Ain't No Time for Hate

[DVS]

LOL I know Art Bell. I always laugh when people mention him.




He's retired, last I heard.

I listened to him about a year ago. He was doing weekends then. Maybe he was on his way to retirement at that point, I don't know. I've always enjoyed Art and his guests. See, I'm up at that time of the day, so it's almost like I know him, too.

 

[Netzach]

Three of the 12 people I was listening with are on this board, and 2 in 3 are self described conservatives. WTH.

OK, 15 million insane people at the height of it, supopsedly. Could certainly fool me!

 

[DVS]

Three of the 12 people I was listening with are on this board, and 2 in 3 are self described conservatives. WTH.

Now now, don't stereotype me as a conservative in everything. I have a full and lush life, with all kinds of different interests.

I believe in the supernatural. I believe in little green men from outer space. I believe we actually went to the moon and landed there. I believe in life after death and I believe people can actually talk to the dead, like a ghost whisperer.

I also believe everybody could do this, if we were better in tune to our senses. I also should say that some of Art Bell's guests were a little bit out there, in the cosmos, but that was part of the attraction. Coast to Coast is still going strong, and I wish I could continue to listen. But, if Mr. Bell has retired, it won't be the same without that special voice tickling my ears.

Long live all of the weirdos out there and I guess I'm one of them.

 

[WriterDom]

I listened to Art a lot when I was working crazy hours.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Three of the 12 people I was listening with are on this board, and 2 in 3 are self described conservatives. WTH.

OK, 15 million insane people at the height of it, supopsedly. Could certainly fool me!

When I was a cop... working midnight shifts, my patrol car radio or office radio were tuned to Coast to Coast w/Art Bell. Funny but I have Communion by Whitley Strieber and Rule by SECRECY by Jim Marrs on my bookshelf... my Marrs book is even autographed.

 

[Homburg]

OMG, yes. There's this idea that I can't possibly hear ideas other than my own. I can, if they're respectably thought out.

I can deal with Buckley (miss him in fact) or George Will, or Russel Safire or Edward Said. The highly *intelligent* conservative is on the run and in short supply however, because the party line seems to be that if you went to school who should listen to you, you elitist?

Most self professed conservatives have no idea who the people I just name-checked are, BTW.

Such a stone-cold fucking shame too. They should stop listening to dickwits like Hannity and O'Reilly and spend the time reading the names listed above, or listening to Goldwater speeches.

--

I fucking love Art Bell. Such a trainwreck.

But that's the thing, we listen to Art Bell and go "ha ha, insane" and KNOW to do it.

People listen to Michael Savage and go fist-pump woo woo.

I used to listen to talk radio a good bit. I spend a lot of time in the car, and my morning commute went to the dulcet tones of a local talk radio guy (Tony Macrini). He's more libertarian than anything else, and, honestly, is the only media person that I can honestly say that I agreed with more often than not. He was followed by Boortz. A lot of people dislike Boortz, but insofar as consie talk radio is concerned, Boortz is pretty damned mellow and non-hateful. Then Limbaugh came on and I would start to lose interest. Sometimes, he was really funny. The man is an incredible monologist, and he can spin the english language bloody well. So occassionally I would stick around.

That was followed by Hannity, and OReilly, and eventually Savage, and a few other dipshits. I rarely made it through Limbaugh's show, and Hannity et al was a guaranteed off switch for me.

I did listen to Savage a few times. The man has a lot of listeners, and I would tune in to see why so many people were doing so. Never figured it out. That said, I did the same thing with Stern, Imus, etc. Never got those shows either.

Hannity has a voice and personality that makes me want to cockstomp him. I simply cannot stand listening to the pompous ass. And he always had Coulter on. *shudder*

So, no, no fist-pumping here. Michael Savage is a twat. Give me Dan Savage any day.

--

Same.

Did your parents also recommend whacking the bully one time real good?

I got that advice, I was just too pussy physically to do it.

Much like JM, I was told to intervene as needed, included on my own behalf. I can tell some stories...

 

[Homburg]

I don't give a free pass to anyone who advocates violence of the type you've described.

The scope of hatred is measured not by comparing one individual to another, but by comparing the collective size and strength of haters as a group.

