# Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio



## ozzmdj

Ditto.......


----------



## rdking647

i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Ozz, I see the problem. So let's allow no one to make more than $250,000, and spread the rest of the extra money down the line. Then we could make the tax system so that it gets the same amount, but taxes everyone pretty much the same.


----------



## editec

Because there's nothing else on?

That's why I sometimes listen to it.


----------



## Toro

ozzmdj said:


> Ditto.......



Do you not see the amusing irony in this?


----------



## Arawyn

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



And here that's what I thought about those that listen to Air America


----------



## DiveCon

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


and this shows you dont know what the fuck you are saying


----------



## Sinatra

Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.

I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...


----------



## Centrism'sVoice

There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.


----------



## DiveCon

Centrism'sVoice said:


> There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.


LOL
yeah, sure


----------



## EriktheRed

> Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio




Because I can't get through the day without my 2-Minute-expanded-into-3-Hour Hate.


----------



## DiveCon

EriktheRed said:


> Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can't get through the day without my 2-Minute-expanded-into-3-Hour Hate.
Click to expand...

for you, i could believe that


----------



## get_involved

Conservative talk radio is popular because it's one of the few alternatives to the liberal bias on T.V. (except Fox which is conservative bias).


----------



## Political Junky

ozzmdj said:


> Ditto.......


I listen to Michael Weiner [Savage] sometimes when there's nothing else interesting on. It's entertaining to hear that fool rant and carry on. He changes from one person to another day to day, if not within the same show. He lit into Hannity yesterday, saying that Hannity should put on an apron and tend bar.


----------



## ozzmdj

Weiner nation is a backbencher that gets his ass kicked by the great one in every market.


----------



## Harry Dresden

DiveCon said:


> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> yeah, sure
Click to expand...


he cant see ya Dive....your on sqiggies list...


----------



## Oscar Wao

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


While this is not the case for ALL Talk Radio listeners, it is the case for a significant number, hence the scoffing and stereotyping of radio hosts and their alleged "disciples."


----------



## DiveCon

Harry Dresden said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centrism'sVoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> yeah, sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he cant see ya Dive....your on sqiggies list...
Click to expand...

oh, i know
LOL
so are you, right?


----------



## Oscar Wao

Centrism'sVoice said:


> There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.


/thread


----------



## Dr Grump

Sinatra said:


> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...



You wanna see unhappy. Check out this place after Jan 20 this year...and check out the conservative posters...man, are they unhappy.............


----------



## DiveCon

Dr Grump said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna see unhappy. Check out this place after Jan 20 this year...and check out the conservative posters...man, are they unhappy.............
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO

you wanna see unhappy
you should look at yourselves after the elections in 2000 and 2004
and you morons kept it up for the whole fucking EIGHT years
LOL
the right hasnt gone anywhere NEAR to you guys level


----------



## Dr Grump

DiveCon said:


> you wanna see unhappy
> you should look at yourselves after the elections in 2000 and 2004
> and you morons kept it up for the whole fucking EIGHT years
> LOL
> the right hasnt gone anywhere NEAR to you guys level



I didn't vote in YOUR election. I was unhappy that Bush stole the 2000 election. Anybody who believes in democracy and freedom would not be happy. Thought he won 2004 fair and square.

Your last point made me laugh out loud it is so way off track. No person gave Bush shit about his policies during the first few months of his presidency. They were more concerned and critical of HOW he won the election.
"hasnt gone anywhere NEAR to you guys level"? Are you taking the piss?? From the day he was sworn in it started....


----------



## DiveCon

Dr Grump said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you wanna see unhappy
> you should look at yourselves after the elections in 2000 and 2004
> and you morons kept it up for the whole fucking EIGHT years
> LOL
> the right hasnt gone anywhere NEAR to you guys level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't vote in YOUR election. I was unhappy that *Bush stole the 2000 election*. Anybody who believes in democracy and freedom would not be happy. Thought he won 2004 fair and square.
> 
> Your last point made me laugh out loud it is so way off track. No person gave Bush shit about his policies during the first few months of his presidency. They were more concerned and critical of HOW he won the election.
> "hasnt gone anywhere NEAR to you guys level"? Are you taking the piss?? From the day he was sworn in it started....
Click to expand...

SEEE!!!!!!!!!

you STILL doin it

and its complete BULLSHIT


----------



## elvis

EriktheRed said:


> Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can't get through the day without my 2-Minute-expanded-into-3-Hour Hate.
Click to expand...


I would guess that you allocate that much time each day hating Sarah Palin.


----------



## Chris

Sinatra said:


> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...



Been very happy since November 4th.

Our long national nightmare is over!


----------



## jillian

DiveCon said:


> SEEE!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you STILL doin it
> 
> and its complete BULLSHIT



ummmmmmmmmm... 

Bush v Gore... 

'nuff said.


----------



## Arawyn

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEEE!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you STILL doin it
> 
> and its complete BULLSHIT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Bush v Gore...
> 
> 'nuff said.
Click to expand...


Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said

Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount


----------



## DiveCon

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEEE!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you STILL doin it
> 
> and its complete BULLSHIT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Bush v Gore...
> 
> 'nuff said.
Click to expand...

ah so SCOTUS stole the election for bush?

FAIL


----------



## Sinatra

See how the liberals cling to the past!  

This is the Age of Obama kids - and he is falling on his ass.

More unhappiness for you in the present to go along with your 8 years of Bush derangement unhappiness...


----------



## DiveCon

Arawyn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEEE!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you STILL doin it
> 
> and its complete BULLSHIT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Bush v Gore...
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
Click to expand...

correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue


----------



## Arawyn

DiveCon said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ummmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Bush v Gore...
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
Click to expand...


Sorry, my bad, I forgot the last word *oops*


----------



## Oscar Wao

Dubya didn't "steal" anything.  SCOTUS was upholding the fact that we are a Republic.

FIN.


----------



## elvis

DiveCon said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ummmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Bush v Gore...
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
Click to expand...


yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?


----------



## Arawyn

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
> 
> 
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
Click to expand...


Ayup......they did at least 4 I believe.......and 3/4 he won by a much larger margin......and the 3/4 were evenly counted *all counties* rather than using the Gore method of recounting.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
> 
> 
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
Click to expand...

yup
every way they did that remained within the laws at the time
they tried a couple ways the Gore team wanted to use that were not legal at the time, and i think Gore won one of the two


----------



## DiveCon

Arawyn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup......they did at least 4 I believe.......and 3/4 he won by a much larger margin......and the 3/4 were evenly counted *all counties* rather than using the Gore method of recounting.
Click to expand...

and Gores way of recounting violated the equal protection laws


----------



## Arawyn

DiveCon said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup......they did at least 4 I believe.......and 3/4 he won by a much larger margin......and the 3/4 were evenly counted *all counties* rather than using the Gore method of recounting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and Gores way of recounting violated the equal protection laws
Click to expand...


It most certainly did

Bush v. Gore, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument



> the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice.


----------



## DiveCon

waiting for Jillian to come in and tell us how this was a "stolen election"  now.


----------



## elvis

DiveCon said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup......they did at least 4 I believe.......and 3/4 he won by a much larger margin......and the 3/4 were evenly counted *all counties* rather than using the Gore method of recounting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and Gores way of recounting violated the equal protection laws
Click to expand...


and it's been sour grapes for the fat bastard ever since.


----------



## Arawyn

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup......they did at least 4 I believe.......and 3/4 he won by a much larger margin......and the 3/4 were evenly counted *all counties* rather than using the Gore method of recounting.
> 
> 
> 
> and Gores way of recounting violated the equal protection laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it's been sour grapes for the fat bastard ever since.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I think he's alway been a sour fat bastard......and grapes are just something he threw in as an attempt to look human.


----------



## Chris

Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.) 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities. 

Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.)
> 
> The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.
> 
> Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch



this shit again?  what a whiny little bitch you are, Christina.


----------



## DiveCon

Chris said:


> Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.)
> 
> The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.
> 
> Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch


and it was ruled not a valid compliant
because it was all BULLSHIT
like YOU


----------



## Foxfyre

I could provide a really good rebuttal to Chris's post, but I think I'll pass.  I'm sure many of you have already posted the real skinny on all that.

I would rather give my reasons for listening to conservative talk radio.   They are:

1.  Conservative talk radio is usually featured on the news stations that I most depend on for current news.  That is because those stations are usually No. 1 in their markets and it is the popularity of talk radio that made most of them No. 1.

2.  Conservative talk radio, whether or not I agree with it, is almost always upbeat and interesting.  Compare that to most liberal talk radio which is dreary and whiny and repetitious and devoid of much of anything useful to know.   From conservative talk radio, I almost always get one idea, concept, stated fact, or name to research further every time I listen.

3.  Most conservative talk radio hosts are so well prepared for their program that even if they are running in the back ground or you only have time/opportunity to listen for a very few minutes, you will almost always learn something in whatever brief span that is.

4.  You cannot get any balanced in depth commentary from any of the alphabet networks or cable channels or print media.  Admittedly, you might not get the whole perspective from conservative talk radio either, but if you balance the other stuff with the research done by the radio talk show hosts, you will have a fighting chance to obtain all of the best information available out there at the time.


----------



## Avatar4321

I listen to it when I feel like hearing commentary that makes me think.


----------



## Fatality

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



no, thats the dhimicratic party. talk radio listeners are something different, they listen because they recognize their own "voice" on the radio.


----------



## PixieStix

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


 
I don't listen to talk radio, but apparently I "think just like them. It happens to be called. THINKING. Not "feeling" like the dhumies on the left, who have to have everything from their mortgage to their healthcare and thoughts handed to them by government. The left is indoctrinated.They eat it like they are starved for attention or something. 

Bashing Christianity being the lefts favorite past time and embracing a political ideology that is inline with facists around the world

Yeah that is the way to go lefties 

Just remember their is nothing in life that is free. we all will pay because of your feelings.


----------



## Harry Dresden

DiveCon said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> yeah, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he cant see ya Dive....your on sqiggies list...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh, i know
> LOL
> so are you, right?
Click to expand...


a proud member in good standing.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Chris said:


> Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.)
> 
> The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.
> 
> Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch



how did they know if the ballot was from a black?.....


----------



## Darkwind

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


Did your English teacher tell you that?


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Ozz, I see the problem. So let's allow no one to make more than $250,000, and spread the rest of the extra money down the line. Then we could make the tax system so that it gets the same amount, but taxes everyone pretty much the same.



This is why Unions came to be.  White Collar kept making more and more and  labor's wages stayed the same.  We saw that they weren't sharing the profits with labor.  So we organized and demanded that if a CEO is going to make a fortune, then the labor that made his company successful were going to benefit too.  If that is wrong, I don't want to be right.  

If he gets $20 million a year, we should get $35 hr.  That isn't really communism, is it?  

No one said NO ONE CAN MAKE MORE THAN $250K.  How about no one SHOULD make more than $20 million a year?  Is that fine for you?  

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wait. Here's a classic moment from Lib Radio Air America:

Caller: Boooooosshhhhhhhhh
Rhodes: We hatessssssssss it! He steal the election my precious
Caller: Boooooooshhh liesssssssssss he lies my precious!
Rhodes: We hatessssssssssssssssssssss  Boooooosh foreverrrrrrrrr
Caller: Boooooooooosh liesssssssssssss
Rhodes: Booosh liessssssssssss we hatessssssssssss it! He stole my Precious in Florida recount!


----------



## noose4

rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:

now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.


----------



## Harry Dresden

sealybobo said:


> This is why Unions came to be.  White Collar kept making more and more and  labor's wages stayed the same.  *We* saw that they weren't sharing the profits with labor. [/url]



WE??.....nice of you to take credit for something you had no part in Bobo.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

noose4 said:


> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.



you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....


----------



## noose4

Harry Dresden said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
Click to expand...


you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Conservative talk radio is not a fact free zone 
Issues are discussed, Bill #numbers and supporters are name and arguments  how laws infringe on personal liberty and restrictions on business are considered.
The side  of the isle are of little consequence,  both sides  get their ox gored if tyhey  infringe on personal liberty  for the betterment of the collective.


----------



## Oscar Wao

noose4 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.
Click to expand...

It's hypocritical.

Oxy Rush and his preaching against drugs is like being a womanizer and then going as a guest speaker to a men's ministry group that helps men with sexual sins and tells them about the evils of fornication and lust (then he goes and beds a woman later).


----------



## ozzmdj

Its conservative talk radio and the rest of the new media that has stopped the socialized health care crap....


----------



## DiveCon

noose4 said:


> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.


nop, that must have been some lib moron on the radio trying to impersonate rush, and you fell for the ruse

rush doesnt blame someone else for his goof ups, he owns up to them
where as a lib moron will blame someone else

havent you been listening to Obama?
its all Bush's fault he cant get shit done


----------



## DiveCon

noose4 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

you listen and you know it
but YOU only THINK Rush blames it on the libs


----------



## noose4

DiveCon said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> you listen and you know it
> but YOU only THINK Rush blames it on the libs
Click to expand...


god bless you.


----------



## Political Junky

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm 8 of 9 Justices found the recount a joke.......'nuff said
> 
> Only issue  that was 5/4 was whether to allow recount
> 
> 
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
Click to expand...

No


----------



## DiveCon

Political Junky said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> correction, it was whether to allow the recounts to continue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah didn't they recount unofficially and Bush won by an even wider margin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!

but thats not a surprise


----------



## Harry Dresden

noose4 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.
Click to expand...


Curtis Sliwa?.....good grief....have you no standard of taste?....


----------



## noose4

Harry Dresden said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a BIG fan of the show Noose....you got the guy down....you cant do this if your not a listener....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see folks its like this when i go to sleep at night i put on wabc radio to listen to the end of curtis sliwa's show and leave coast to coast on through the night and wake up to imus in the morning, during this time period wabc plays snippets from rush's show and they pretty much all wind up blaming whatever is troubling rush at the time on those naughty liberals. i think maybe it was a liberal drug dealer that got him hooked on drugs so he carries a vendetta against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curtis Sliwa?.....good grief....have you no standard of taste?....
Click to expand...


its like listening to leo gorcey, i like the new york malapropisms.


----------



## Foxfyre

ozzmdj said:


> Its conservative talk radio and the rest of the new media that has stopped the socialized health care crap....



I wish I could give them credit, but the truth is that Conservative Talk Radio has been a balance against the mainstream media's PROMOTION of the socialized health care crap and that has provided a large chunk of mainstream America with enough information to know what's coming and react.   Those who are as fully informed as possible will usually agree on the best decision.

If Conservative Talk Radio had the power the liberals assign to it, Bill Clinton would never have been elected--twice--we wouldn't be saddled with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as the stewards of our elected congressional leaders, John McCain would never have been the GOP nominee in 2008, and Barack Obama would not be President.

But do give Conservative Talk Radio props for providing a voice for us who are mad as hell and don't want to take it any more.  Talk radio speaks with our voice, with our thoughts, with what we are already thinking.  That's why we like it so much.  But it has no power to do anything more than educate, and it alone isn't going to fix any problems.  That's up to us.


----------



## Harry Dresden

noose4 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curtis Sliwa?.....good grief....have you no standard of taste?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its like listening to leo gorcey, i like the new york malapropisms.
Click to expand...


you know....your right........


----------



## ozzmdj

Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy.....Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy   The new media got this kook out.


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## ozzmdj

There are so much more information on talk radio than the old media


----------



## Big Fitz

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


That'd be readers of the NY Times and all Network News watchers.


----------



## HUGGY

editec said:


> Because there's nothing else on?
> 
> That's why I sometimes listen to it.



Why must there be something "on"?


----------



## The T

EriktheRed said:


> Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can't get through the day without my 2-Minute-expanded-into-3-Hour Hate.
Click to expand...

 
Transcrypt: "_I DO NOT LISTEN For I fear I might melt down hearing my foibles illustrated..."_


----------



## The T

Centrism'sVoice said:


> There is no conservative radio. It's nothing but spin for the GOP.


 
And IF you belive that? I will tell YOU that your Screen Name doesn't EXIST lest YOU be a wimp without principle(s). There ARE no Centrists. You are principled to ONE side or another. Fence Sitters are unprincipled WIMPS.


----------



## The T

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them


 
Same as Liberal Talk Radio that continues to get it's collective ASS waxed in the ratings? (And has to WHINE to Congress to get measures like "Fairness Doctrine" Considered...?

YOU are full of SHIT and can't stand getting yer ass handed to YOU.


