Since we're on the subject of Rush in another thread, thought I'd run a poll.

Who's better...why?

I'm not a big fan of talk radio in general, but I'd have to go with Savage. Sure, he's a nut job once and awhie--but he's a FUNNY nutjob. And on top of this, some of his ideas do actually make sense. Others are outright insane. But, you know, at least they aren't insane and played out on hannity and colmes a couple hours later (god I hate that show...colmes is like a weak little duckling...I know there are better liberal arguments then that, it is insulting to my intelligence to underestimate the other side so that I may glorify my ignorant viewpoint). Anyhow, just my two cents, but personally, I recommend reading vast amounts of books on various topics of interest. Talk shows are about as good as...um...not sure.

accidently submitted the post above twice, server froze...lol

Rush has been playing Republican boyscout for so many years he's completely lost to truth and what the conservative american wants.

Savage is nuts, but he's crazy like a fox. His insights and independent conservatism are a breath of fresh air.

While he's not a cheerleader like Coulter, Savage is still irrational IMO. His arguments seem based on emotion rather than reason.

By contrast, Rush's arguments are typically airtight...even if you dont agree with his conclusions, you know his arguments are based on logic and not emotion.

Although rare, there are liberals who are also based on logic rather than emtion (Eleanor Clift is awesome). Logical commentators seem to be far more common on the right though (Rush, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, ect..)

I've listened to his show a couple times...but I'll pass. Rush's arguments make a lot more sense to me and he gives me stuff I can actually use in debates.

Savage is still a step up from Coulter though. She might as well be waving red pom-poms in a skirt with a red elephant on it.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If I have to pick, it's Savage. I disagree with him a lot, but at least his opinions are actually his own. For the last decade Rush has simply read from his talking points fax. Plus, he tends toward the selective use of facts, which makes him intellectually weak.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Huh? savage is way worse than anyone else about that. He will pick one fact and dwell on it the entire show to teh exclusion of everything else.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Neither...

Neal Boortz is much better.

boortz.com

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

He kills the other two hands down. It's not even close. And Hannity is the worst hands down. Pure crap. I am listening to Boortz right now at my desk.

He does it, too. No doubt. As do most left commentators. It's common among anyone with a clear agenda. But I think he forms his own opinions (whether they are right or wrong). Rush's opinions are faxed to him every morning.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Savage lost me for good during the Schiavo crap. He hung up on the everyone with an opposing POV. I can listen to someone even if I don't agree with them, but that episode was ridiculous. Rush was slightly better, but not much. At least he listened. The irony is that I think he and Savage and the like based their opinion on this issue on their emotions for a change. Rush says that liberals use emotions and he uses logic, but not with Terry Schiavo.

I Neal Boortz.

Pure logic.
Because she�s earned it - By Neal Boortz

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.