This advocates throwing out the actions of those like the guy what shot up the Unitarian Church, right? I don't mind, but I want to be clear on where you're going here. I'm happy to throw out the whacko extremists in both spectrums, as they really don't represent the mainstream of either.

I'd say we've got a very big problem in this country, and I don't see the problem as stemming from Marxism or feminism or environmentalism or any other left-wing-ism at this time.

The problem we have is that true conservatives have been outshouted, outnumbered, and overrun by hate-mongering, fear-mongering culture warriors and those who exploit them. Together, these people exert their combined commercial and political power in ways that are both damaging to this country as a whole, and directly, personally threatening to many individuals within it.

While your latter paragraph elicits a very loud "BRAVO!" from me, I have to disagree with the former. You cannot in any way absolve the left from blame in out current situation. We are all collectively at fault for where we have gone as a nation. We truly do have the government, society, and culture that we deserve. We are all guilty of too much apathy, too much self-interest, too much short-sighted petty selfishness, and far too much NIMBY. None of these traits are endemic to only one side of the aisle.

Still, I really agree wholeheartedly with you final paragraph there. The conservative movement has been corrupted from within, and lost sight of the shining city on the hill. Cheney, Perlman, Rumsfeld, et al should have been seen as the villains they are, and Bush as the utter incompetent he is, but conservatism was shouted as the battle cry by those undeserving of the name, and the charge was called.

I just wish gore would have shown some of the passion during the election that he showed in the promotion of his movie. I would've voted for him.

 

[JMohegan]

This advocates throwing out the actions of those like the guy what shot up the Unitarian Church, right? I don't mind, but I want to be clear on where you're going here. I'm happy to throw out the whacko extremists in both spectrums, as they really don't represent the mainstream of either.

No, that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying.

The same hatred that feeds the commercial and political success of the culture warrior crowd fed the violence in that church. They are as interwined as the venom spouted against gays from radios and pulpits everywhere, and the death of Matthew Shepard. They are as inextricably linked as the Abu Ghraib incidents, and the upper level torture policies of the Bush administration.

You don't get to call people vermin, spend hours propagating the myth that these people are dangerous traitors intent on destroying our society and the individuals within it, actively promote a system in which these people are afforded fewer rights and lesser dignity than other human beings, sprinkle your message with actual calls for violence in many cases, and then throw up your hands and feign innocence when people get shot or beaten to death.


For anyone reading this thread who hasn't opened Etoile's link, the excerpt relevant to the Unitarian Church incident is copied below.


Police said that Adkisson had targeted the Unitarian Universalist Church "because of its liberal teachings." The church advocates social justice and tolerance, and it openly welcomes gay, lesbian, and transgendered members. According to police, Adkisson said that, "Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would target those that had voted them in to office."In the weeks following the tragedy, the congregation and its pastor, Reverend Chris Buice struggled with what they were learning about Adkisson.

REVEREND CHRIS BUICE: Some have suggested that his spiritual attitudes, his hatred of liberals and gays, was reinforced by the right wing media figures. And it is beyond dispute that there are a plethora of books which have labeled liberals as evil, unpatriotic, godless and treasonous.

RICK KARR: During that recent sermon Buice told his congregation, some of who had risked their own lives to stop the shooting, that he has been reading some of those books.

REVEREND CHRIS BUICE: One of the books has the title "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism". If that author was here in this room right now I would introduce him to some good liberals who acted decisively on that Sunday, acted quickly and courageously to stop the terror that came into our church building. I would introduce him to some good liberals who know how to fight terror with more than just their mouths.

RICK KARR: Buice says even with the outpouring of sympathy from around Knoxville and across the country, Adkisson's lethal anger has left him angry and full of questions.

REVEREND CHRIS BUICEeople were killed in my sanctuary of my church which should be the holy place, a safe place. People were injured. A man came in here totally dehumanized us. Members of our church were not human to him. Where did he get that? Where did he get that sense that we were not human?