----------



## IanC

I'm a Canadian and occasionally listen to both conservative and liberal american talk radio. although I am more likely to hold the liberal opinion I find that the conservatives ALWAYS do a better job of explaining their positions and giving reasons and evidence to support their opinion. the liberals either sit around making jokes about conservatives, or just say that everyone should agree with them despite the ambiguity of their positions, and the seeming lack of supporting evidence. the health care debate has been a real eye opener.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

IanC said:


> I'm a Canadian and occasionally listen to both conservative and liberal american talk radio. although I am more likely to hold the liberal opinion I find that the conservatives ALWAYS do a better job of explaining their positions and giving reasons and evidence to support their opinion. the liberals either sit around making jokes about conservatives, or just say that everyone should agree with them despite the ambiguity of their positions, and the seeming lack of supporting evidence. the health care debate has been a real eye opener.



I'm on the same page as you - I'm closer to the liberal view than the conservative one on most issues, but I listen to both liberal and conservative talk radio. Liberal talk radio can range from very good to fairly terrible - Ron Kuby is very smart and well-spoken, with an incredibly interesting story, but Al Franken was boring and pedantic. Conservative talk radio I listen to mostly for the entertainment value, although I will admit to actually learning things more often than I ever would have thought.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh after stepping in dog shit:
> 
> now folks i was walking down the street today, well actually folks i stepped out of my limo to walk into the studio when i realized some liberal must have planted dog poop in my path as my italian leather boots had crap all over them, now folks these liberals will go to any lengths to attack the conservative agenda and why hasnt obama done anything yet about the lack of pooper scoopers in this country? i tell you folks these liberals will stop at nothing to undermine this nation and bring socialism to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> nop, that must have been some lib moron on the radio trying to impersonate rush, and you fell for the ruse
> 
> *rush doesnt blame someone else for his goof ups, he owns up to them*
> where as a lib moron will blame someone else
Click to expand...

DumbCon has his head so far up Stuttering LimpBoy's ass, he can't even hear what his MessiahRushie says. In typical CON$ervative fashion, DumbCom projects everything he hates about himself onto the Libs.

October 9, 2009
RUSH: ** I was misinformed by the audio crew* in New York that put that bite together, so I'm glad you called.


----------



## noose4

The T said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as Liberal Talk Radio that continues to get it's collective ASS waxed in the ratings? (And has to WHINE to Congress to get measures like "Fairness Doctrine" Considered...?
> 
> YOU are full of SHIT and can't stand getting yer ass handed to YOU.
Click to expand...


Liberals, unlike conservatives, do not need radio hosts to tell them what to think thus liberal radios worse ratings.


----------



## RadiomanATL

noose4 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as Liberal Talk Radio that continues to get it's collective ASS waxed in the ratings? (And has to WHINE to Congress to get measures like "Fairness Doctrine" Considered...?
> 
> YOU are full of SHIT and can't stand getting yer ass handed to YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals, unlike conservatives, do not need radio hosts to tell them what to think thus liberal radios worse ratings.
Click to expand...


Keep tellin' yerself that. Just not true, though it does provide a convenient excuse for their failing.

No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.


----------



## Foxfyre

RadiomanATL said:


> No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.



Liberal radio fails because it has nothing to say, no philosophy that can be rationally articulated.  All it can do is point to the 'sins' of conservatives or conservative figures or Republicans or Republican presidents or whatever and complain about how greedy or irresponsible or bloodthirsty or whatever they are (in the mind of the liberals).  It says that freedom and less government intervention or whatever never works, but it cannot that with any kind of authority or defend its point of view.  It applauds liberalism for 'caring' or being willing to address the problems of humanity, but it cannot speak to the failures of liberalism, socialism, progressive-ism, or whatever on any given day, nor can it or will it address the true human tragedies produced by implemented liberal philosophy.

When all you here is empty theory and accusations directed at others, it wears thin really quickly.  Liberal radio offers nothing else.

Conservative radio directs criticism yes and has its share of rants and screeds, but it also can articulate and defend principles, ideas, and concepts and spends most of its time doing that.  It therefore is usually more interesting and holds an audience.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Foxfyre said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal radio fails because it has nothing to say, no philosophy that can be rationally articulated.  All it can do is point to the 'sins' of conservatives or conservative figures or Republicans or Republican presidents or whatever and complain about how greedy or irresponsible or bloodthirsty or whatever they are (in the mind of the liberals).  It says that freedom and less government intervention or whatever never works, but it cannot that with any kind of authority or defend its point of view.  It applauds liberalism for 'caring' or being willing to address the problems of humanity, but it cannot speak to the failures of liberalism, socialism, progressive-ism, or whatever on any given day, nor can it or will it address the true human tragedies produced by implemented liberal philosophy.
> 
> When all you here is empty theory and accusations directed at others, it wears thin really quickly.  Liberal radio offers nothing else.
> 
> Conservative radio directs criticism yes and has its share of rants and screeds, but it also can articulate and defend principles, ideas, and concepts and spends most of its time doing that.  It therefore is usually more interesting and holds an audience.
Click to expand...


That ain't it either.

Liberal radio _*can*_ be just as successful as conservative radio. 

It's just gonna take 20 years.


----------



## Truthmatters

And corporations wanting the liberal ideas in the market place.

Oh wait maybe it will never be as well supported add wise as conservative radio.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Truthmatters said:


> And corporations wanting the liberal ideas in the market place.
> 
> Oh wait maybe it will never be as well supported add wise as conservative radio.



Sure it would.

All that matters is audience size and time spent listening. Thats what the ad buyers care about. Not the ideology of the station.


----------



## Oddball

RadiomanATL said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same as Liberal Talk Radio that continues to get it's collective ASS waxed in the ratings? (And has to WHINE to Congress to get measures like "Fairness Doctrine" Considered...?
> 
> YOU are full of SHIT and can't stand getting yer ass handed to YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, unlike conservatives, do not need radio hosts to tell them what to think thus liberal radios worse ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep tellin' yerself that. Just not true, though it does provide a convenient excuse for their failing.
> 
> No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.
Click to expand...

That and they were unwilling or unable to cultivate a decent stable of hosts (I imagine that's part of the time factor) and just threw whatever jabbering whackos they could lay their hands upon in front of the mics....This easily explains the tragically inarticulate and unfunny Al Franken, propped up as Airhead America's supposed #1 host for as long as he was.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Dude said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, unlike conservatives, do not need radio hosts to tell them what to think thus liberal radios worse ratings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep tellin' yerself that. Just not true, though it does provide a convenient excuse for their failing.
> 
> No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That and they were unwilling or unable to cultivate a decent stable of hosts (I imagine that's part of the time factor) and just threw whatever jabbering whackos they could lay their hands upon in front of the mics....
Click to expand...


Bingo.

The best person they had was Randi Rhodes...someone who actually *was* successful in the radio medium before the AA debacle. Shame they didn't promote her more as a centerpiece of the project. Also a shame they didn't take a formula like hers and use it across many of the hosts. It mighta had a shot then.

Franken and company tried to be too intellectual and information based. There's NPR for that. Go with Rhodes style, get emotions fired up, get knee deep in the controversy. Cause a little on yer own...THATS how they could have been successful if they didn't want to do it the right way (ie: build support slowly and through grassroots, hire successful radio talk-show hosts already in smaller markets and give them support and groom them, etc. etc. etc.)


----------



## Oddball

Franken wasn't even intellectual. Real intellectuals can speak extemporaneously without all the "uuuhhhh"s and "annnnd"s that overran his incoherent blabbering. I tried on several occasions to get through just 1/2 hour of his inane prattling and couldn't pull it off.

Although Rhodes is a decent host from a technical standpoint, she could give Limpbagh clinics in pure nastiness.

The only one of them I could stomach for any amount of time at all was Ed Schultz, and AA did their deal level best to alienate him and stab him in the back when he got syndicated.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Dude said:


> Franken wasn't even intellectual. Real intellectuals can speak extemporaneously without all the "uuuhhhh"s and "annnnd"s that overran his incoherent blabbering. I tried on several occasions to get through just 1/2 hour of his inane prattling and couldn't pull it off.
> 
> Although Rhodes is a decent host from a technical standpoint, she could give Limpbagh clinics in pure nastiness.
> 
> The only one of them I could stomach for any amount of time at all was Ed Schultz, and AA did their deal level best to alienate him and stab him in the back when he got syndicated.



Yeah, Franken's "uhhh's" and stuff killed the momentum of his program too. He's just not a radio host, and it was stupid to put him in as one.

Rhodes was a Savage/Limbaugh doppelganger. She did pretty good at it.

Their best bet would have been to cultivate talent in many cities, then slowly expand and offer them syndication deals in liberal friendly cities, say Seattle, San Fran, LA...but not all at once. Much like Premiere Radio, or any successful syndication network has done.

Instead they thought they could just buy their way through any issues and shake 'n baked the whole thing. Predictably falling on their faces.


----------



## Qball

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



No, that would be the reason people watch MSNBC. And Bill Maher. And The Daily Show. And the Colbert Report. And read Huffington Post. And DailyKos. And the New York Times.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Qball said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be the reason people watch MSNBC. And Bill Maher. And The Daily Show. And the Colbert Report. And read Huffington Post. And DailyKos. And the New York Times.
Click to expand...


You know The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are comedy shows, right?


----------



## Sarah G

Franken is intellectual and he's street savvy.  He may not be a good radio personality but he is learning how to work for his state in the senate.  He knows his issues and isn't afraid to speak up.  

He handled that farce of his state election perfectly.


----------



## Big Fitz

Sarah G said:


> Franken is intellectual and he's street savvy.  He may not be a good radio personality but he is learning how to work for his state in the senate.  He knows his issues and isn't afraid to speak up.
> 
> He handled that farce of his state election perfectly.


He's an intellectual?  Then I'm freaking Dr. Manhattan.


----------



## Foxfyre

RadiomanATL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "liberal" radio's failing is that they were unwilling to invest time (years) into the project, and thought they could overcome the time factor by just throwing money at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal radio fails because it has nothing to say, no philosophy that can be rationally articulated.  All it can do is point to the 'sins' of conservatives or conservative figures or Republicans or Republican presidents or whatever and complain about how greedy or irresponsible or bloodthirsty or whatever they are (in the mind of the liberals).  It says that freedom and less government intervention or whatever never works, but it cannot that with any kind of authority or defend its point of view.  It applauds liberalism for 'caring' or being willing to address the problems of humanity, but it cannot speak to the failures of liberalism, socialism, progressive-ism, or whatever on any given day, nor can it or will it address the true human tragedies produced by implemented liberal philosophy.
> 
> When all you here is empty theory and accusations directed at others, it wears thin really quickly.  Liberal radio offers nothing else.
> 
> Conservative radio directs criticism yes and has its share of rants and screeds, but it also can articulate and defend principles, ideas, and concepts and spends most of its time doing that.  It therefore is usually more interesting and holds an audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't it either.
> 
> Liberal radio _*can*_ be just as successful as conservative radio.
> 
> It's just gonna take 20 years.
Click to expand...


Baloney.  From  the early 1980's through the early 90's, during the implementation of the last 'fairness doctrine', tbere was a lot of liberal programming to balance conservative programming.  Alan Combs (of Hannity & Combs fame) had maybe the most successful of all daytime programming in terms of stations, but even though more talented than most, Combs also had nothing of substance with which to defend liberalism, and as station after station had trouble getting advertisers for his afternoon show and looked for ways to drop him, he had to give it up.  Even Larry King--regular night program--couldn't sustain an audience after the conservative programs began to gather steam and were attracting the huge lions share of listeners.  Once most people were hearing their point of view broadcast on conservative talk radio, they abandoned all liberal programming in droves.

So liberal talk radio has been around just as long.  But it has never been able to gain the traction of conservative talk radio because it has so little to offer of substance that resonates with the people.  And even the most bleeding heart liberal gets tired of hearing nothing but rants against conservatives after awhile.

Conservatives don't listen to conservative talk radio to be told what to think.  They listen to conservative talk radio because it speaks what they already think and provides a framework to further explore and consider conservative values and principles.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Foxfyre said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal radio fails because it has nothing to say, no philosophy that can be rationally articulated.  All it can do is point to the 'sins' of conservatives or conservative figures or Republicans or Republican presidents or whatever and complain about how greedy or irresponsible or bloodthirsty or whatever they are (in the mind of the liberals).  It says that freedom and less government intervention or whatever never works, but it cannot that with any kind of authority or defend its point of view.  It applauds liberalism for 'caring' or being willing to address the problems of humanity, but it cannot speak to the failures of liberalism, socialism, progressive-ism, or whatever on any given day, nor can it or will it address the true human tragedies produced by implemented liberal philosophy.
> 
> When all you here is empty theory and accusations directed at others, it wears thin really quickly.  Liberal radio offers nothing else.
> 
> Conservative radio directs criticism yes and has its share of rants and screeds, but it also can articulate and defend principles, ideas, and concepts and spends most of its time doing that.  It therefore is usually more interesting and holds an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't it either.
> 
> Liberal radio _*can*_ be just as successful as conservative radio.
> 
> It's just gonna take 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.  From  the early 1980's through the early 90's, during the implementation of the last 'fairness doctrine', tbere was a lot of liberal programming to balance conservative programming.  Alan Combs (of Hannity & Combs fame) had maybe the most successful of all daytime programming in terms of stations, but even though more talented than most, Combs also had nothing of substance with which to defend liberalism, and as station after station had trouble getting advertisers for his afternoon show and looked for ways to drop him.  Even Larry King--regular night program--couldn't sustain an audience after the conservative programs began to gather steam and were attracting the huge lions share of listeners.  Once most people were hearing their point of view broadcast on conservative talk radio, they abandoned all liberal programming in droves.
> 
> So liberal talk radio has been around just as long.  But it has never been able to gain the traction of conservative talk radio because it has so little to offer of substance that resonates with the people.  And even the most bleeding heart liberal gets tired of hearing nothing but rants against conservatives after awhile.
> 
> Conservatives don't listen to conservative talk radio to be told what to think.  They listen to conservative talk radio because it speaks what they already think and provides a framework to further explore and consider conservative values and principles.
Click to expand...


Dude, 

Holding up Alan Combes as an example of good liberal radio doesn't help yer point any.

And liberal radio could work. Hell, just look around here. You don't think that there would be an audience for it? Even if only 10% of any given market tuned into such a station for any given time, the station would dominate the ratings. 

No, the problem is not one of "nothing to say", it's a problem with marketing savvy.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Holding up Alan Combes as an example of good liberal radio doesn't help yer point any.



I have listened to Combes show.  He's a nice enough guy, but he entertains suck fucking STUPID ideas... and had stolen almost ad hoc Hannity's format (what a surprise) I had to stop listening.  I was screaming at the radio in the car too much over berzerk morons he treated as sane, normal people.  It was rubbing off on me, making me berzerk.

He's nothing more than the radio version of the same shit on MSLSD.  So why would I even listen?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Big Fitz said:


> Holding up Alan Combes as an example of good liberal radio doesn't help yer point any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to Combes show.  He's a nice enough guy, but he entertains suck fucking STUPID ideas
Click to expand...


It's not his ideas. It's that he can't entertain...period.


----------



## Foxfyre

RadiomanATL said:


> Dude,
> 
> Holding up Alan Combes as an example of good liberal radio doesn't help yer point any.
> 
> And liberal radio could work. Hell, just look around here. You don't think that there would be an audience for it? Even if only 10% of any given market tuned into such a station for any given time, the station would dominate the ratings.
> 
> No, the problem is not one of "nothing to say", it's a problem with marketing savvy.



I don't know what Colmes (misspelled him before) is sounding like these days--he's a regular commentator on Fox News still and still mostly programmed talking points with little or nothing else to offer.  But I used to drive a lot in my work and regularly listened to him on the road during the 80's.  I know he had the best ratings and he seriously is the most talented of all on the liberal side.  In sheer ability to communicate he does every bit as well as Inghram, Limbaugh, Hannity, or any of the other successful conservative hosts.  But he could not sustain an audience.   Most of his callers were rude conservatives calling to bash him or reasonable conservatives calling to correct him.  The few diehard liberals who called in did so with such regularity that I got to know their voices.

As for marketing, I know something of the business, and I can assure you all these liberal guys and gals are marketed with the same proficiency as the conservative hosts are marketed.  They have been featured on the same stations that boost the ratings of the conservative hosts.  Advertising is probably sold more aggressively for them than for any of the others where advertisers beg to have ads run so they'll get maximum exposure.

Liberalism simply has too little to offer to be marketed to attract profitable listeners.


----------



## Big Fitz

RadiomanATL said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holding up Alan Combes as an example of good liberal radio doesn't help yer point any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to Combes show.  He's a nice enough guy, but he entertains suck fucking STUPID ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not his ideas. It's that he can't entertain...period.
Click to expand...

Well, not very well.  He'd be a better local host.  But doesn't have the chops to hold on to a nationally syndicated show.

he's quickly discovering how much he was riding Sean's coattails.


