

Edited July 22, 2009 by EagleD

[FirefightnRick]

These guys are entertainers not politicians.

Not all of them. Which is what I love about Landmark Legal Foundation and how they have hounded Bob Chanin and the National Education Association Union over it's illegal diversion of dues and fees for their left wing political agendas. In the video below, Chanin mentions LLF at about the 15:30 mark.

bqn1rvv7Fis&feature=player_embedded

Here you can hear the president of LLF, Mark R. Levin disuss this in detail.

Rick

[yyz28]

Limbaugh and Levin are my favorite to listen to. Hannity is a bit much. I like the guy, but he's just so repetitive. I like his TV show better than his radio show.

[FirefightnRick]

Water for Life...

Forgot to mention Mike Gallagher, who today was raising money with a signed book auction ($500 each) by various authors to build a drinking water system for Sierra Leone

Rick

[UNTflyer]

Hannity is an idiot, and a broken record. Take 10 minutes of his show, play it in an endless loop, and I don't think his audience would notice.

[gksmith]

None of the above. They all hurt my ears. They scare me that people take them seriously.

Search www.headzup.com for better video of each.