RICK KARR: Buice admits that no one knows for sure and says that Adkisson alone, is responsible for the shootings. But he keeps thinking about some books that police found in Adkisson's apartment, books by popular right-wing talk-radio personalities who berate and denigrate liberals. One of the books police found in Adkisson's apartment was Michael Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". In it, Savage calls liberals "the enemy within our country;" "an enemy more dangerous than Hitler"; "traitors" who are "dangerous to your survival" and who "should be placed in a straightjacket". Like Adkisson, Savage accuses liberals of "[tying] the hands of our military".

Savage isn't just a bestselling author: he also hosts a syndicated radio show.

ANNOUNCER:"And now American's most exciting radio talk show...THE SAVAGE NATION...THE MICHAEL SAVAGE SHOW."

RICK KARR: Savage reaches more than eight and a quarter million listeners a week. And when it comes to demonizing liberals, he's the same on the air as he is in print.

MICHAEL SAVAGE:"Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation? Well, the church. They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years. The police, attacked for the last 50 straight years by the ACLU viruses. And the military, attacked for the last 50 years by the Barbara Boxer viruses on our planet."

RICK KARR: Political liberals aren't the only targets of Savage's wrath. Back when he had a cable TV show, he bashed gay men.

MICHAEL SAVAGE: "So, you're one of the sodomites. Are you a sodomite?"

CALLER: "Yes, I am."

MICHAEL SAVAGE: "Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis."

 

[Homburg]

No, that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying.

You've lost me. This widens the scope to the point where the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, Italian Red Army Faction, and all sorts of other terrorist groups should be poured into the left's soup pot. I am trying to avoid an ad absurdum argument here, but that is where it is headed.

Are you positing that the Unitarian church shooter was in league with Savage? They were part orf some group? Not demographic, group. I'm using that word pointedly as you used it in this quote:

The scope of hatred is measured not by comparing one individual to another, but by comparing the collective size and strength of haters as a group.

I am trying to get what you mean here. I do not see the shooter as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, to use Limbaugh's favourite phrase. I see him as a deluded individual whose voices told him to kill people (paraphrasing EG). Those voices happened to be related in his mind to Savage and his poisonous ilk.

I'm not trying to absolve Savage, but I'm seeing a correllation=/=causality issue here. He might be calling them vermin and hoping they die, but he's not exhorting his loyal followers to take up arms and whack Unitarians in the name of holy conservatism.

Well, actually, knowing Savage, he might have done that at some point.

 

[midwestyankee]

You've lost me. This widens the scope to the point where the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, Italian Red Army Faction, and all sorts of other terrorist groups should be poured into the left's soup pot. I am trying to avoid an ad absurdum argument here, but that is where it is headed.

Are you positing that the Unitarian church shooter was in league with Savage? They were part orf some group? Not demographic, group. I'm using that word pointedly as you used it in this quote:



I am trying to get what you mean here. I do not see the shooter as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, to use Limbaugh's favourite phrase. I see him as a deluded individual whose voices told him to kill people (paraphrasing EG). Those voices happened to be related in his mind to Savage and his poisonous ilk.

I'm not trying to absolve Savage, but I'm seeing a correllation=/=causality issue here. He might be calling them vermin and hoping they die, but he's not exhorting his loyal followers to take up arms and whack Unitarians in the name of holy conservatism.

Well, actually, knowing Savage, he might have done that at some point.

Exactly. Next time you catch someone on Air America calling for the death and/or extermination of folks on the right, for whatever reason, let me know and I'll buy the premise that the hatred from each side of this discussion is remotely equivalent.

 

[caela]

Exactly. Next time you catch someone on Air America calling for the death and/or extermination of folks on the right, for whatever reason, let me know and I'll buy the premise that the hatred from each side of this discussion is remotely equivalent.

Personally I think bringing in the shock jocks, like Savage and Limbaugh, who say damned near anything for ratings, is a bit disingenuous. Etoile said, repeatedly, at the beginning of this thread that she wasn't asking her question about the hate mongering extremists on either side but about the average citizens that we all come into contact with on a daily basis.

People like Savage, on the right, and groups like PETA, on the left, are examples of the worst that either side has to offer it's followers. Just my opinion but we seem to be getting a bit off track in focusing on them because they are such easy targets to focus on.