----------



## Zona

ozzmdj said:


> Ditto.......



Because you need a link to some good Oxi?


----------



## Zona

Sinatra said:


> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...



uhm...were they at least happy last november? and will be happy until 2016....?


----------



## Zona

Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.

Sheeple.

In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.


Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.


----------



## Big Fitz

Zona said:


> Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.
> 
> Sheeple.
> 
> In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.
> 
> 
> Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.


And readership and viewership of all the leftist state controlled media from the NY Times to MSMBS are losing viewers at even a faster rate than the growth of Fox News.

Thank God for that.  People are waking up.


----------



## Qball

theDoctorisIn said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be the reason people watch MSNBC. And Bill Maher. And The Daily Show. And the Colbert Report. And read Huffington Post. And DailyKos. And the New York Times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are comedy shows, right?
Click to expand...


I know that's the excuse they give whenever someone tries to take them to task about their political views.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Qball said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be the reason people watch MSNBC. And Bill Maher. And The Daily Show. And the Colbert Report. And read Huffington Post. And DailyKos. And the New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are comedy shows, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that's the excuse they give whenever someone tries to take them to task about their political views.
Click to expand...

You know the shows are on Comedy Central, right?


----------



## rdean

I like to listen to conservative radio to find out the plans of the enemies of America.

Then of course, there is the entertainment value of "Who could possibly be stupid enough to believe this crap?"  Then I say, "Oh, that's right.  I already know."


----------



## kyzr

Like those veterans that Napolitano expressed concern for while allowing real terrorists to have visas and fly all over?   The voters will let the dems know who they consider enemies of the US.


----------



## HUGGY

kyzr said:


> Like those veterans that Napolitano expressed concern for while allowing real terrorists to have visas and fly all over?   The voters will let the dems know who they consider enemies of the US.



Ya an don't forget how Napoleonto got warned before 9/11 and told the stupid CIA guys that they had covered thier asses.


----------



## Foxfyre

It seems to be a favorite ploy of those on the left to think that the only reason conservative talk radio is successful is because conservatives want to be told what to think.  Well, conservatives know better than that.  But the liberals seem to think they are in the majority so how come they aren't listening to all those liberal commentators that (cough) aren't telling them what to think and making them more successful than the conservative programs?

Hmmm?


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> It seems to be a favorite ploy of those on the left to think that the only reason conservative talk radio is successful is because conservatives want to be told what to think.  Well, conservatives know better than that.  But the liberals seem to think they are in the majority so how come they aren't listening to all those liberal commentators that (cough) aren't telling them what to think and making them more successful than the conservative programs?
> 
> Hmmm?



I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.

The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).

That's the reality.

The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.

Is that just too difficult to understand?  mmmmm?


----------



## HUGGY

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be a favorite ploy of those on the left to think that the only reason conservative talk radio is successful is because conservatives want to be told what to think.  Well, conservatives know better than that.  But the liberals seem to think they are in the majority so how come they aren't listening to all those liberal commentators that (cough) aren't telling them what to think and making them more successful than the conservative programs?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.
> 
> The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).
> 
> That's the reality.
> 
> The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.
> 
> Is that just too *difficult to understand*?  mmmmm?
Click to expand...


Assumes one is honestly trying to understand....as in making a failing attempt in good faith.  Fundi neo cons make no such effort.  They are used to resorting to juvenile fantasy to surplant what they cannot easily digest.  The bar is set very low.


----------



## blu

talk radio has the most simple minded and ridiculous crap. I tried quite a few times, but hannity/limbaugh etc are complete jokes. there are many other sources of real conservative information and thought that many voters would actually benefit from.


----------



## Foxfyre

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be a favorite ploy of those on the left to think that the only reason conservative talk radio is successful is because conservatives want to be told what to think.  Well, conservatives know better than that.  But the liberals seem to think they are in the majority so how come they aren't listening to all those liberal commentators that (cough) aren't telling them what to think and making them more successful than the conservative programs?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.
> 
> The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).
> 
> That's the reality.
> 
> The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.
> 
> Is that just too difficult to understand?  mmmmm?
Click to expand...


Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script.  Do you do that often?   People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages.  Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.

Based on recent Pew Research:



> A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press casts more doubt on the wisdom of the Democrats' coordinated strategy to tie elected Republicans to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to American political knowledge, Limbaugh's audience is better informed than those of most mainstream media news outlets.
> Limbaugh's Audience Better Informed Than Those Of Most Media Outlets -- Politics Daily




And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website.  While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program.  (Hint for those too lazy to check the link:  the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.

rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile

I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names.  I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.

He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.


----------



## Qball

Zona said:


> Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.
> 
> Sheeple.
> 
> In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.
> 
> 
> Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.



Considering the fact that conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing viewpoints, I'd say you're mistaken. I think FOX maintains such a big audience because a lot of people see them as a respite from all the Republican-bashing, conservative-hating commentary from other sources. Not only that, but there have been several instances where FOX was more on point with emerging stories than, say, MSNBC (Van Jones, ACORN, the Iranian protests, etc.). FOX isn't all talking points all the time, and even if it were, there's a better than average chance most conservatives are aware of the liberal view than vice versa.


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be a favorite ploy of those on the left to think that the only reason conservative talk radio is successful is because conservatives want to be told what to think.  Well, conservatives know better than that.  But the liberals seem to think they are in the majority so how come they aren't listening to all those liberal commentators that (cough) aren't telling them what to think and making them more successful than the conservative programs?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.
> 
> The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).
> 
> That's the reality.
> 
> The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.
> 
> Is that just too difficult to understand?  mmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script.  Do you do that often?   People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages.  Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.
> 
> Based on recent Pew Research:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press casts more doubt on the wisdom of the Democrats' coordinated strategy to tie elected Republicans to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to American political knowledge, Limbaugh's audience is better informed than those of most mainstream media news outlets.
> Limbaugh's Audience Better Informed Than Those Of Most Media Outlets -- Politics Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website.  While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program.  (Hint for those too lazy to check the link:  the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.
> 
> rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
> 
> I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names.  I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.
> 
> He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.
Click to expand...


Oh my goodness.  You believe in Pew Pols?  Good.  'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.  Isn't that a hoot????






Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans.  No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".


----------



## Foxfyre

Qball said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.
> 
> Sheeple.
> 
> In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.
> 
> 
> Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the fact that conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing viewpoints, I'd say you're mistaken. . . .
Click to expand...


I think you're right.  Conservatives are not only able to articulate their own point of view far better than most liberals can articulate their own point of view, conservatives are far more likely to accurately articulate the liberals' point of view while most liberals cannot articulate the conservative point of view any better than they can articulate their own.

This is another reason conservative talk radio is so popular.  Not only do the hosts do a good job of stating and defending conservative values and principles, they do a good job of stating where the liberals are coming from and why they are liberal.

I have yet to hear a liberal radio talk show host represent both points of view accurately.  There have been a few liberal commentators who could:  William Raspberry, RIP, was a master at it and I miss him terribly.  Michael Kinsley does a good job.  Even Maureen Dowd, when she is in a more reflective mood, is able to nail the concepts pretty good.  I really appreciate Camille Paglia's point of view much of the time.  There are a few others, but they are very rare.


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.
> 
> Sheeple.
> 
> In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.
> 
> 
> Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the fact that conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing viewpoints, I'd say you're mistaken. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're right.  Conservatives are not only able to articulate their own point of view far better than most liberals can articulate their own point of view, conservatives are far more likely to accurately articulate the liberals' point of view while most liberals cannot articulate the conservative point of view any better than they can articulate their own.
> 
> This is another reason conservative talk radio is so popular.  Not only do the hosts do a good job of stating and defending conservative values and principles, they do a good job of stating where the liberals are coming from and why they are liberal.
> 
> I have yet to hear a conservative radio talk show host represent both points of view accurately.  There have been a few liberal commentators who could:  William Raspberry, RIP, was a master at it.  Michael Kinsley does a good job.  Even Maureen Dowd, when she is in a more reflective mood, is able to nail the concepts pretty good.
Click to expand...


There is nothing easier than telling lies.  Facts have a "liberal bias", which is why so many scientists are Democrats and so few are Republican.


----------



## rdean

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.
> 
> The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).
> 
> That's the reality.
> 
> The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.
> 
> Is that just too difficult to understand?  mmmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script.  Do you do that often?   People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages.  Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.
> 
> Based on recent Pew Research:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press casts more doubt on the wisdom of the Democrats' coordinated strategy to tie elected Republicans to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to American political knowledge, Limbaugh's audience is better informed than those of most mainstream media news outlets.
> Limbaugh's Audience Better Informed Than Those Of Most Media Outlets -- Politics Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website.  While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program.  (Hint for those too lazy to check the link:  the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.
> 
> rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
> 
> I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names.  I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.
> 
> He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness.  You believe in Pew Pols?  Good.  'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.  Isn't that a hoot????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans.  No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".
Click to expand...


Come on Republicans.  Look how few Republicans are scientists.  If you guys had a little more sense, you would be ashamed.  Shame on you for not being embarrassed.

So what about those "degrees".  You know the numbers are inflated because of all the degrees passed out by those crappy Christian Tier Four colleges.  Come on.  A "degree" in Bible study?  WTF????  A degree in "memorizing"????  How is that "higher" education?


----------



## Foxfyre

Tsk tsk.  Some liberals apparently also can't tell the difference between a poll related to global warming or scientists' political affiliation and a poll related to who listens to conservative talk radio.  I guess Pew was right that those who listen to conservative talk radio are better informed than those who don't.

(By the way guys, lets check those scientific demographics when it is the GOP holding the purse strings for federal grants.  I think you'll see a remarkable shift.)


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> Tsk tsk.  Some liberals apparently also can't tell the difference between a poll related to global warming or scientists' political affiliation and a poll related to who listens to conservative talk radio.  I guess Pew was right that those who listen to conservative talk radio are better informed than those who don't.
> 
> (By the way guys, lets check those scientific demographics when it is the GOP holding the purse strings for federal grants.  I think you'll see a remarkable shift.)



Physics,
Chemistry,
Industry,
Biology,

You think that's "Global Warming"?  Shame on you for making such a dumb statement.  

Scientists have complained about the Republican Administration for it's entire 8 years.  Republicans pressured scientists to change data about anything opposing Republican policy, not just climate change.  This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine since 2000.

You think that scientists need government handouts?  They aren't dumbass Republicans with no education or a degree in Bible study.  These guys can go work anywhere, overseas, anywhere.  

Really, you guys should be ashamed of your dumb statements.  Seriously.  What is wrong with Republicans?  

Bush Appointees Land Career Science Jobs With Seemingly Unrelated Backgrounds - washingtonpost.com

"It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments." 

EPA Scientists Decry Political Pressure - CBS News

The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said that 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than the previous five years.

Science Braces for Second Term

The scientific community has made a strong case. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members. 

"This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."


----------



## Oscar Wao

rdean said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script. Do you do that often? People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages. Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.
> 
> Based on recent Pew Research:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website. While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program. (Hint for those too lazy to check the link: the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.
> 
> rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
> 
> I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names. I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.
> 
> He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness. You believe in Pew Pols? Good. 'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican. Isn't that a hoot????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans. No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Republicans. Look how few Republicans are scientists. If you guys had a little more sense, you would be ashamed. Shame on you for not being embarrassed.
> 
> So what about those "degrees". You know the numbers are inflated because of all the degrees passed out by those crappy Christian Tier Four colleges. Come on. A "degree" in Bible study? WTF???? A degree in "memorizing"???? How is that "higher" education?
Click to expand...

 No wonder leftists are painted by the Talk Radio folk as elitists.

I despise the shit out of Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc., but maybe they have a point about leftist elitism in education...

I mean, the post of yours I'm quoting is a posterchild of it.


----------



## Qball

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to explain it one more time, even though I suspect "it won't take" this time either.
> 
> The majority audience of conservative radio are Republicans.  A political party of mostly one race, one religion, and a single level of education (not much).
> 
> That's the reality.
> 
> The Democratic party is made up of a wide coalition of groups from different races, different religions, gays, immigrants, highly educated and barely educated.  It's no surprise that they would have much broader and different interests when it comes to listening to the radio.
> 
> Is that just too difficult to understand?  mmmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script.  Do you do that often?   People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages.  Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.
> 
> Based on recent Pew Research:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press casts more doubt on the wisdom of the Democrats' coordinated strategy to tie elected Republicans to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to American political knowledge, Limbaugh's audience is better informed than those of most mainstream media news outlets.
> Limbaugh's Audience Better Informed Than Those Of Most Media Outlets -- Politics Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website.  While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program.  (Hint for those too lazy to check the link:  the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.
> 
> rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
> 
> I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names.  I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.
> 
> He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness.  You believe in Pew Pols?  Good.  'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.  Isn't that a hoot????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans.  No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".
Click to expand...


Wow, this is retarded. Someone being a scientist has little to do with how they think the government should work, and "scientist" itself is a broad term. Furthermore, if we're discussing researchers, there's a more practical reason why they would be Democrats: they know where their bread is buttered. People who essentially work on government grants in non-profits (i.e. universities)  love the Democrats because they go to Congress and give them money. Republicans being fiscal conservatives are a bit tighter with their allocation of research funding, which of course makes them less popular.


----------



## rdean

Oscar Wao said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness. You believe in Pew Pols? Good. 'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican. Isn't that a hoot????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans. No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republicans. Look how few Republicans are scientists. If you guys had a little more sense, you would be ashamed. Shame on you for not being embarrassed.
> 
> So what about those "degrees". You know the numbers are inflated because of all the degrees passed out by those crappy Christian Tier Four colleges. Come on. A "degree" in Bible study? WTF???? A degree in "memorizing"???? How is that "higher" education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder leftists are painted by the Talk Radio folk as elitists.
> 
> I despise the shit out of Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc., but maybe they have a point about leftist elitism in education...
> 
> I mean, the post of yours I'm quoting is a posterchild of it.
Click to expand...


Elitism in education?  WTF????

Where does "elitism" come into play in chemistry, biology, physiology, being a doctor, being an engineer?  

How does a "degree in Bible Study" help the country?  Seriously, how does a degree in "Bible Study" help the country?  

Scientists have to learn "critical thinking".  They have to.  It's a requirement of being a scientist.  They have to collect and correlate data.  

Republicans call that "elitism".  Seriously, they should be terribly ashamed.  But they are not. 

Do you know that Republicans don't see a connection between science and everything else they touch, drive, eat, wear, are entertained by and live in?


----------



## Oscar Wao

rdean said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Republicans. Look how few Republicans are scientists. If you guys had a little more sense, you would be ashamed. Shame on you for not being embarrassed.
> 
> So what about those "degrees". You know the numbers are inflated because of all the degrees passed out by those crappy Christian Tier Four colleges. Come on. A "degree" in Bible study? WTF???? A degree in "memorizing"???? How is that "higher" education?
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder leftists are painted by the Talk Radio folk as elitists.
> 
> I despise the shit out of Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc., but maybe they have a point about leftist elitism in education...
> 
> I mean, the post of yours I'm quoting is a posterchild of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elitism in education? WTF????
> 
> Where does "elitism" come into play in chemistry, biology, physiology, being a doctor, being an engineer?
> 
> How does a "degree in Bible Study" help the country? Seriously, how does a degree in "Bible Study" help the country?
> 
> Scientists have to learn "critical thinking". They have to. It's a requirement of being a scientist. They have to collect and correlate data.
> 
> Republicans call that "elitism". Seriously, they should be terribly ashamed. But they are not.
> 
> Do you know that Republicans don't see a connection between science and everything else they touch, drive, eat, wear, are entertained by and live in?
Click to expand...

Your "elitist" post was denigrating Christian schools.

I'm no Talk Radio Republican...I recognize that science is present in just about everything, if not everything, I do.

I just don't like it when people feel the need to have a "My Daddy can Beat Up Your Daddy" attitude.


