Boortz is Bad News

[Taft]

From today's Nealz Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html):

Know what?* I've just about had the poor up to here.* There are many reasons for poverty, but for the most part poverty can be described as either a behavioral disorder or a mental disease.

And what was the context of this quote? He was talking about poor people in developing nations!

The thing that gets me is that this guy has a big audience of loyal listeners. I've been reading his nuze page for a few weeks, and I'm starting to see his rants as a form of propaganda. Every day its "remember the template, folks: if a news story helps Pres. Bush, the media will suppress it, if a story hurts Bush, they will play it to death." He just beats these simplistic arguments into minds every day. What is the effectiveness of this type of program? How many get sucked in every day?

Two words: offensive and scary.

Taft

[Flowbee]

Do people really take Boortz seriously? I used to listen to his radio show when I lived in Atlanta, and I always suspected that it was a bit of a put-on. I figured that taking Boortz seriously is kind of like taking every outrageous thing Howard Stern says seriously. They're both professional provocateurs.

Sure, some people may take him (and Stern) seriously, but I believe most folks just tune in to hear (or read) the next outrageous rant.

It's been a few years since I've listened to him, so I may be completely wrong by now.

[takao]

The thing that gets me is that this guy has a big audience of loyal listeners. I've been reading his nuze page for a few weeks, and I'm starting to see his rants as a form of propaganda. Every day its "remember the template, folks: if a news story helps Pres. Bush, the media will suppress it, if a story hurts Bush, they will play it to death." He just beats these simplistic arguments into minds every day. What is the effectiveness of this type of program? How many get sucked in every day?

Two words: offensive and scary.

Taft

or just plain simple demagogy (sp?) .. not very different to jörg haider
he says what some people what to hear and apealls to emotion...was very successfull in the past...

[trebblekicked]

What is the effectiveness of this type of program? How many get sucked in every day?

it's very effective, especially when the actual media begins incorporating the slant (witness the wellstone memorial aftermath.) I'm not sure how many converts it gets, per se, but i know it's incredibly effective at keeping conservatives conservative. conservative america now has a multi-media chamber of echoes to reinforce their convictions with 32 flavors of disinformation and doublespeak.

i think we here have a pretty good example of what happens when your intellectual diet consists of this and like-minded material from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc.

hint: it rhymes with Guy Punter.

[Thomas Veil]

Let me repeat what I said in another thread: Boortz is just Rush Limbaugh in a clown suit. You wanna quote a conservative, try George Will. I rarely agree with his opinions, but at least you can respect his arguments.

[screener]

Let me repeat what I said in another thread: Boortz is just Rush Limbaugh in a clown suit. You wanna quote a conservative, try George Will. I rarely agree with his opinions, but at least you can respect his arguments.

Ha calls himself a Libertarian.
From his Faq,

So, just what are you? Another hate-filled conservative?

Nope. I’m a libertarian.

I started out my political life as a bedwetting liberal. Young, idealistic -- and dumb. Then I started paying income taxes. Thankfully I realized sooner than most the difference between what I earn and my "take-home" pay. For a few years I guess you could have called me a conservative. I was troubled, though, by the penchant conservatives have for directing the social lives of people. That led me straight to the libertarian philosophy. Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a person’s right to life, liberty or property, a crime. I firmly believe that if liberty is to be preserved in America, it will be libertarian thought, if not the Libertarian Party, that saves it.

You’re a libertarian, but you are always supporting the Republicans!

Not always. Wait until they get into their prayer-in-the-schools, war on drugs or anti-abortion mode. Sure, when it comes to differences between the Social Democratic Party and the Republicans, I will usually support the Republicans. Face it, the two big players are the Social Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I'll support the Republicans when they're right ... but I generally vote Libertarian in elections. The Republicans need to shrug off this Christian Coalition noose it has placed around its own neck and recognize the fact that, though they may not realize it, the majority of Americans are actually quite libertarian in their philosophy. They also need to learn to fight once in a while. What a bunch of wimps.
http://boortz.com/more/faq.html

He's quoted on the MacNet2 site as a source for their views quite often.
Pretty sad.

[Frohickey]

Nope. I’m a libertarian.

Simply put, I believe in freedom.

I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a person’s right to life, liberty or property, a crime.

You’re a libertarian, but you are always supporting the Republicans!

Wait until they get into their prayer-in-the-schools, war on drugs or anti-abortion mode.

The Republicans need to shrug off this Christian Coalition noose it has placed around its own neck and recognize the fact that, though they may not realize it, the majority of Americans are actually quite libertarian in their philosophy.

Pretty sad.

I dunno. I think Neal hit the issues on the head with the last two sentences.

[screener]

I dunno. I think Neal hit the issues on the head with the last two sentences.

He spouts more nonsense than trueisms the majority of the time.
Besides, everyone can't be wrong all the time, right?

[Taft]

I dunno. I think Neal hit the issues on the head with the last two sentences.

After the first time I heard of Boortz, I went to his website, read his FAQ, and like you, was impressed by the content of that fact. "Oh, he's a libertarian," I thought, "He doesn't seem tied to anyone but his ideals."

Now, I'm pretty sure he is just another Limbaugh-imatating hack. He calls John Kerry "the Poodle." He routinely rails on democrats as pure evil and hails Bush and the Republicans as heros. This from a Libertarian? I don't think so.