 

[midwestyankee]

Personally I think bringing in the shock jocks, like Savage and Limbaugh, who say damned near anything for ratings, is a bit disingenuous. Etoile said, repeatedly, at the beginning of this thread that she wasn't asking her question about the hate mongering extremists on either side but about the average citizens that we all come into contact with on a daily basis.

People like Savage, on the right, and groups like PETA, on the left, are examples of the worst that either side has to offer it's followers. Just my opinion but we seem to be getting a bit off track in focusing on them because they are such easy targets to focus on.

I follow your reasoning but there's a practical problem with it. Radio personalities like Savage and Limbaugh have such wide-spread influence that they are an integral part of the belief structure and behaviors of millions of people between them. That puts their influence squarely into the "mainstream" portion of the right-wing population.

 

[Etoile]

I guess it's a little of both, actually. Although, again, the issue is that the everyday citizens of the right listen to their extremists and nod in understanding, and the everyday citizens of the left look at PETA and go "wow, nutty." Or, in the case of the UU church (I was raised UU my whole life), the listen and nod and go blow people up.

Basically I'm saying I agree with what Netzach says here:

But that's the thing, we listen to Art Bell and go "ha ha, insane" and KNOW to do it.

People listen to Michael Savage and go fist-pump woo woo.

added: And exactly what MWY said right above me, too.

 

[JMohegan]

You've lost me. This widens the scope to the point where the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, Italian Red Army Faction, and all sorts of other terrorist groups should be poured into the left's soup pot. I am trying to avoid an ad absurdum argument here, but that is where it is headed.

Are you positing that the Unitarian church shooter was in league with Savage? They were part orf some group? Not demographic, group.

I'm not talking about Germany, or Latin America, or the U.S. 200 years ago, or any time & place other than the U.S. right now.

Michael Savage has a powerful voice, and that voice is given to him by those who listen to his broadcasts and buy his books. Collectively, Savage and those who are responsible for his commercial success bear some responsibility when the deadly serious bile he spews is taken seriously and acted upon.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[JMohegan]

Exactly. Next time you catch someone on Air America calling for the death and/or extermination of folks on the right, for whatever reason, let me know and I'll buy the premise that the hatred from each side of this discussion is remotely equivalent.

Let me know, and I'll boycott the station - and urge others to do the same.

 

[Homburg]

Exactly. Next time you catch someone on Air America calling for the death and/or extermination of folks on the right, for whatever reason, let me know and I'll buy the premise that the hatred from each side of this discussion is remotely equivalent.

*blink*

Hatred lies only in media outlets? Hatred does not exist meaningfully anywhere else?

--

I guess it's a little of both, actually. Although, again, the issue is that the everyday citizens of the right listen to their extremists and nod in understanding, and the everyday citizens of the left look at PETA and go "wow, nutty." Or, in the case of the UU church (I was raised UU my whole life), the listen and nod and go blow people up.

This confuses me. The conservative folks that have posted here haven't been pumping their fists at Savage's name. There's been more instances of "wow, nutty" than fist pumping. Are we seeing posts from the everyday person on the left here but only posts from special-case people on the right?

"Conservatives are all small-minded bigots. Well, except for you guys. You're okay."

 

[Etoile]

This confuses me. The conservative folks that have posted here haven't been pumping their fists at Savage's name. There's been more instances of "wow, nutty" than fist pumping. Are we seeing posts from the everyday person on the left here but only posts from special-case people on the right?

"Conservatives are all small-minded bigots. Well, except for you guys. You're okay."

The way I see it, you guys are unique among conservatives. I base that solely on your sexual preference - most right-wingers don't like to flog people, do wax play, etc. Being open to alternative sexual practices often makes one open to other ideas that are not in line with the rest of one's political ideology, like supporting same-sex marriage and things like that. I don't think the people here on Lit who identify as conservatives are the same type of conservatives who fling the hate.

In other words, I never said "are all" anything.

 

[Netzach]

You've lost me. This widens the scope to the point where the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, Italian Red Army Faction, and all sorts of other terrorist groups should be poured into the left's soup pot. I am trying to avoid an ad absurdum argument here, but that is where it is headed.