----------



## rdean

Qball said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I understand that you're likely talking out of your hat or possibly from some talking points script.  Do you do that often?   People with college and graduate degrees is a large demographic of conservative talk radio and certainly on a par with national averages.  Also it is the successful, prosperous, and competent from all sociopolitical groups that make make up the lions share of news/talk radio audiences, most especially conservative talk radio audiences.
> 
> Based on recent Pew Research:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the demographics for the Rush Limbaugh website.  While other conservative talk radio cannot rival his audience base, the demographics of those who listen in on those programs are very similar and it is instructive who goes to the website to follow up the radio program.  (Hint for those too lazy to check the link:  the large majority have bachelors or graduate degrees.
> 
> rushlimbaugh.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
> 
> I know some of my conservative friends try to sound cool by bashing Limbaugh and calling him names.  I suspect, however, that those who are better informed are actually listening in now and then to either him or other similar conservative programming.
> 
> He doesnt always get it right, but I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program or others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my goodness.  You believe in Pew Pols?  Good.  'cuz there is one that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.  Isn't that a hoot????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Look at the pathetic contribution to science in this country from Republicans.  No wonder they want to replace science with "mysticism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, this is retarded. Someone being a scientist has little to do with how they think the government should work, and "scientist" itself is a broad term. Furthermore, if we're discussing researchers, there's a more practical reason why they would be Democrats: they know where their bread is buttered. People who essentially work on government grants in non-profits (i.e. universities)  love the Democrats because they go to Congress and give them money. *Republicans being fiscal conservatives are a bit tighter with their allocation of research funding,* which of course makes them less popular.
Click to expand...


WTF are Republicans going to "research"?  If the Grand Canyon was created by the "Great Flood"?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> He doesnt always get it right, but *I defy anybody with half a brain or anywhere near normal intelligence to fail to learn at least some useful information when some time is spent listening to his program* or others like him.


Stuttering LimpBoy lies to the level of ignorance of his audience. Unfortunately, his audience is so stupid they don't know how preposterous his claims are so they swallow them whole because he tells them he is "brilliant."

Here is a typical example of his "BRILLIANCE." 

Global Warming Update
April 3, 2007
RUSH:  *Mark my brilliant words on this.*  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  *The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. *

In case you didn't know, not one molecule of CO2 in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE came from H2O.


----------



## rdean

Oscar Wao said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder leftists are painted by the Talk Radio folk as elitists.
> 
> I despise the shit out of Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc., but maybe they have a point about leftist elitism in education...
> 
> I mean, the post of yours I'm quoting is a posterchild of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elitism in education? WTF????
> 
> Where does "elitism" come into play in chemistry, biology, physiology, being a doctor, being an engineer?
> 
> How does a "degree in Bible Study" help the country? Seriously, how does a degree in "Bible Study" help the country?
> 
> Scientists have to learn "critical thinking". They have to. It's a requirement of being a scientist. They have to collect and correlate data.
> 
> Republicans call that "elitism". Seriously, they should be terribly ashamed. But they are not.
> 
> Do you know that Republicans don't see a connection between science and everything else they touch, drive, eat, wear, are entertained by and live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "elitist" post was denigrating Christian schools.
> 
> I'm no Talk Radio Republican...I recognize that science is present in just about everything, if not everything, I do.
> 
> I just don't like it when people feel the need to have a "My Daddy can Beat Up Your Daddy" attitude.
Click to expand...


Except for Catholic colleges, Christian colleges generally don't teach science because you can't really teach without touching on evolution.  They only teach a very basic course in evolution because they otherwise can't get accredited.  And the science they do teach if very broad and juvenile.  Such things as, "bees pollinate the flowers", a very generalized science.  You can't depend on doctors, take your kids to doctors and then not be able to find a single licensed medical doctor in this country who doesn't believe in the science of evolution.  And you accuse scientists of being "elitist"?  What do you call the "determined ignorant"?

Bush hiring Christian college graduates for the Justice Department shown a light on the type of graduates they churn out.  The following article is actually not very biased even thought the John Stewert line is a hoot.

What is the real face of Regent's law school? | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com 

Comedian Jon Stewart joked that the school was no more rigorous than a "Jiffy Law" drive-through.

News: Believing in God and Evolution - Inside Higher Ed

If Christian colleges don't permit the teaching of evolution, "they could be left behind," said Richard Colling.

He knows how sensitive these issues are. Colling this year left Olivet Nazarene University, where he taught for 30 years, after a dispute in which he was barred from teaching general biology or having Random Designer, his book, taught at the university that is his alma mater. When the book appeared in 2004, some anti-evolution churches campaigned to have him fired, and while the university initially defended him, it subsequently put limits on what he could teach and barred his book from being taught. Those limits were lifted after an investigation by the American Association of University Professors found that his rights were violated. But Colling continued to be subjected to intense criticism from some Nazarene church members, and he resigned in an agreement with the university.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Conservatives are not only able to articulate their own point of view far better than most liberals can articulate their own point of view, conservatives are far more likely to accurately articulate the liberals' point of view while most liberals cannot articulate the conservative point of view any better than they can articulate their own.


No CON$ervative will ever ACCURATELY "articulate" the point of view of any one they disagree with. They only debate Straw Men.

And no CON$ervative has a point of view of their own, they merely parrot the daily talking points programmed into them by GOP Hate-Run Media. All you have to do is compare the posts on this board each day to the topics on Stuttering LimpBoy's or freerepublic's or Drudge's site the same day.

A perfect example is when GOP hate media said no president had ever bowed before in the history of this country, which of course is not true, the CON$ were parroting it for weeks even after pictures of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush were posted showing them bowing. Rather than admit that they were snookered again by GOP hate media, they simply said the other presidents didn't bow as deeply when they bowed.


----------



## rdean

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not only able to articulate their own point of view far better than most liberals can articulate their own point of view, conservatives are far more likely to accurately articulate the liberals' point of view while most liberals cannot articulate the conservative point of view any better than they can articulate their own.
> 
> 
> 
> No CON$ervative will ever ACCURATELY "articulate" the point of view of any one they disagree with. They only debate Straw Men.
> 
> And no CON$ervative has a point of view of their own, they merely parrot the daily talking points programmed into them by GOP Hate-Run Media. All you have to do is compare the posts on this board each day to the topics on Stuttering LimpBoy's or freerepublic or Drudge the same day.
> 
> A perfect example is when GOP hate media said no president had ever bowed before in the history of this country, which of course is not true, the CON$ were parroting it for weeks even after pictures of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush were posted showing them bowing. Rather than admit that they were snookered again by GOP hate media, they simply said the other presidents didn't bow as deeply when they bowed.
Click to expand...


Bush was the only one I ever saw "swapping spit" and "holding hands".  To me, that's way worse than a bow.  I don't like bows either.


----------



## concept

Well if the LSM would do it's damn job I might actually pay attention to them  more often.

But since they are happy to be a mouthpiece for Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the dopey left, I have no time for them.


----------



## Big Fitz

The federal government should be barred from funding research in all areas that are not covered in their enumerated powers.  All the rest must be private or state based.


----------



## Foxfyre

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk.  Some liberals apparently also can't tell the difference between a poll related to global warming or scientists' political affiliation and a poll related to who listens to conservative talk radio.  I guess Pew was right that those who listen to conservative talk radio are better informed than those who don't.
> 
> (By the way guys, lets check those scientific demographics when it is the GOP holding the purse strings for federal grants.  I think you'll see a remarkable shift.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physics,
> Chemistry,
> Industry,
> Biology,
> 
> You think that's "Global Warming"?  Shame on you for making such a dumb statement.
> 
> Scientists have complained about the Republican Administration for it's entire 8 years.  Republicans pressured scientists to change data about anything opposing Republican policy, not just climate change.  This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine since 2000.
> 
> You think that scientists need government handouts?  They aren't dumbass Republicans with no education or a degree in Bible study.  These guys can go work anywhere, overseas, anywhere.
> 
> Really, you guys should be ashamed of your dumb statements.  Seriously.  What is wrong with Republicans?
> 
> Bush Appointees Land Career Science Jobs With Seemingly Unrelated Backgrounds - washingtonpost.com
> 
> "It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."
> 
> EPA Scientists Decry Political Pressure - CBS News
> 
> The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.
> 
> The report said that 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than the previous five years.
> 
> Science Braces for Second Term
> 
> The scientific community has made a strong case. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members.
> 
> "This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."
Click to expand...


I repeat the previous point made since it seems to have gone right over your head.


----------



## sitarro

DiveCon said:


> waiting for Jillian to come in and tell us how this was a "stolen election"  now.



She's too busy giving and accepting reps from Gump, that's all they've done for years.


----------



## rdean

Foxfyre said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk tsk.  Some liberals apparently also can't tell the difference between a poll related to global warming or scientists' political affiliation and a poll related to who listens to conservative talk radio.  I guess Pew was right that those who listen to conservative talk radio are better informed than those who don't.
> 
> (By the way guys, lets check those scientific demographics when it is the GOP holding the purse strings for federal grants.  I think you'll see a remarkable shift.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physics,
> Chemistry,
> Industry,
> Biology,
> 
> You think that's "Global Warming"?  Shame on you for making such a dumb statement.
> 
> Scientists have complained about the Republican Administration for it's entire 8 years.  Republicans pressured scientists to change data about anything opposing Republican policy, not just climate change.  This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine since 2000.
> 
> You think that scientists need government handouts?  They aren't dumbass Republicans with no education or a degree in Bible study.  These guys can go work anywhere, overseas, anywhere.
> 
> Really, you guys should be ashamed of your dumb statements.  Seriously.  What is wrong with Republicans?
> 
> Bush Appointees Land Career Science Jobs With Seemingly Unrelated Backgrounds - washingtonpost.com
> 
> "It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."
> 
> EPA Scientists Decry Political Pressure - CBS News
> 
> The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.
> 
> The report said that 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than the previous five years.
> 
> Science Braces for Second Term
> 
> The scientific community has made a strong case. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members.
> 
> "This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat the previous point made since it seems to have gone right over your head.
Click to expand...


And I was telling you that Conservative HELD the purse strings and look what they did.  First they plundered the purse.  Second, they attempted to "force" scientists to change their data to match Republican Bush Administration policy.

What that shows is a contempt for science.  Don't even deny it.

Just the fact that you think scientists are "tied to purse strings" PROVES that you share in that contempt.

It talks years to be a real scientist.  You don't just memorize "stuff" out of a book.  If a conservative is reading this, I have already lost them.  To them, a "college degree" is a "college degree" and if you get one of those in math or "sumpthin", you are a scientist.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Zona said:


> Here is the deal.  The reason why Fox's ratings are so high is because people on the right like to be told what to think.  They need some place to go to think for them.  It works out well for them and the ratings prove it.
> 
> Sheeple.
> 
> In the big picture, it doesnt matter.  Look at last november.  Fox's rating were still lhigh and yet, somehow the republicans lost.
> 
> 
> Over 97% of America do not watch fox, thank god.



Nope. Wrong on all counts, as per usual. But thanks for playing.


----------



## Zona

Toro said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not see the amusing irony in this?
Click to expand...


I did.  Funny stuff.


----------



## Wry Catcher

I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym.  It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not, it is what will be repeated by the rest of the right wing 'elitists' that day.  Later, on the TV news we may hear Boehner or McConnell, Cheney or Gingrich, present the same talking points as if they are their own.
It is ALL propaganda, and the message is always about fear.  Be scared America, be very scared for THEY are out to get you.


----------



## ozzmdj

Wry Catcher said:


> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym.  It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not, it is what will be repeated by the rest of the right wing 'elitists' that day.  Later, on the TV news we may hear Boehner or McConnell, Cheney or Gingrich, present the same talking points as if they are their own.
> It is ALL propaganda, and the message is always about fear.  Be scared America, be very scared for THEY are out to get you.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ozzmdj said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym.  It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not, it is what will be repeated by the rest of the right wing 'elitists' that day.  Later, on the TV news we may hear Boehner or McConnell, Cheney or Gingrich, present the same talking points as if they are their own.
> It is ALL propaganda, and the message is always about fear.  Be scared America, be very scared for THEY are out to get you.
Click to expand...


Very typical reaction from the fringe.  Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation.  Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym.  It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not, it is what will be repeated by the rest of the right wing 'elitists' that day.  Later, on the TV news we may hear Boehner or McConnell, Cheney or Gingrich, present the same talking points as if they are their own.
> It is ALL propaganda, and the message is always about fear.  Be scared America, be very scared for THEY are out to get you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe.  Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation.  Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
Click to expand...

except, there is no truth to what you said
you have shown you are the fringe on the other side


----------



## sitarro

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most striking recent example of voter suppression came in the 2000 presidential election, where a slim margin of 537 votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the votes in the electoral college that he needed to claim victory over Al Gore. (Nationwide, Gore won the popular vote by 543,614 votes.)
> 
> The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities.
> 
> Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this shit again?  what a whiny little bitch you are, Christina.
Click to expand...


You do realize that it was a Dim-o-crat that designed the ballot in Florida don't you. The fact that black people have a hard time following directions on how to vote says a lot more about black people than the election. I wonder why more than the ones voting this time were counted. Shit, dead people's votes were counted to get the dildo that's on Air Force One now and I haven't heard any of you leftist, socialist loving clowns complaining. Why nothing from the left on the crooks at Acorn and the manufacturing of votes they were responsible for. You fucks should just head for China, Cuba,Venezuela or Russia if that is the style of government you want, take your little black pets with you when you go.


----------



## sitarro

rdean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics,
> Chemistry,
> Industry,
> Biology,
> 
> You think that's "Global Warming"?  Shame on you for making such a dumb statement.
> 
> Scientists have complained about the Republican Administration for it's entire 8 years.  Republicans pressured scientists to change data about anything opposing Republican policy, not just climate change.  This has been reported in every science and engineering magazine since 2000.
> 
> You think that scientists need government handouts?  They aren't dumbass Republicans with no education or a degree in Bible study.  These guys can go work anywhere, overseas, anywhere.
> 
> Really, you guys should be ashamed of your dumb statements.  Seriously.  What is wrong with Republicans?
> 
> Bush Appointees Land Career Science Jobs With Seemingly Unrelated Backgrounds - washingtonpost.com
> 
> "It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."
> 
> EPA Scientists Decry Political Pressure - CBS News
> 
> The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.
> 
> The report said that 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than the previous five years.
> 
> Science Braces for Second Term
> 
> The scientific community has made a strong case. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members.
> 
> "This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat the previous point made since it seems to have gone right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was telling you that Conservative HELD the purse strings and look what they did.  First they plundered the purse.  Second, they attempted to "force" scientists to change their data to match Republican Bush Administration policy.
> 
> What that shows is a contempt for science.  Don't even deny it.
> 
> Just the fact that you think scientists are "tied to purse strings" PROVES that you share in that contempt.
> 
> It talks years to be a real scientist.  You don't just memorize "stuff" out of a book.  If a conservative is reading this, I have already lost them.  To them, a "college degree" is a "college degree" and if you get one of those in math or "sumpthin", you are a scientist.
Click to expand...


The "Union of Concerned Scientist", wow, that sounds like a group I want to take seriously. If you play one on TV, I bet you can join that group.


----------



## The T

Wry Catcher said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not, it is what will be repeated by the rest of the right wing 'elitists' that day. Later, on the TV news we may hear Boehner or McConnell, Cheney or Gingrich, present the same talking points as if they are their own.
> It is ALL propaganda, and the message is always about fear. Be scared America, be very scared for THEY are out to get you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
Click to expand...

 
Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT, and points that out? Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.


As to this horseshit: 





> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,


 
Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own, and form their _own opinion(s_)...

But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with. How typical and expected.


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe.  Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation.  Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except, there is no truth to what you said
> you have shown you are the fringe on the other side
Click to expand...


And you've proved you're a liar, not a good one, but a liar for sure.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The T said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT, and points that out? Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.
> 
> 
> As to this horseshit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own, and form their _own opinion(s_)...
> 
> But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with. How typical and expected.
Click to expand...


Why would I bother to investigate his site?  I hear what he say's and what he says is repeated over and over by you, and other right wing trolls on this message board, the Republican leadership, Palin, Gingrich, Sessions, Ensign, etc. etc.
Prior talking points of the day:
Obama took his wife on a date to NYC...Pelosi jets to California...Michael Fox shakes for sympathy...Obamacare will have death panels...it's Socialism!...Democrats tax and spend...Earmarks and Porkulus..."you lie"..._they're_ gonna take your guns!...Climate change is a lie...Islamo-Fascism...


----------



## Foxfyre

Anybody who claims to know what Rush had to say on any day by listening to five minutes of a three-hour program is either badly misinformed, delusional, or just not too bright.  Rush rarely, if  ever, puts anything succinctly.  He will go ten to twenty minutes explaining or elaborating on a single point, and then puts that point into a larger context in the next segment.  Trying to pull a few sentences out of that as illustration of either his full statement or intent is just as inaccurate as pulling a single quote out of a manuscript and holding it up as the thesis.  Especially when the meaning is quite different when the quotation is viewed within the whole context.