A TRUE libertarian would lean slightly more to the Republican party. However, George W. is NOT a libertarian candidate. Not by a long shot. A libertarian would disagree with as many of his policies as they agree with. Same with Democrats. They often champion ideas which align with a libertarian philosphy. Saying that Democrats are totally at odds with libertarian ideals and that the Republicans are totally on the same page is ludicrous.

This is a Republican in the clothing of Libertarian.

Taft

[Neserk]

I started out my political life as a bedwetting liberal. Young, idealistic -- and dumb. Then I started paying income taxes. .

That is frightening, and a lot of other things. Your mind changed about some of the most important issues in society today because of some stupid money being taken out of your paycheck? *shakes head* That makes me think that liberterians are nothing more than greedy Republicans in disguise.

[screener]

That is frightening, and a lot of other things. Your mind changed about some of the most important issues in society today because of some stupid money being taken out of your paycheck? *shakes head* That makes me think that liberterians are nothing more than greedy Republicans in disguise.

To set my mind at ease, my mind wasn't changed, Neserk was talking about Neal Boortz.

Taft,
You liked the part about no one paying federal taxes?
How would this work? No federal government, asking the ind. states for money, people and corporations voluntarily contributing?
Seriously, how would this work?

[Thomas Veil]

Your mind changed about some of the most important issues in society today because of some stupid money being taken out of your paycheck? *shakes head* That makes me think that liberterians are nothing more than greedy Republicans in disguise.
The libertarians I've seen have an odd combination of economically conservative and socially liberal views...taken to an extreme. I personally think their world view is highly impractical, but I don't doubt that they sincerely believe in it. They're not just Republicans of a different stripe.

[Neserk]

The libertarians I've seen have an odd combination of economically conservative and socially liberal views...taken to an extreme. I personally think their world view is highly impractical, but I don't doubt that they sincerely believe in it. They're not just Republicans of a different stripe.


so this Boortz guy is an embarassment to Libertarians everywhere?

[IJ Reilly]

Libertarians come in gradations between philosophical anarchists and Ayn Rand objectivists. Or maybe it's just two main camps. The former believes in a perfect state of humanity where people pursue what they wish as their talents and desires dictate, free from rules, but behave themselves decently towards one another on a voluntary basis. The latter believe in jettisoning all the rules so that the smartest and nastiest can get the biggest pieces of the pie (this being the most perfect state of humanity attainable). I find the philosophical anarchists to be interesting if somewhat pie-eyed idealists, and the Randians to be spoiled brats who are looking for an excuse to behave like teenagers for the rest of their lives.

[Neserk]

I find the philosophical anarchists to be interesting if somewhat pie-eyed idealists, and the Randians to be spoiled brats who are looking for an excuse to behave like teenagers for the rest of their lives.

sounds like a fair summary of what preceded...

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah, I don't think you could put it better than that.

[mactastic]

I dunno. I think Neal hit the issues on the head with the last two sentences.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day... :eek: :eek: :D

[Frohickey]

A TRUE libertarian would lean slightly more to the Republican party. However, George W. is NOT a libertarian candidate. Not by a long shot. A libertarian would disagree with as many of his policies as they agree with. Same with Democrats. They often champion ideas which align with a libertarian philosphy. Saying that Democrats are totally at odds with libertarian ideals and that the Republicans are totally on the same page is ludicrous.

This is a Republican in the clothing of Libertarian.

Taft

I don't know much about Boortz, but if you do say that he's a Republican in Libertarian clothes, then that would be disingenous.

Now, I fully admire Ron Paul. Now, there is a Libertarian in Republican clothes.

And I loathe Bill Maher, a liberal in Libertarian clothes.

[Voltron]

Boortz who is for gay marriages, and gay rights.
Boortz who is for total and complete removal of religion from government facilities.
Boortz who is for complete and total removal of all governmental influence from the school system at large.
Is Republican.
Get real.

[screener]

I don't know much about Boortz, but if you do say that he's a Republican in Libertarian clothes, then that would be disingenous.

Now, I fully admire Ron Paul. Now, there is a Libertarian in Republican clothes.

And I loathe "Bill Maher", a liberal in Libertarian clothes.

I think he's a lot funnier than Dennis Miller any day.
Just love them new rules.

[Taft]

Taft,
You liked the part about no one paying federal taxes?
How would this work? No federal government, asking the ind. states for money, people and corporations voluntarily contributing?
Seriously, how would this work?

I don't AGREE with it, but I always like a person who doesn't seem in the pocket of the two major parties.

Taft

[amnesiac1984]

I find the philosophical anarchists to be interesting if somewhat pie-eyed idealists, and the Randians to be spoiled brats who are looking for an excuse to behave like teenagers for the rest of their lives.

Thats cool I.J I think I'm now gonna describe myself as a pie-eyed idealistic philosophical anarchist whenever someone asks my political leanings.

[Taft]

More Boortz fun. From today's Nealz Nuze:

BIAS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... AGAIN.

We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.

CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.

This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.

When the 9/11 commission's report was released, I wondered how the wacko right would respond. Now we see the spin...and it's interesting spin at that.

This, my friends, is a classic example of a straw man argument. Boortz took the AP story, misrepresented their argument, then attacked that misrepresentation.

The original AP story did say that no working link existed between al Quida and Iraq for the planning of the 9/11 attacks. But it went on to say, among other things, that:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

This quote does bluntly contradict what Bush/Cheney have been saying.

This is what scares me about guys like Boortz. He uses very sophisticated methods to make his arguments. A person who didn't look at those arguments with scrutiny, might get the impression that he was being honest. This, in fact, is not the case.

Bad Nuze.

Taft