Are you positing that the Unitarian church shooter was in league with Savage? They were part orf some group? Not demographic, group. I'm using that word pointedly as you used it in this quote:



I am trying to get what you mean here. I do not see the shooter as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, to use Limbaugh's favourite phrase. I see him as a deluded individual whose voices told him to kill people (paraphrasing EG). Those voices happened to be related in his mind to Savage and his poisonous ilk.

I'm not trying to absolve Savage, but I'm seeing a correllation=/=causality issue here. He might be calling them vermin and hoping they die, but he's not exhorting his loyal followers to take up arms and whack Unitarians in the name of holy conservatism.

Well, actually, knowing Savage, he might have done that at some point.

So Tim McVeigh, UU shooter, clinic bombers, random nutjobs who unfortunately have the voices in their heads aligned with right wing propaganda. As incendiary (or not) as porn or violent video games or the Bible or whatever media we blame when people go antisocial.

I guess I can live with that. I guess there may be a certain level of "image blaming" going on here, and we should be wondering how the hell anyone falls through the cracks of that-fucked-in-the-head.

This post actually has me kind of up on the fence. I know that I'm very reticent about image blaming and I'm very itchy around the suggestion that any kind of speech is inherently too dangerous. The only answer is more free speech and thank god for watchdogs like Southern Poverty Law.

People kill people, pamphlets don't kill people. I feel ya. Hm.

I don't know that I hold the people who spew this kind of crap responsible. I DO WONDER about the people pumping fists to it, and if you tell me again that most people aren't you are being willfully blind to reality. Some people tune in because it's a train wreck but not that many. I lived with some of the listenership, they take it VERY seriously.

 

[Netzach]

If you study the speech patterns of Limbaugh, especially, it's LOADED with NLP and hypnosis types of approaches. If I weren't die hard opposed to the message I have no doubt that after about 3 hours of it, it'd sound better and better. It's actually really interesting to study for persuasion.

 

[CutieMouse]

I guess it's a little of both, actually. Although, again, the issue is that the everyday citizens of the right listen to their extremists and nod in understanding, and the everyday citizens of the left look at PETA and go "wow, nutty." Or, in the case of the UU church (I was raised UU my whole life), the listen and nod and go blow people up.

This confuses me. The conservative folks that have posted here haven't been pumping their fists at Savage's name. There's been more instances of "wow, nutty" than fist pumping. Are we seeing posts from the everyday person on the left here but only posts from special-case people on the right?

"Conservatives are all small-minded bigots. Well, except for you guys. You're okay."

I'm with Homburg on this one... 'cause huh?

It goes back to my earlier comment that *I* (IMO) am a "typical" conservative. If I'm working at home, I listen to talk radio on a live stream. If I don't agree with a show/it's host/feel it's hit the "wow, nutty" wall, I do this really radical thing - I roll my eyes, have a "what a twit" moment, and switch to music. If I disagree with stuff I hear on NPR, I roll my eyes, have a "what a twit" moment, and switch to music. It's called thinking. *chuckle*

 

[Netzach]

It's called thinking. *chuckle*

Surprisingly few people do it. If you think you're in any KIND of majority on that one, you are sadly mistaken, right or left or else.

I consider my family members much more typical conservatives. I've had pretty good exposure to the theories at home. They don't ever disagree with anything said by a FOX pundit. Or Rush. Or Ann Coulter. These people are their mouthpieces no matter what, everything is rooted in raw emotion and fear of...well mostly black people for them. There is NO ABILITY to say "well, you know...I have to think about that for a minute and weigh that POV" there's no "step back."

That's not limited to conservatives, mind you, I'm dealing in what I'm familiar with.

 

[Etoile]

I'm with Homburg on this one... 'cause huh?

It goes back to my earlier comment that *I* (IMO) am a "typical" conservative. If I'm working at home, I listen to talk radio on a live stream. If I don't agree with a show/it's host/feel it's hit the "wow, nutty" wall, I do this really radical thing - I roll my eyes, have a "what a twit" moment, and switch to music. If I disagree with stuff I hear on NPR, I roll my eyes, have a "what a twit" moment, and switch to music. It's called thinking. *chuckle*

I really, really, really hate to say this, but...I think the "unwashed masses" of the right wing/conservativism don't think. Perhaps THAT is the difference between the conservatives on Lit vs. the conservatives elsewhere. Too many people don't think, they blindly follow. (A good place to leap into a religion debate, but that's not for here.)