Those who hold up the most famous Rush-isms like 'femi-nazi' or 'ditto' as evidence of what he is about are just as misinformed, delusional, or not too bright - at least when they attach an absolutely ludicrous definition to the terms.  Rush once explained that you need to listen to about six weeks of his program to fully understand the context and what he and his program are all about.  I think he is probably pretty close to right on that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Anybody who claims to know what Rush had to say on any day by listening to five minutes of a three-hour program is either badly misinformed, delusional, or just not too bright.  Ru, sh rarely, if  ever, puts anything succinctly.  He will go ten to twenty minutes explaining or elaborating on a single point, and then puts that point into a larger context in the next segment.  Trying to pull a few sentences out of that as illustration of either his full statement or intent is just as inaccurate as pulling a single quote out of a manuscript and holding it up as the thesis.  Especially when the meaning is quite different when the quotation is viewed within the whole context.
> 
> Those who hold up the most famous Rush-isms like 'femi-nazi' or 'ditto' as evidence of what he is about are just as misinformed, delusional, or not too bright - at least when they attach an absolutely ludicrous definition to the terms.  Rush once explained that you need to listen to about six weeks of his program to fully understand the context and what he and his program are all about.  I think he is probably pretty close to right on that.



His program is propaganda.  Propaganda, rumor, innuendo, half-truths, character assassination and mean spirited humor.  Granted, he's very good at what he does, and what he does Plato exposed 23 centuries ago - sophistry.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Given the lack of response from 'T' and 'Foxfyre' one must assume they acknowledge an ass kicking and have cut and run - silly neocons, engaging in a battle of wits when they are only half-armed.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Given the lack of response from 'T' and 'Foxfyre' one must assume they acknowledge an ass kicking and have cut and run - silly neocons, engaging in a battle of wits when they are only half-armed.



Well I can't speak for T, but I see a number of other options that are more likely than your conclusion here.

1)  Some of us have actual real lives in the real world, and don't spend every minute here looking for something snarky to say.

2)  Some of us choose not to argue with idiots.

3)  Some of us choose not to feed the trolls.

4)  Some of us choose not to engage in exercises in futility.

Probably any non response you perceive fits in there somewhere.  You pick.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the lack of response from 'T' and 'Foxfyre' one must assume they acknowledge an ass kicking and have cut and run - silly neocons, engaging in a battle of wits when they are only half-armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can't speak for T, but I see a number of other options that are more likely than your conclusion here.
> 
> 1)  Some of us have actual real lives in the real world, and don't spend every minute here looking for something snarky to say.
> 
> 2)  Some of us choose not to argue with idiots.
> 
> 3)  Some of us choose not to feed the trolls.
> 
> 4)  Some of us choose not to engage in exercises in futility.
> 
> Probably any non response you perceive fits in there somewhere.  You pick.
Click to expand...


You are so funny.  It took all of 300 seconds to respond to my bait, to engage in an exercise of futility (a given, given your lack of arms), and to fail to respond with a real and substantive example to prove your defense of Limbaugh.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the lack of response from 'T' and 'Foxfyre' one must assume they acknowledge an ass kicking and have cut and run - silly neocons, engaging in a battle of wits when they are only half-armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can't speak for T, but I see a number of other options that are more likely than your conclusion here.
> 
> 1)  Some of us have actual real lives in the real world, and don't spend every minute here looking for something snarky to say.
> 
> 2)  Some of us choose not to argue with idiots.
> 
> 3)  Some of us choose not to feed the trolls.
> 
> 4)  Some of us choose not to engage in exercises in futility.
> 
> Probably any non response you perceive fits in there somewhere.  You pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny.  It took all of 300 seconds to respond to my bait, to engage in an exercise of futility (a given, given your lack of arms), and to fail to respond with a real and substantive example to prove your defense of Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


I haven't defended Limbaugh.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself.  I am simply pointing out the irrational hatred and indefensible hate speech directed at him from people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.  I would do the same for you if anybody accuses you of something you didn't do or makes unfair and hateful assumptions about you that have no foundation in fact.


----------



## Zona

Wry Catcher said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT, and points that out? Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.
> 
> 
> As to this horseshit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own, and form their _own opinion(s_)...
> 
> But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with. How typical and expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother to investigate his site?  I hear what he say's and what he says is repeated over and over by you, and other right wing trolls on this message board, the Republican leadership, Palin, Gingrich, Sessions, Ensign, etc. etc.
> Prior talking points of the day:
> Obama took his wife on a date to NYC...Pelosi jets to California...Michael Fox shakes for sympathy...Obamacare will have death panels...it's Socialism!...Democrats tax and spend...Earmarks and Porkulus..."you lie"..._they're_ gonna take your guns!...Climate change is a lie...Islamo-Fascism...
Click to expand...


you really should stop spanking them so hard.  This is just mean.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can't speak for T, but I see a number of other options that are more likely than your conclusion here.
> 
> 1)  Some of us have actual real lives in the real world, and don't spend every minute here looking for something snarky to say.
> 
> 2)  Some of us choose not to argue with idiots.
> 
> 3)  Some of us choose not to feed the trolls.
> 
> 4)  Some of us choose not to engage in exercises in futility.
> 
> Probably any non response you perceive fits in there somewhere.  You pick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so funny.  It took all of 300 seconds to respond to my bait, to engage in an exercise of futility (a given, given your lack of arms), and to fail to respond with a real and substantive example to prove your defense of Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't defended Limbaugh.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself.  I am simply pointing out the irrational hatred and indefensible hate speech directed at him from people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.  I would do the same for you if anybody accuses you of something you didn't do or makes unfair and hateful assumptions about you that have no foundation in fact.
Click to expand...


The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so funny.  It took all of 300 seconds to respond to my bait, to engage in an exercise of futility (a given, given your lack of arms), and to fail to respond with a real and substantive example to prove your defense of Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't defended Limbaugh.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself.  I am simply pointing out the irrational hatred and indefensible hate speech directed at him from people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.  I would do the same for you if anybody accuses you of something you didn't do or makes unfair and hateful assumptions about you that have no foundation in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
Click to expand...


You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT*, and points that out? *Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.*
> 
> 
> As to this horseshit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then *he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own*, and form their _own opinion(s_)...
> 
> But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? *You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with.* How typical and expected.
Click to expand...

Obviously YOU have never gone to his site and CHECKED his "FACTS." Anyone who actually does check quickly learns he's full of it. He knows his audience will never check his links, but will ASSUME if he posts a link it MUST confirm his lies. He knows CON$ are not intelligent enough to investigate on their own.

What CON$ will do is PROJECT their laziness and gullibility on anyone who does check. See the first quote in my sig.

Here is an example. After Howard Stern went to satellite radio, LimpBoy started to lie about satellite radio. He claimed that 1 in 10 subscriptions to satellite radio were in unsold cars and then gave a link to "back up" that lie knowing no CON$ervative would bother to check.

HIS OWN LINK showed that only Sirius radio counted SOME , but not all, unsold cars as subscribers, XM only counted people who took advantage of the free offer that came with a new car. And Sirius' total is itself LESS than 10% of their own total, so it certainly is less than 10% of the COMBINED total of Sirius and XM as LimpBoy lied.

See for yourself.

Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
Story #7:* 1 in 10 Satellite Radio Subs in Unsold Cars*

RUSH: You know these satellite radio guys? I have no brief against them, don't misunderstand. I've explained why this program is not on satellite radio a number of times, not that it never will be, but in this current iteration, three-hour program Monday-Friday, it can't be because we would be cannibalizing the terrestrial radio stations that have made this program, so I've assured them of that. But they report their subscriber numbers. I think *the combined total for satellite radio to both of those companies* is around 13 million or eight million. I'm not sure. Anyway,* it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot. *The way these people report it is the number of radios sold, or manufactured. Most of these satellite radios are in automobiles since they're manufactured, but *one in ten of satellite subscribers live in car lots*, either in *cars that haven't been sold by anybody yet. *


Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count | Scott Moritz | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com

*Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count*
Page 2

Sirius CFO Dave Frear says he recognizes that* the two companies have different policies when it comes to counting subscribers*, but he downplays the significance.

Frear says* Sirius' lot-counting practice doesn't apply to all cars with factory-installed radios. He adds that overall it represents less than 10% of total subscribers.*

"There's a distinction without a difference," says Frear.

But an XM representative disagrees.

"It's important for people to understand that we have a different way of counting subscribers," *says the XM rep. "We count people who have made an active effort to try the service, not by counting cars on the lots." *

LimpBoy knows CON$ are too stupid to catch him lying no matter what he lies about, and he knows CON$ are too hateful to care if anyone exposes any of his lies.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't defended Limbaugh.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself.  I am simply pointing out the irrational hatred and indefensible hate speech directed at him from people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.  I would do the same for you if anybody accuses you of something you didn't do or makes unfair and hateful assumptions about you that have no foundation in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.


----------



## KYConservative

I used to listen to Talk Radio quite often, however during the past Republican primaries some in Talk Radio decided to use their voices in a futile attempt to bolster Mitt Romney by ATTACKING EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. 

What a stupid move! It is quite possible that that one episode (Talk Radio calling Christians bigots for not supporting Romney) is what cost the GOP the elections. Christians are the voting base of supporters for the Republican party. Christians give MORE of their time, money and heart-felt support than any other voting bloc of people, yet the pundits and talking heads of the airwaves attacked them. What a bunch of dopes!

I don't have a lot of respect for some of the so-called conservative voices any longer, many are simply talking heads for the Republican Party. 

And before any of my conservative friends attack me, understand I AM CONSERVATIVE FIRST! I don't blindly support the Republican party, although we used to be very involved in the GOP!!

The Republican Party don't have a clue of the "belief system factor".


----------



## elvis

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
Click to expand...


think so?  Enlighten us, cum catcher.  what does "project" mean to you?


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
Click to expand...


Okay, let me sum it up like this, you have no idea what the fuck your talking about.  Does this clarify it for you, wry? dumbshit


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
Click to expand...


PS you might actually look it up in the dictionary, wry.  dumbshit


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PS you might actually look it up in the dictionary, wry.  dumbshit
Click to expand...

thats too easy for the simple minded to grasp


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS you might actually look it up in the dictionary, wry.  dumbshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats too easy for the simple minded to grasp
Click to expand...


Apparently, so is Rush's philosophy.  I would be REALLY impressed if somebody could make an argument that Rush deserves whatever bad befalls him using something valid IN CONTEXT that they can actually back up.

So far however, I've just seen some pretty awful, mean spirited, and hateful remarks based on apparently nothing other than general ideological hatred.


----------



## Wry Catcher

elvis3577 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think so?  Enlighten us, cum catcher.  what does "project" mean to you?
Click to expand...


"cum catcher"?  It seems you may have made a point you didn't intend.  Your graphic insult regarding semen suggests you see in me a quality you possess.

Projection, according to Carl Jung, occurs when a person sees in another qualities they themselves possess. This phenomenon goes on daily in most relationships and encounters.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Wry Catcher said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what "project" means, do you?  I suspect you learned the word from dude, who too didn't understand the proper meaning/useage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> think so?  Enlighten us, cum catcher.  what does "project" mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "cum catcher"?  It seems you may have made a point you didn't intend.  Your graphic insult regarding semen suggests you see in me a quality you possess.
> 
> Projection, according to Carl Jung, occurs when a person sees in another qualities they themselves possess. This phenomenon goes on daily in most relationships and encounters.
Click to expand...


Or, alternately and more likely, he's just calling a spade a spade.

That whole "I know you are but what am I" crutch of projection in a flame war is pretty damn old and worn out.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS you might actually look it up in the dictionary, wry.  dumbshit
> 
> 
> 
> thats too easy for the simple minded to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, so is Rush's philosophy.  I would be REALLY impressed if somebody could make an argument that Rush deserves whatever bad befalls him using something valid IN CONTEXT that they can actually back up.
> 
> So far however, I've just seen some pretty awful, mean spirited, and hateful remarks based on apparently nothing other than general ideological hatred.
Click to expand...


You put words and sentiments in 'my mouth' I never uttered or wrote.  I believe Rush Limbaugh is an arrogant self serving egotistical jerk.  However, I made no comment here or elsewhere of a "pretty awful, mean spirited and hateful" nature in relation to his health, well-being or the outcome of his current health crisis.
I simply pointed out my opinion of him.  An opinion I hold in regards to Newt Gringrich too.  As for his "ideology", I suspect Limbaugh is full of shit.  He leads his ditto heads around by their emotions, and a likely as not laughs at the fools who adore him as he is driven to his bank.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RadiomanATL said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> think so?  Enlighten us, cum catcher.  what does "project" mean to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "cum catcher"?  It seems you may have made a point you didn't intend.  Your graphic insult regarding semen suggests you see in me a quality you possess.
> 
> Projection, according to Carl Jung, occurs when a person sees in another qualities they themselves possess. This phenomenon goes on daily in most relationships and encounters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, alternately and more likely, he's just calling a spade a spade.
> 
> That whole "I know you are but what am I" crutch of projection in a flame war is pretty damn old and worn out.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Dude and his dudettes who continually use this 'crutch'; and the use of a tautology as a conclusion is both insipid and ignorant .


----------



## RadiomanATL

Wry Catcher said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "cum catcher"?  It seems you may have made a point you didn't intend.  Your graphic insult regarding semen suggests you see in me a quality you possess.
> 
> Projection, according to Carl Jung, occurs when a person sees in another qualities they themselves possess. This phenomenon goes on daily in most relationships and encounters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternately and more likely, he's just calling a spade a spade.
> 
> That whole "I know you are but what am I" crutch of projection in a flame war is pretty damn old and worn out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Dude and his dudettes who continually use this 'crutch'; and the use of a tautology as a conclusion is both insipid and ignorant .
Click to expand...


[whine]But they do it TOOOooooo!!![/whine]


Jesus.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RadiomanATL said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternately and more likely, he's just calling a spade a spade.
> 
> That whole "I know you are but what am I" crutch of projection in a flame war is pretty damn old and worn out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Dude and his dudettes who continually use this 'crutch'; and the use of a tautology as a conclusion is both insipid and ignorant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [whine]But they do it TOOOooooo!!![/whine]
> 
> 
> Jesus.
Click to expand...


Ignorant and insipid, squared.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Wry Catcher said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Dude and his dudettes who continually use this 'crutch'; and the use of a tautology as a conclusion is both insipid and ignorant .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [whine]But they do it TOOOooooo!!![/whine]
> 
> 
> Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant and insipid, squared.
Click to expand...


Thank you for summarizing your posts so succinctly. Bravo!


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't defended Limbaugh.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself.  I am simply pointing out the irrational hatred and indefensible hate speech directed at him from people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about.  I would do the same for you if anybody accuses you of something you didn't do or makes unfair and hateful assumptions about you that have no foundation in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
Click to expand...


That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.

Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.

As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day?   Including myself?   I can assure you the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.

President Obama would no doubt kill to be able to speak extemporaneously as Rush can.

Again, I do disagree with Rush's conclusions or opinion on someting now and then.  I can appreciate that there are people who don't like his style or his brand of humor.  I get bored with it myself sometimes especially when he is excessively focused on something I'm not particularly interested in and I look for something else to listen to.  I will sometimes go for several days without hearing any of his program.  But since he is featured on our number one news station in our area, I do occasionally hear him, and I have yet to fail to learn at least something in the process.

I don't have problems with anybody who doesn't appreciate or enjoy Rush Limbaugh.  I do think those who feel so superior to him and unjustly or dishonestly direct hateful and hurtful things about them have a far bigger problem than Rush does.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT*, and points that out? *Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.*
> 
> 
> As to this horseshit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then *he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own*, and form their _own opinion(s_)...
> 
> But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? *You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with.* How typical and expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously YOU have never gone to his site and CHECKED his "FACTS." Anyone who actually does check quickly learns he's full of it. He knows his audience will never check his links, but will ASSUME if he posts a link it MUST confirm his lies. He knows CON$ are not intelligent enough to investigate on their own.
> 
> What CON$ will do is PROJECT their laziness and gullibility on anyone who does check. See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Here is an example. After Howard Stern went to satellite radio, LimpBoy started to lie about satellite radio. He claimed that 1 in 10 subscriptions to satellite radio were in unsold cars and then gave a link to "back up" that lie knowing no CON$ervative would bother to check.
> 
> HIS OWN LINK showed that only Sirius radio counted SOME , but not all, unsold cars as subscribers, XM only counted people who took advantage of the free offer that came with a new car. And Sirius' total is itself LESS than 10% of their own total, so it certainly is less than 10% of the COMBINED total of Sirius and XM as LimpBoy lied.
> 
> See for yourself.
> 
> Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
> Story #7:* 1 in 10 Satellite Radio Subs in Unsold Cars*
> 
> RUSH: You know these satellite radio guys? I have no brief against them, don't misunderstand. I've explained why this program is not on satellite radio a number of times, not that it never will be, but in this current iteration, three-hour program Monday-Friday, it can't be because we would be cannibalizing the terrestrial radio stations that have made this program, so I've assured them of that. But they report their subscriber numbers. I think *the combined total for satellite radio to both of those companies* is around 13 million or eight million. I'm not sure. Anyway,* it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot. *The way these people report it is the number of radios sold, or manufactured. Most of these satellite radios are in automobiles since they're manufactured, but *one in ten of satellite subscribers live in car lots*, either in *cars that haven't been sold by anybody yet. *
> 
> 
> Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count | Scott Moritz | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com
> 
> *Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count*
> Page 2
> 
> Sirius CFO Dave Frear says he recognizes that* the two companies have different policies when it comes to counting subscribers*, but he downplays the significance.
> 
> Frear says* Sirius' lot-counting practice doesn't apply to all cars with factory-installed radios. He adds that overall it represents less than 10% of total subscribers.*
> 
> "There's a distinction without a difference," says Frear.
> 
> But an XM representative disagrees.
> 
> "It's important for people to understand that we have a different way of counting subscribers," *says the XM rep. "We count people who have made an active effort to try the service, not by counting cars on the lots." *
> 
> LimpBoy knows CON$ are too stupid to catch him lying no matter what he lies about, and he knows CON$ are too hateful to care if anyone exposes any of his lies.
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> * I would be REALLY impressed if somebody could make an argument that Rush deserves whatever bad befalls him using something valid IN CONTEXT that they can actually back up.*
> 
> So far however, I've just seen some pretty awful, mean spirited, and hateful remarks based on apparently nothing other than general ideological hatred.