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, CM - the problem is that many people just don't think as much as you do.

 

[CutieMouse]

I really, really, really hate to say this, but...I think the "unwashed masses" of the right wing/conservativism don't think. Perhaps THAT is the difference between the conservatives on Lit vs. the conservatives elsewhere. Too many people don't think, they blindly follow. (A good place to leap into a religion debate, but that's not for here.)

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, CM - the problem is that many people just don't think as much as you do.

Probably... although some days I think a lot of people wish I didn't think as much as I do.

 

[Netzach]

I really, really, really hate to say this, but...I think the "unwashed masses" of the right wing/conservativism don't think. Perhaps THAT is the difference between the conservatives on Lit vs. the conservatives elsewhere. Too many people don't think, they blindly follow. (A good place to leap into a religion debate, but that's not for here.)

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, CM - the problem is that many people just don't think as much as you do.

I think the unwashed masses don't think. It's the same reason that actors are regular Huffpo columnists. There's plenty of blind Che T-Shirt douchebaggery to go around. Do you know how horrified my knee-jerk cohorts are when they find out I'm pro-second? That I think hunting is a legitimate pasttime? Two issues they refuse to even consider from POV's other than wealthy unlikely to ever stare down gun violence and urban don't need to take out my next meal.

 

[Homburg]

The way I see it, you guys are unique among conservatives. I base that solely on your sexual preference - most right-wingers don't like to flog people, do wax play, etc. Being open to alternative sexual practices often makes one open to other ideas that are not in line with the rest of one's political ideology, like supporting same-sex marriage and things like that. I don't think the people here on Lit who identify as conservatives are the same type of conservatives who fling the hate.

In other words, I never said "are all" anything.

Eh, most left-wingers don't like to flog people, etc either. Kink is not the sole province of the left, y'all just tend to be a tiny bit more honest about it. Let's face it, as has been said on here, at least democrats fuck girls. The republicans seem to get into office and wander about buggering pages between commitee meetings, and wipe their dicks on the Constitution.

In my own case, I can look around the table at my local munch group and see that almost all of them are conservative. It's a regional thing. That said, those people are all likely to be in support of same sex marriage and sexual freedom by virtue of their involvement in alternative lifestyles.

----

So Tim McVeigh, UU shooter, clinic bombers, random nutjobs who unfortunately have the voices in their heads aligned with right wing propaganda. As incendiary (or not) as porn or violent video games or the Bible or whatever media we blame when people go antisocial.

I guess I can live with that. I guess there may be a certain level of "image blaming" going on here, and we should be wondering how the hell anyone falls through the cracks of that-fucked-in-the-head.

This post actually has me kind of up on the fence. I know that I'm very reticent about image blaming and I'm very itchy around the suggestion that any kind of speech is inherently too dangerous. The only answer is more free speech and thank god for watchdogs like Southern Poverty Law.

People kill people, pamphlets don't kill people. I feel ya. Hm.

I don't know that I hold the people who spew this kind of crap responsible. I DO WONDER about the people pumping fists to it, and if you tell me again that most people aren't you are being willfully blind to reality. Some people tune in because it's a train wreck but not that many. I lived with some of the listenership, they take it VERY seriously.

Those people scare me. They really do. But if I accept that Savage is responsible, I also need to accept that video games could be responsible for Columbine or Va Tech, or that Ozzy is responsible for random satanic rituals or somesuch. While there are unbalanced individuals who will key off of random influence, I just don't see that the random influence has culpability

Now, if you want to point to racially motivated killings and they find a copy of the Turner Diaries earmarked, highlighted, and annotated, then I am more willing to look towards culpability. That is a case where the author really does call for that sort of thing.

If you study the speech patterns of Limbaugh, especially, it's LOADED with NLP and hypnosis types of approaches. If I weren't die hard opposed to the message I have no doubt that after about 3 hours of it, it'd sound better and better. It's actually really interesting to study for persuasion.

This was honestly one of the biggest reasons why I would occassionally listen to him. He really is a master monologist. It was good fun from a discursive standpoint to listen to his rants here and there.