What a load of crapola.

It's so easy for Stuttering LimpBoy to lie to CON$, he only gets pleasure from his lying by giving the suckers proof he is lying and still being able to deceive the fools.

He lies that 10% of the combined subscriptions to satellite are in unsold cars and gives as proof an article that reports that less than 10% of Sirius subs only are in unsold cars and his ditto-dopers swallow it whole. If you notice he changed the title of the link to his "proof" from "Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count" which identifies the the car count as being unique to Sirius, to "1 in 10 Satellite Radio Subs in Unsold Cars" to make it appear like the article supports his lie. He knows CON$ will see his new title and never click on it to check for themselves.

Meanwhile, even after I post his COMPLETE rant and his own link direct from his site, you pretend no one has yet posted his lies IN CONTEXT with back up. 
He certainly has the stupidity of his audience pegged.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.
> 
> Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.
> 
> As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day?   Including myself?   I can assure you the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.
> 
> President Obama would no doubt kill to be able to speak extemporaneously as Rush can.
> 
> Again, I do disagree with Rush's conclusions or opinion on someting now and then.  I can appreciate that there are people who don't like his style or his brand of humor.  I get bored with it myself sometimes especially when he is excessively focused on something I'm not particularly interested in and I look for something else to listen to.  I will sometimes go for several days without hearing any of his program.  But since he is featured on our number one news station in our area, I do occasionally hear him, and I have yet to fail to learn at least something in the process.
> 
> I don't have problems with anybody who doesn't appreciate or enjoy Rush Limbaugh.  I do think those who feel so superior to him and unjustly or dishonestly direct hateful and hurtful things about them have a far bigger problem than Rush does.
Click to expand...


You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.
> 
> Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.
> 
> As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day?   Including myself?   I can assure you the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.
> 
> President Obama would no doubt kill to be able to speak extemporaneously as Rush can.
> 
> Again, I do disagree with Rush's conclusions or opinion on someting now and then.  I can appreciate that there are people who don't like his style or his brand of humor.  I get bored with it myself sometimes especially when he is excessively focused on something I'm not particularly interested in and I look for something else to listen to.  I will sometimes go for several days without hearing any of his program.  But since he is featured on our number one news station in our area, I do occasionally hear him, and I have yet to fail to learn at least something in the process.
> 
> I don't have problems with anybody who doesn't appreciate or enjoy Rush Limbaugh.  I do think those who feel so superior to him and unjustly or dishonestly direct hateful and hurtful things about them have a far bigger problem than Rush does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.
Click to expand...


again, you make a lame attempt at projection....yes, I said projection, wry.
You haven't a clue on what your talking about, yet here you are......


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.
> 
> Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.
> 
> As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day?   Including myself?   I can assure you the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.
> 
> President Obama would no doubt kill to be able to speak extemporaneously as Rush can.
> 
> Again, I do disagree with Rush's conclusions or opinion on someting now and then.  I can appreciate that there are people who don't like his style or his brand of humor.  I get bored with it myself sometimes especially when he is excessively focused on something I'm not particularly interested in and I look for something else to listen to.  I will sometimes go for several days without hearing any of his program.  But since he is featured on our number one news station in our area, I do occasionally hear him, and I have yet to fail to learn at least something in the process.
> 
> I don't have problems with anybody who doesn't appreciate or enjoy Rush Limbaugh.  I do think those who feel so superior to him and unjustly or dishonestly direct hateful and hurtful things about them have a far bigger problem than Rush does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you make a lame attempt at projection....yes, I said projection, wry.
> You haven't a clue on what your talking about, yet here you are......
Click to expand...


"a lame attempt at projection"?  Do you know how ignorant - no, of course you don't.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, you make a lame attempt at projection....yes, I said projection, wry.
> You haven't a clue on what your talking about, yet here you are......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "a lame attempt at projection"?  Do you know how ignorant - no, of course you don't.
Click to expand...


  A blind man can see more than you do, wry.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.
> 
> Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.
> 
> As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day?   Including myself?   I can assure you the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.
> 
> President Obama would no doubt kill to be able to speak extemporaneously as Rush can.
> 
> Again, I do disagree with Rush's conclusions or opinion on someting now and then.  I can appreciate that there are people who don't like his style or his brand of humor.  I get bored with it myself sometimes especially when he is excessively focused on something I'm not particularly interested in and I look for something else to listen to.  I will sometimes go for several days without hearing any of his program.  But since he is featured on our number one news station in our area, I do occasionally hear him, and I have yet to fail to learn at least something in the process.
> 
> I don't have problems with anybody who doesn't appreciate or enjoy Rush Limbaugh.  I do think those who feel so superior to him and unjustly or dishonestly direct hateful and hurtful things about them have a far bigger problem than Rush does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.
Click to expand...


Well you got the first sentence right.  That's a definite improvement.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical reaction from the fringe. Anyone who watches and listens to conservative radio and is honest, has to acknowledge the truth of my allegation. Those who are dishonest, or not very bright, resort to emoticons or personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course you do realize that he backs up his assertions with FACT*, and points that out? *Visit his site sometime. You will see what his sources are.*
> 
> 
> As to this horseshit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Limbaugh each day for about five minutes, on my way to the gym. It tell me much of what I need to know - whether the points he makes are his own, or those prepared for him matters not,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? You haven't bothered to view his site? Nor listen as he tells you his sources. But then *he expects intelligent folks (unlike you), to investigate on their own*, and form their _own opinion(s_)...
> 
> But in typical Liberal Statist fashion? *You choose to project your habits upon other that you disagree with.* How typical and expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously YOU have never gone to his site and CHECKED his "FACTS." Anyone who actually does check quickly learns he's full of it. He knows his audience will never check his links, but will ASSUME if he posts a link it MUST confirm his lies. He knows CON$ are not intelligent enough to investigate on their own.
> 
> What CON$ will do is PROJECT their laziness and gullibility on anyone who does check. See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Here is an example. After Howard Stern went to satellite radio, LimpBoy started to lie about satellite radio. He claimed that 1 in 10 subscriptions to satellite radio were in unsold cars and then gave a link to "back up" that lie knowing no CON$ervative would bother to check.
> 
> HIS OWN LINK showed that only Sirius radio counted SOME , but not all, unsold cars as subscribers, XM only counted people who took advantage of the free offer that came with a new car. And Sirius' total is itself LESS than 10% of their own total, so it certainly is less than 10% of the COMBINED total of Sirius and XM as LimpBoy lied.
> 
> See for yourself.
> 
> Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
> Story #7:* 1 in 10 Satellite Radio Subs in Unsold Cars*
> 
> RUSH: You know these satellite radio guys? I have no brief against them, don't misunderstand. I've explained why this program is not on satellite radio a number of times, not that it never will be, but in this current iteration, three-hour program Monday-Friday, it can't be because we would be cannibalizing the terrestrial radio stations that have made this program, so I've assured them of that. But they report their subscriber numbers. I think *the combined total for satellite radio to both of those companies* is around 13 million or eight million. I'm not sure. Anyway,* it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot. *The way these people report it is the number of radios sold, or manufactured. Most of these satellite radios are in automobiles since they're manufactured, but *one in ten of satellite subscribers live in car lots*, either in *cars that haven't been sold by anybody yet. *
> 
> 
> Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count | Scott Moritz | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com
> 
> *Scoping Sirius' Curious Car Count*
> Page 2
> 
> Sirius CFO Dave Frear says he recognizes that* the two companies have different policies when it comes to counting subscribers*, but he downplays the significance.
> 
> Frear says* Sirius' lot-counting practice doesn't apply to all cars with factory-installed radios. He adds that overall it represents less than 10% of total subscribers.*
> 
> "There's a distinction without a difference," says Frear.
> 
> But an XM representative disagrees.
> 
> "It's important for people to understand that we have a different way of counting subscribers," *says the XM rep. "We count people who have made an active effort to try the service, not by counting cars on the lots." *
> 
> LimpBoy knows CON$ are too stupid to catch him lying no matter what he lies about, and he knows CON$ are too hateful to care if anyone exposes any of his lies.
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.  Another fact is he presents himself as an authority, pokes fun at Obama for using a teleprompter when Limbaugh reads his entire show.  A fact is he uses innuendo to assassinate the character of everyone who expresses an opinion different then his own; he attacks all Democrats as if they all hold the same opinion and have the same values; and equates who question 'conservatives' as leftist, communists, and socialists - words which have become perjoratives to many Americans, and convey to the dumber one systems of totaltarianism, not of economic theory which in fact they are.
> I don't hate Limbaugh, fact is I don't hate anyone.  I feel sorry for many of the right wing posters on this and other message boards.  I can't imagine going through life believing in fairy tales, as so many of them do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must listen to Rush a lot more than myself to be able to project as you do, wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  The paragraph you are referring to is so full of unsupportable innuendo and misstatements that it should be embarrassing to the one who wrote it and would never be written by an honest person who had actually listened to the show or actually visted the website.  The kind of stuff being said about Rush here likely comes right off the hate sites devoted to that kind of thing.  You see the same tired, snarky stuff repeated over and over, but never see anything presented, in context, to support it.  Just like *nobody criticizing Rush here has yet to present anything in context to back up their snipes at him, but they pull the soundbites off those other websites and present it them as 'fact'.  To me that is far worse than any error Rush has made.*
> 
> Most of the best stuff on Rush's website is available only to subscribers anyway.  I am not a subscriber, but have had an opportunity to see what is available to subscribers, and there are few out there who are as well researched as Rush is.
> 
> As for him 'reading his entire show', he does read his prepared monologue, yes, and he does read from the source material that he collects for the show.  But *I wonder how he pulls off 'prepared' responses to the 15 to 20 callers every day? *  Including myself?   I can assure you* the calls are screened and Rush has a general idea of the subject that will be discussed - this so the staff can have ready appropriate soundbites* or other sources for him - but he has no way of knowing how the question will be asked or the full substance of it.  There is no way that he is not extemporaneous in his answers to the callers.
Click to expand...

Another load of pure crap. I've posted an obvious lie in context direct from his own site and you can do nothing but ignore it.

You have been PROGRAMMED to accuse everyone who exposes your MessiahRushie as the SCRIPTED liar he is of getting his lies from Lib sites. I purposely choose more obscure lies like the satellite radio lie for two reasons. Anticipating your programming, you can't show any Lib site exposing the lie and with no Lib site exposing the lie you can't go to a CON$ervative site to get your PROGRAMMED answer. You are forced to dream up a rationalization on your own or cut and run as the CON$ in this thread have done.

And you have answered yourself as to how he can pretend to be talking on his own when taking calls, his staff screens the calls and gives him the scripted rant to match the topic allowed through by the screener, as well as many of the callers are asking preprogrammed questions, especially the phony Lib callers. The so called Lib callers are CON$ pretending to be Libs to feed him lines to make him look good. He would never have the guts to debate ME especially for money.

And no, the "best stuff" is not on his pay side, he puts the stuff that has been exposed as lies on the pay side because he knows anyone stupid enough to pay for his lies won't ever believe the truth.

For example, when I exposed the CO2 from H2O lie on the AOL messageboards, he moved it to his pay side to keep other posters from confirming it. He found out about me on AOL when paying Ditto-Dopers "reported" me to him trying to get him to debate me and "put me in my place." Rather than debate me he would take whatever lies I exposed on AOL  and move it to his pay side. So I moved to this messageboard.

Global Warming Update
April 3, 2007
RUSH: * Mark my brilliant words on this.*  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  *The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. *

RUSH:  Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!

Now google has cached many of his pages before he moved them to his pay side so smart people can still get his transcripts without paying him. Here is the link to the cached CO2 lie.

Global Warming Update


----------



## Wry Catcher

Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.


----------



## sitarro

Wry Catcher said:


> Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.



As impressed as you are with yourself it's obvious that you have never really listened to Rush Limbaugh with anything but preconceived notions of who he is, what he is going to say and who is feeding him with talking points. You aren't any kind of judge of character, you are a joke and pathetic in your attempts to paint millions of people with a very large brush. I would say "GO FUCK YOURSELF" but I doubt even you would have sex with a dildo like you.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.

Unfortunately.


----------



## MarcATL

The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.

If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"

Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.

I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.

Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.

I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.

Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.


----------



## Foxfyre

Titanic Sailor said:


> I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.
> 
> Unfortunately.



Can you give an example or two?  I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them.  They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.

I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly.  William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago.  Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well.  She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot.  I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley.  And there are a few others.

The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.


----------



## edthecynic

Wry Catcher said:


> Well now you've done it ed...,* the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture*, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.



And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.

If you noticed, when the lying coward Stuttering LimpBoy challenged Obama to a debate, knowing Obama would be too busy to do it, he required Obama to come to his studio where his crew could feed him his lines on his monitor and through his bionic ear just in case Obama decided to take him up on the challenge.

If Obama had been smart enough to send me in his place, LimpBoy did leave the door open for that, MessiahRushie would have crapped his pants even knowing he had his crew to help him.

Rush to the President: Debate Me
March 4, 2009
RUSH:  I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time *here at the EIB Network studios.** If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.* I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin.* I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it.**


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you've done it ed...,* the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture*, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.
Click to expand...

a lack of response is usually a sign of you are not worth the effort because you are nothing but a fucking IDIOT


----------



## Meister

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you've done it ed...,* the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture*, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of response is usually a sign of you are not worth the effort because you are nothing but a fucking IDIOT
Click to expand...

Exactly, I won't waste the effort with the doofus.  Rush is right nearly all the time, and he takes  the one that he isn't and blow it up like it's front page news.  Why doesn't he do the same with his messiah, obama?  He lies more than Rush


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.
> 
> Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example or two?  I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but* I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them.*  They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.
> 
> I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly.  William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago.  Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well.  She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot.  I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley.  And there are a few others.
> 
> The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.
Click to expand...

You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.

Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"

Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. *What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR*."

Opening Monologue Sets the Table
October 15, 2008
RUSH:    The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone?  Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain.  Where is there any anger whatsoever?  And *the sharply personal attacks on Obama.  What sharply personal attacks?*  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks?  "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack,* himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears.  What's the big deal?


----------



## sitarro

MarcATL said:


> The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.
> 
> If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"
> 
> Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.
> 
> I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.
> 
> Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.
> 
> I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.
> 
> Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.



Proof your post boy and check out what your friends from the left of the aisle had to say about Saddam.......

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others 

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


----------



## ozzmdj

edthecynic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you've done it ed...,* the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture*, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the cowardly neg rep without a rebuttal post, which I take as a badge of honor and proof that I OWN the pusillanimous CON$ervative poltroons.
> 
> If you noticed, when the lying coward Stuttering LimpBoy challenged Obama to a debate, knowing Obama would be too busy to do it, he required Obama to come to his studio where his crew could feed him his lines on his monitor and through his bionic ear just in case Obama decided to take him up on the challenge.
> 
> If Obama had been smart enough to send me in his place, LimpBoy did leave the door open for that, MessiahRushie would have crapped his pants even knowing he had his crew to help him.
> 
> Rush to the President: Debate Me
> March 4, 2009
> RUSH:  I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time *here at the EIB Network studios.** If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.* I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin.* I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it.**
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been thinking that many of the conservative talk radio analysts have almost been as disingenuous and dishonest as Wry and liberals at times when it comes to political analysis.
> 
> Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example or two?  I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but* I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them.*  They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.
> 
> I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly.  William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago.  Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well.  She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot.  I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley.  And there are a few others.
> 
> The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.
> 
> Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
> Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"
> 
> Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
> Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?
> 
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> October 9, 2008
> "I call Obama a squirrel. *What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR*."
> 
> Opening Monologue Sets the Table
> October 15, 2008
> RUSH:    The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone?  Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain.  Where is there any anger whatsoever?  And *the sharply personal attacks on Obama.  What sharply personal attacks?*  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks?  "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack,* himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears.  What's the big deal?
Click to expand...


When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context, why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.

When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.

Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.

Thank you for understanding.


----------



## Wry Catcher

sitarro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you've done it ed..., the true believers have cut and run - soon they'll return with a personal attack  and a brief lecture, much like Limbaugh does on his show.
> Each time I've listened and his people failed to properly screen the call, Limbaugh cuts off the caller and goes into lecture mode, causing the ditto heads to actuallty believe Limbaughs prefabricated notes mystify the caller into silence by the brilliance of his response.  Of course the caller never again is heard from again after Limbaugh bloviates and then cuts to a commercial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As impressed as you are with yourself it's obvious that you have never really listened to Rush Limbaugh with anything but preconceived notions of who he is, what he is going to say and who is feeding him with talking points. You aren't any kind of judge of character, you are a joke and pathetic in your attempts to paint millions of people with a very large brush. I would say "GO FUCK YOURSELF" but I doubt even you would have sex with a dildo like you.
Click to expand...


Well, you have my permission to say, "GO FUCK YOURSELF" since you've already written it.  Very declasse, but maybe not in Texas.  
I wonder though, do you feel tough and manly calling someone names and using sexually perverse language while hiding behind your keyboard?
It's only my opinion, but my judgment of your character - based on your post - is you're a coward and a sexually repressed ignoramous.


----------



## Big Fitz

MarcATL said:


> The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.
> 
> If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"
> 
> Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.
> 
> I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.
> 
> Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.
> 
> I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.
> 
> Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.


The amount of projection here is just incredible.  Willful blindness at it's best.


----------



## Foxfyre

Big Fitz said:


> The amount of projection here is just incredible.  Willful blindness at it's best.



Oh gawd, you just had to use the 'p' word didn't you.  Now we'll have 14 more pages of dubious efforts trashing you and straining at gnats to prove to you how you used it incorrectly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

sitarro said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.
> 
> If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, Saddam has/had WMDs, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"
> 
> Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.
> 
> I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.
> 
> Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.
> 
> I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.
> 
> Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof your post boy and check out what your friends from the left of the aisle had to say about Saddam.......
> 
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
> 
> "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
> 
> "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
> 
> "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
> 
> "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
> 
> "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
> 
> "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
> 
> "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
> 
> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
> 
> "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
> 
> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
> 
> "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
> 
> "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
> 
> "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
> 
> "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
> 
> "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
> 
> "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
> 
> "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
> 
> "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
> 
> "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
> 
> "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
> 
> "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Click to expand...


And your point?  The same argument might be made for Iran and N. Korea - do we invade and occupy them now?  And why didn't we invade and occupy N. Korea?  Why Iraq?  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  How much in lives and limbs and treasure has the Iraq adventure cost our nation?
Don't give me guotes from members of congress - D or R; ask a Democrat in the street, most will say the congress got taken by the hysteria created by 9/11 and the fear mongering of the neoconservatives.  

btw,  Jets 24, Texans 0 (Mea Culpa, Jets 27, Texans 0)


----------



## DiveCon

the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron


----------



## Meister

DiveCon said:


> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron





I think that sums up everything wry has to say. That is too funny.


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that sums up everything wry has to say. That is too funny.
Click to expand...

it definitely shows how out of touch with reality he is


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron



And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?  
Now apologize.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
Click to expand...


Damage control, huh?


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
Click to expand...

TFF isnt it


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
Click to expand...

you fucked up. admit it, moron


----------



## MarcATL

All this bluster and STILL...NO answer to the simple question...

What is it that you neo-cons have "learned" from listening to RW radio that you would not or could not have "learned" anywhere else?

You people keep asking the same thing over and over like a bunch of spoiled bratty 3-year olds, "what proof do you have?" although I, and many others, post time and time again the lies, garbage and propoganda spewed by RW radio hosts and their ilk like Death-panels, Obama's not American, Obama is a terrorist, etc., the YouTube vids have been posted all over the site exposing their lies, links from reputable news sources, and you morans keep repeating the same question..over, and over, and over again.

WTF is wrong with you people?!??

What have you learned from RW radio?

Answer the damn question.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
Click to expand...


What ever you want to believe Meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever you want to believe Meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.
Click to expand...

coming from someone that said the jets were playing the texans, thats just too fucking funny


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> All this bluster and STILL...NO answer to the simple question...
> 
> What is it that you neo-cons have "learned" from listening to RW radio that you would not or could not have "learned" anywhere else?
> 
> You people keep asking the same thing over and over like a bunch of spoiled bratty 3-year olds, "what proof do you have?" although I, and many others, post time and time again the lies, garbage and propoganda spewed by RW radio hosts and their ilk like Death-panels, Obama's not American, Obama is a terrorist, etc., the YouTube vids have been posted all over the site exposing their lies, links from reputable news sources, and you morans keep repeating the same question..over, and over, and over again.
> 
> WTF is wrong with you people?!??
> 
> What have you learned from RW radio?
> 
> Answer the damn question.


well, first off, dumbfuck, if you are only asking neocons, you need to find one first


marc shows what a fucking moron he is as well


----------



## MarcATL

YOU are a neo-con DiveCon...and I use the term with contempt.

You KNOW what you are...now answer the damn question.

You moran.


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> YOU are a neo-con DiveCon...and I use the term with contempt.
> 
> You KNOW what you are...now answer the damn question.
> 
> You moran.


yes, I do know what i am, and neocon is not it
never have been, never will be
you remain a fucking idiot


----------



## Foxfyre

MarcATL said:


> All this bluster and STILL...NO answer to the simple question...
> 
> What is it that you neo-cons have "learned" from listening to RW radio that you would not or could not have "learned" anywhere else?
> 
> You people keep asking the same thing over and over like a bunch of spoiled bratty 3-year olds, "what proof do you have?" although I, and many others, post time and time again the lies, garbage and propoganda spewed by RW radio hosts and their ilk like Death-panels, Obama's not American, Obama is a terrorist, etc., the YouTube vids have been posted all over the site exposing their lies, links from reputable news sources, and you morans keep repeating the same question..over, and over, and over again.
> 
> WTF is wrong with you people?!??
> 
> What have you learned from RW radio?
> 
> Answer the damn question.



I don't know how you define neo-con and doubt you would answer when asked any more than you've honestly answered the other questions to you, but I'll answer yours.

1.  I learn that there are radio commentators who have done their homework and can competently articulate a point of view independent of any personality.  I have yet to find a liberal radio commentator who can do that or at least who does do that.

2.  I get a lot of data, statistics, and key words to check out and follow up with research and almost invariably these are verifiable from other sources.  I don't get that from liberal commentators either.

3.  I am affirmed that I am not alone in my opinion about many things.

4.  Occasionally I hear a perspective I had not thought of before and can either research it or think it through and come to a conclusion that may or may not agree with the commentator.  Liberal radio commentators are so inept at articulating any kind of reasoned perspective that this happens extremely rarely on liberal programs.

5.  Probably nothing on any of these programs is not available somewhere else--the hosts have to get their information from somewhere--but they frequently cite their sources which is helpful.  And I personally find it helpful to have somebody else's staff scouring the news of the day and background information and pulling key points together for perusal.  And while I generally visit at least ten or twelve information sources on average every day, the hosts have better resources than I do to do this and will almost always find something that I missed.

That's probably sufficient to answer your question.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever you want to believe Meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.
Click to expand...


yep, damage control


----------



## Meister

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TFF isnt it
Click to expand...


Yeah, it really is.


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> TFF isnt it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it really is.
Click to expand...

that moron expects ME to apologize for HIS fuck up?????

typical moonbat lib


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damage control, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you want to believe Meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> coming from someone that said the jets were playing the texans, thats just too fucking funny
Click to expand...


And therein is the problem with you neocons.  I never wrote the jets were playing the Texans, you and the others on the fringe made that inference.  But lacking the integrity to admit you and the others are wrong, you rewrite history.

OOPs, Mea Culpa, for real.  Of course the Jets played the Bengals, and by beating the Bengals eliminated the Texans.  I was wrong, and (gulp) the right wing fringe guys were correct.


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> TFF isnt it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that moron expects ME to apologize for HIS fuck up?????
> 
> typical moonbat lib
Click to expand...


He called you a moran.  Is that worse than a moron?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jets are playing the bengals, you fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Jets win, the Houston Texans are eliminated from the playoffs.  And the poster to whom I was addressing is from Texas.  Understand now?
> Now apologize.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just mea culpa, stupid idiot?


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> *btw,  Jets 24, Texans 0 (Mea Culpa, Jets 27, Texans 0)*


you fucking LIAR


----------



## DiveCon

wry catcher said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wry catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever you want to believe meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> coming from someone that said the jets were playing the texans, thats just too fucking funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and therein is the problem with you neocons.  I never wrote the jets were playing the texans, you and the others on the fringe made that inference.  But lacking the integrity to admit you and the others are wrong, you rewrite history.
Click to expand...

liar

.......


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Wry Catcher said:


> I never wrote the jets were playing the Texans


Yes, you DID. By posting a score SHOWING them playing.

But, you knew that and are just too much of a pussy pissant to simply say, "my bad."


----------



## MarcATL

Foxfyre said:


> I don't know how you define neo-con and doubt you would answer when asked any more than you've honestly answered the other questions to you, but I'll answer yours.
> 
> 1.  I learn that there are radio commentators who have done their homework and can competently articulate a point of view independent of any personality.  I have yet to find a liberal radio commentator who can do that or at least who does do that.
> 
> 2.  I get a lot of data, statistics, and key words to check out and follow up with research and almost invariably these are verifiable from other sources.  I don't get that from liberal commentators either.
> 
> 3.  I am affirmed that I am not alone in my opinion about many things.
> 
> 4.  Occasionally I hear a perspective I had not thought of before and can either research it or think it through and come to a conclusion that may or may not agree with the commentator.  Liberal radio commentators are so inept at articulating any kind of reasoned perspective that this happens extremely rarely on liberal programs.
> 
> 5.  Probably nothing on any of these programs is not available somewhere else--the hosts have to get their information from somewhere--but they frequently cite their sources which is helpful.  And I personally find it helpful to have somebody else's staff scouring the news of the day and background information and pulling key points together for perusal.  And while I generally visit at least ten or twelve information sources on average every day, the hosts have better resources than I do to do this and will almost always find something that I missed.
> 
> That's probably sufficient to answer your question.


I'll respond, in earnest, to your answers.

1. Subjective. What liberal commentators have you actually listened to? The ones I listen to have actually done their homework as well.

2. Again, subjective. I was really asking for SPECIFICS. I could have said the same thing about the liberal radio-hosts I listen to as well.

3. So what? Ditto for me and the radio hosts I listen to.  Nothing special there.

4. New perspectives? *yawn* Me too bub, I get interesting angles everyday from LW radio. Nothing special there.

5. They frequently site their sources eh? Hmmm...I happen to listen to RW on occasion, and thats at least once a day for at least a half hour to an hour, including various shows on various stations and I don't hear much sourcing...other than the regular RW sources. aka Lewellyn (sp) Group...which is a well-known GOP-supported and financed branch.

Dude, you have wrote a lot and yet have wrote nothing of substance...all subjective and not unique to you or your side or persuasion.

Let me tell you some things I get from LW radio and talking heads that I don't get in MSM, useful information about Blackwater, the RW religious group The Family, the truth about the ACORN smear campaigns, the truth about RW dirty political tactics. Also, unlike RW radio who can find no wrong in anything the GOP does, I also find out lots of information about Democrats in office thats not very endearing to them. In other words, a healthy dose of critisicm of Dem policies and goings-on WHILE they are in office. Not after. I can go on, but these are but a FEW of the types of information I get from LW radio.

Again I ask you.....WTF do you "learn" from RW radio?


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you want to believe Meister, feel free.  Reality and facts always confuse your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> coming from someone that said the jets were playing the texans, thats just too fucking funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And therein is the problem with you neocons.  I never wrote the jets were playing the Texans, you and the others on the fringe made that inference.  But lacking the integrity to admit you and the others are wrong, you rewrite history.
Click to expand...


Giving a score of the game needs no inference.  *dumbshit*


----------



## MarcATL

"Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...











Too funny!

*ROTFLMAO!*


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> "Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> *ROTFLMAO!*


actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago

moron
during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly


----------



## Foxfyre

MarcATL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you define neo-con and doubt you would answer when asked any more than you've honestly answered the other questions to you, but I'll answer yours.
> 
> 1.  I learn that there are radio commentators who have done their homework and can competently articulate a point of view independent of any personality.  I have yet to find a liberal radio commentator who can do that or at least who does do that.
> 
> 2.  I get a lot of data, statistics, and key words to check out and follow up with research and almost invariably these are verifiable from other sources.  I don't get that from liberal commentators either.
> 
> 3.  I am affirmed that I am not alone in my opinion about many things.
> 
> 4.  Occasionally I hear a perspective I had not thought of before and can either research it or think it through and come to a conclusion that may or may not agree with the commentator.  Liberal radio commentators are so inept at articulating any kind of reasoned perspective that this happens extremely rarely on liberal programs.
> 
> 5.  Probably nothing on any of these programs is not available somewhere else--the hosts have to get their information from somewhere--but they frequently cite their sources which is helpful.  And I personally find it helpful to have somebody else's staff scouring the news of the day and background information and pulling key points together for perusal.  And while I generally visit at least ten or twelve information sources on average every day, the hosts have better resources than I do to do this and will almost always find something that I missed.
> 
> That's probably sufficient to answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll respond, in earnest, to your answers.
> 
> 1. Subjective. What liberal commentators have you actually listened to? The ones I listen to have actually done their homework as well.
Click to expand...


As I stated earier in this thread, I used to listen to Alan Colmes frequently - his entire program several days in a row.  I listened in on Air America for about a week to see if there was possibly anything of substance there.  There wasn't.  I listen to PBS quite a bit, especially if they are broadcasting something going on in Congress, and there isn't a truly conservative commentator on their staff.  I listen to local liberals in Amarillo, Albuquerque, Dallas, and Denver.



> 2. Again, subjective. I was really asking for SPECIFICS. I could have said the same thing about the liberal radio-hosts I listen to as well.



There isn't enough band width to list all the specifics.  But I get poll results, verifiable elsewhere, I get employment figures, verifiable elsewhere, I get GDP numbers, stock market trends, troop strengths, direct quotes from various figures, analysis of various legislation working through Congress, names, dates, references to lawsuits, activities of various groups around the country.  The same stuff you would be getting if you actually listened.



> 3. So what? Ditto for me and the radio hosts I listen to.  Nothing special there.



No doubt.  But I am affirmed in my beliefs that the Constitution is more than a dead and flexible document, that our Founders were more than a bunch of pinheads spouting platitudes, that mom, apple pie, and morality are still important, that respect for God, flag, country is not something to be ashamed of, that government charity is immoral and corrupting, that human rights, freedom, and encouragement to reach for our dreams is far preferable to any scheme dreamed up by socialist minded politicians.

I imagine you are being affirmed in something quite different. 



> 4. New perspectives? *yawn* Me too bub, I get interesting angles everyday from LW radio. Nothing special there.



Again no doubt.



> 5. They frequently site their sources eh? Hmmm...I happen to listen to RW on occasion, and thats at least once a day for at least a half hour to an hour, including various shows on various stations and I don't hear much sourcing...other than the regular RW sources. aka Lewellyn (sp) Group...which is a well-known GOP-supported and financed branch.



If you aren't hearing sourcing, you aren't listening.  I have yet to hear Rush or Hannity or any of them cite facts and figures without providing a source for where they got them.  So I don't believe that you are listening.  



> Dude, you have wrote a lot and yet have wrote nothing of substance...all subjective and not unique to you or your side or persuasion.
> 
> Let me tell you some things I get from LW radio and talking heads that I don't get in MSM, useful information about Blackwater, the RW religious group The Family, the truth about the ACORN smear campaigns, the truth about RW dirty political tactics. Also, unlike RW radio who can find no wrong in anything the GOP does, I also find out lots of information about Democrats in office thats not very endearing to them. In other words, a healthy dose of critisicm of Dem policies and goings-on WHILE they are in office. Not after. I can go on, but these are but a FEW of the types of information I get from LW radio.



If you can verify what they're telling you about all this stuff and do, from something other than a leftwing hate site, then good for you.  I suspect you are just swallowing it all hook line and sinker without following up on your own.  When I have checked out some of their stuff, it doesn't jive with the full story.  I do follow up information and verify from credible sources before deciding what I will believe.  I think most conservatives do.



> Again I ask you.....WTF do you "learn" from RW radio?



Be careful lest you be branded as dim as some of your leftwing cohorts here.  I'll allow you to withdraw that question.


----------



## MarcATL

No neo-con...it was from last summer...09, the self-proclaimed Tea-Baggers expressing their so-called "outrage" to Obama's policies.

Try again.


----------



## MarcATL

I haven't listened to Alan Colmes on radio, but I've watched him for over a year damn-near daily on Hannity's show and he was the best thing on that show. He IS quite well prepared to deal with the constant barrage of RW lies and propoganda and talking points that he had to deal with every minute while on that show from his co-hosts and guests. Even though he was supposed to be kinda the "librul laughing stock" he got his shots and facts in despite the obvious attempts to minimize his role and voice on the show.

I do listen to RW radio, as I drive to work and I watched FOXNews almost exclusively for more than a year, I stopped all-together some months back after the hate-mongering and fear-mongering got too much for me to stomach any longer.

Can you say the same for LW media?


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> *ROTFLMAO!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago
> 
> moron
> during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly
Click to expand...


And I think it has been pretty well discredited as a prank or fake demonstration etc.  And from the date on the website linked, it goes at least all the way back to 2003.

Was the "Moran" guy a prank?


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> No neo-con...it was from last summer...09, the self-proclaimed Tea-Baggers expressing their so-called "outrage" to Obama's policies.
> 
> Try again.


wrong again, dumbfuck
or are you lying


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> *ROTFLMAO!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago
> 
> moron
> during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think it has been pretty well discredited as a prank or fake demonstration etc.  And from the date on the website linked, it goes at least all the way back to 2003.
> 
> Was the "Moran" guy a prank?
Click to expand...

wow, nice find
clearly it was from before 2006 and i was wrong as well
but dont look for dumbass to admit he was wrong


----------



## Foxfyre

Thanks DC.  You weren't entirely wrong though because it resurfaces on leftwing sites every now and then as testified by other dates found on the site I linked.

But I learned something tonight, i.e. what a moran is.


----------



## sitarro

Wry Catcher said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really very simple. Other than being masters of deceit with their constant lies, half-truth and propoganda campaigns, the Con radio hosts are great entertainers. I myself am quite entertained when listening or watching them, they almost always get the viewer/listener emotionally involved...much like soap operas, reality tv, rags and Jerry Springer-type shows.
> 
> If the listeners of Con talk radio were so intelligent, why are they so easily led to believe the many lies? Like Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American, Obama wants to kill your babies/grandmother, *Saddam has/had WMDs*, the CIA always tells the truth, waterboarding is not torture...etc., etc., etc.? If con talk radio listeners were so educated then WHY is it that they have such a contempt for all things educational and intellectual? Why do their entertainers, aka Rush, Hannity, Laura, etc. constantly refer to educators, professors et al. as "elitists?"
> 
> Its a well-known fact that entertaining hyperbolic and dramatic programming ALWAYS gets higher ratings than more fact-based, toned-down programming. I've seen posts bashing Franken his boring style, well, many non-thinkers find PBS, BBC and NPR to be boring, however they present the most informational and fact based programming there is to be found.
> 
> I'd like to know what those who claim to have learned so many things from con talk radio have actually learned. Really...please list some of the important things you've learned that you would not or never have learned anywhere else. I'd curious to know.
> 
> Many have stated that Liberal talk radio is hateful, well what sort of things are they so hateful about? I certainly do no see the hate. The only thing they hate is the lies and garbage from the RW.
> 
> I've listened to a LOT of RW con radio ands its as hateful as anything you can listen to. They hate anything "other." From Muslims, to gays, to liberals, to progress, to change, to you name it...they only love propaganda and bluster thats wrapped in the American Flag.
> 
> Can any of you neo-cons seriously enlighten me on whats so good about con talk radio? I certainly don't see it past the high entertainment value and dramatic delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof your post boy and check out what your friends from the left of the aisle had to say about Saddam.......
> 
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
> 
> "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
> 
> "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
> 
> "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
> 
> "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
> 
> "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
> 
> "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
> 
> "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
> 
> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
> 
> "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
> 
> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
> 
> "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
> 
> "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
> 
> "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
> 
> "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
> 
> "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
> 
> "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
> 
> "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
> 
> "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
> 
> "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
> 
> "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
> 
> "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point?  The same argument might be made for Iran and N. Korea - do we invade and occupy them now?  And why didn't we invade and occupy N. Korea?  Why Iraq?  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  How much in lives and limbs and treasure has the Iraq adventure cost our nation?
> Don't give me guotes from members of congress - D or R; ask a Democrat in the street, most will say the congress got taken by the hysteria created by 9/11 and the fear mongering of the neoconservatives.
> 
> btw,  Jets 24, Texans 0 (Mea Culpa, Jets 27, Texans 0)
Click to expand...


First, I don't give a fuck about team sports, never have. I certainly don't identify with any teams, don't want to be a team player, I'm an individual.

The quotes were an answer to the accusation that "con"(misused term by many here) listeners were easily lead by talk radio about the dangers present to the U.S. and it's allies by allowing that scumbag Saddam to remain in power. The only major politician that isn't quoted is that punk ass Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack Hussein Obama........ he was too busy having no opinion and voting present.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example or two?  I frequently disagree with some of their conclusions on this or that, I catch them in an error of fact now and then, but* I haven't picked up on any intentional deception or mean spiritedness from any of them.*  They all come from their particular ideology and world view and perspective, and it seems to be that that some liberals simply cannot tolerate any point of view other than their own.
> 
> I appreciate well articulated and supported arguments from anybody including some pretty strong liberals that I have or do read regularly.  William Raspberry was brilliant prior to his death not long ago.  Camille Paglia has a great ability to zero in the real crap distributed by the right and is willing to acknowledge that from the left as well.  She is far more liberal than I, but I like her a lot.  I rarely fail to benefit from some different perspective or learn some new fact from Michael Kinsley.  And there are a few others.
> 
> The radical left here could benefit a lot by at least considering some of the arguments put out by Rush, Hannity, Ingraham et al or spend some time reading Sowell, Walter Williams and a few others and, while we might not turn them into conservatives, they might begin to think and speak a bit more rationally in a way not totally dicated by mean spirited nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.
> 
> Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
> Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"
> 
> Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
> Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?
> 
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> October 9, 2008
> "I call Obama a squirrel. *What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR*."
> 
> Opening Monologue Sets the Table
> October 15, 2008
> RUSH:    The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone?  Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain.  Where is there any anger whatsoever?  And *the sharply personal attacks on Obama.  What sharply personal attacks?*  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks?  "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack,* himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears.  What's the big deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context,* why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.
> 
> When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.
> 
> Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
Click to expand...

That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen. 

That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.

What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????

Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,


----------



## txlonghorn

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



I think you're confusing that with Air America...wait, is it still around?


----------



## txlonghorn

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.
> 
> Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
> Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"
> 
> Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
> Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?
> 
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> October 9, 2008
> "I call Obama a squirrel. *What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR*."
> 
> Opening Monologue Sets the Table
> October 15, 2008
> RUSH:    The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone?  Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain.  Where is there any anger whatsoever?  And *the sharply personal attacks on Obama.  What sharply personal attacks?*  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks?  "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack,* himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears.  What's the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context,* why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.
> 
> When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.
> 
> Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.
> 
> That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
> I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.
> 
> What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????
> 
> Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,
Click to expand...


I'm reading all of this and wondering to myself...did any of you EVER listen to Al Franken???  Talk about personal attacks!!!  JESUS!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have pulled that same dumb act on other threads, and every time I post examples you cut and run to play dumb on another thread.
> 
> Now, it's obvious you will pass off his lies as just "errors of fact," so I will give examples of "mean spiritedness."
> Is LimpBoy mean spirited when he calls Senator Harkin, "Dung Heap?"
> 
> Or how about calling Obama a little squirrel?
> Is he being deceitful when he denies calling Obama a little squirrel is a personal attack?
> 
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> October 9, 2008
> "I call Obama a squirrel. *What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR*."
> 
> Opening Monologue Sets the Table
> October 15, 2008
> RUSH:    The New York Times again today is suggesting their poll says attacks that McCain and Palin are making on Obama are backfiring, and McCain's campaign recent angry tone -- what angry tone?  Where is there any anger in the McCain campaign, especially with Senator McCain.  Where is there any anger whatsoever?  And *the sharply personal attacks on Obama.  What sharply personal attacks?*  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks?  "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack,* himself, Obama admits he's embarrassed by his ears.  What's the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context,* why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.
> 
> When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.
> 
> Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.
> 
> That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
> I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.
> 
> What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????
> 
> Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,
Click to expand...


Well apparently you don't understand the concept of context, and I simply don't have the patience to teach it to you tonight.  Do have a good evening.


----------



## sitarro

txlonghorn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context,* why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.
> 
> When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.
> 
> Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.
> 
> That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
> I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.
> 
> What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????
> 
> Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading all of this and wondering to myself...did any of you EVER listen to Al Franken???  Talk about personal attacks!!!  JESUS!!!
Click to expand...


Of course there is that sweet, decent girl named Randi Rhodes....... 
[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960Qq3pupa4&feature=player_embedded"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960Qq3pupa4&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

or Mike Malloy, I heard him wish for President Bush's death one night.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When you are too dishonest to even put the first quote you used into its full context,* why should I take you seriously about anything?  So, even ignoring all the grasping at straws that you are trying to hold up as proof of only God knows what, you have discredited yourself right there.
> 
> When you are willing to articulate a rationale and full context to analyze Rush's point of view, then we might have a discussion about whether you are disliking him because of his ideology or perception or whether you have a valid complaint that he is somehow subverting America or whatever.
> 
> Until then I think I will leave you to enjoy doing whatever it is you do here, and I will focus my rather limited time on those who are willing to articulate a rationale for their opinion that has more substance than sound bites and angry or hateful adjectives.
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most pathetic cop out I've ever seen.
> 
> That quote came directly from Stuttering LimpBoy's own "Pearls of Wisdom" quotes that he edited himself. He apparently felt that quote contained the exact context he wanted. Here's the link to his home page for the quote: RushLimbaugh.com Home - Thursday October 9
> I challenge you to find some larger context for the quote anywhere else on that site from that day. That was the "full context" of the quote, you know it and I know it.
> 
> What other possible other context can there be other than his mean spiritedly calling Obama a RAT with better PR???????????
> 
> Without some CON$ervative pundit to tell you what to say, you are completely lost trying to come up with a rationalization on your own,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well apparently you don't understand the concept of context, and I simply don't have the patience to teach it to you tonight.  Do have a good evening.
Click to expand...

All you have is CON$ervative arrogant condescension. 

You certainly have no context beyond the quote LimpBoy himself chose to post as one of his "pearls of wisdom." If it is out of context, then blame him for not saying more.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

I think a lot of conservative talk radio analysts have a core belief that our government is a corrupt body of lawyers and other scoundrels who have completely ruined our nation at the expense of our people. They refuse to be slaves to poor government because they actually care about the welfare of our nation. 

I remember when Wry and liberals spoke words to that effect, but now feel that conservative talk radio analysts are the reason our nation is screwed.

That about sums up Wry and liberals. 

Slaves to a poor system.


----------



## Titanic Sailor

How's the change going?


----------



## Foxfyre

Titanic Sailor said:


> I think a lot of conservative talk radio analysts have a core belief that our government is a corrupt body of lawyers and other scoundrels who have completely ruined our nation at the expense of our people. They refuse to be slaves to poor government because they actually care about the welfare of our nation.



I think you've pretty well zeroed in on the heart of it here.  When I listen in on Rush from time to time, he strongly objects to Republicans who vote liberal, but he's still hanging in there with the Republican Party as he is convinced that it is a newly awakened GOP that will save us from the reckless socialism the current administration advocates.

Hannity is far more likely to take on the GOP head on and is much less of a politican than Rush is.

Both advocate solid conservative values and both want our country to again focus on those core principles that have made us the great nation that we are.  Both are convinced that the current administration, Democrats and a few Republicans, are trying to dismantle that.

Michael Savage rants and raves about everybody and everything and despises his fellow conservatives because they aren't conservative enough.  Also after he has trashed them again and again and has never, at least when I've listened in, defended them in anything, he resents that they don't rush to his defense when he is attacked.    Nevertheless, if you get through the rants and raves and listen to what he is actually saying, he is right a lot of the time and he does not deserve the rep for 'hate speech' that he gets.

Laura Ingraham is probably most like Rush in her approach and philosophy but without using as much humor and, alas, the sometimes poor taste humor that Rush uses.  But she doesn't pull anywhere near the ratings that he does.

Glenn Beck is a relative newcomer, but he isn't afraid of the kook label and therefore bravely plows into theories and concepts that the others won't touch.  And, because he is so well researched and has turned out to be right so often, he has been judged as valuable for that reason.  He has Rush's flair for being entertaining too.

And I've listened in on local hosts and other syndicated conservative lesser well knowns (Medved, Reagan, Hedgecock, Liddy et al) and all have their plusses and minuses, but each one obviously loves and respects his country and advocates solid conservative principles.

Conservative principles can be articulated, defended, and can be shown to work.  Very few liberal principles can.  And that is why conservative talk radio is far more successful than liberal talk radio.


----------



## MarcATL

DiveCon said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Moran" is a reference to the bunch of tea-bagging ignoramuses that didn't know how to spell last summer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> *ROTFLMAO!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, i believe that was from 2 summers ago
> 
> moron
> during the campaign of 2008 and the dem primaries if i remember correctly
Click to expand...

I think you're right.

The point, however, is that the far-rightwing nutjobs are ignorant.


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *btw,  Jets 24, Texans 0 (Mea Culpa, Jets 27, Texans 0)*
> 
> 
> 
> you fucking LIAR
Click to expand...


Not a liar, I simply made a mistake.  Of course the Jets played the Bengals, and the loss by the Bengals eliminated the Texans.
I was wrong.  As for me being a liar, why?  I suppose a coward who hides behind a keyboard gets off writing, "you fucking LIAR"; it must make them feel manly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true?  Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.


----------



## MarcATL

Foxfyre said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of conservative talk radio analysts have a core belief that our government is a corrupt body of lawyers and other scoundrels who have completely ruined our nation at the expense of our people. They refuse to be slaves to poor government because they actually care about the welfare of our nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've pretty well zeroed in on the heart of it here.  When I listen in on Rush from time to time, he strongly objects to Republicans who vote liberal, but he's still hanging in there with the Republican Party as he is convinced that it is a newly awakened GOP that will save us from the reckless socialism the current administration advocates.
> 
> Hannity is far more likely to take on the GOP head on and is much less of a politican than Rush is.
> 
> Both advocate solid conservative values and both want our country to again focus on those core principles that have made us the great nation that we are.  Both are convinced that the current administration, Democrats and a few Republicans, are trying to dismantle that.
> 
> Michael Savage rants and raves about everybody and everything and despises his fellow conservatives because they aren't conservative enough.  Also after he has trashed them again and again and has never, at least when I've listened in, defended them in anything, he resents that they don't rush to his defense when he is attacked.    Nevertheless, if you get through the rants and raves and listen to what he is actually saying, he is right a lot of the time and he does not deserve the rep for 'hate speech' that he gets.
> 
> Laura Ingraham is probably most like Rush in her approach and philosophy but without using as much humor and, alas, the sometimes poor taste humor that Rush uses.  But she doesn't pull anywhere near the ratings that he does.
> 
> Glenn Beck is a relative newcomer, but he isn't afraid of the kook label and therefore bravely plows into theories and concepts that the others won't touch.  And, because he is so well researched and has turned out to be right so often, he has been judged as valuable for that reason.  He has Rush's flair for being entertaining too.
> 
> And I've listened in on local hosts and other syndicated conservative lesser well knowns (Medved, Reagan, Hedgecock, Liddy et al) and all have their plusses and minuses, but each one obviously loves and respects his country and advocates solid conservative principles.
> 
> Conservative principles can be articulated, defended, and can be shown to work.  Very few liberal principles can.  And that is why conservative talk radio is far more successful than liberal talk radio.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMWIAO @ these born again conservatives...

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!*
























Classic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Laugh away, but you still have no credible facts to dispute anything, and personal insults, ad hominem, and ridicule just make you look like you're working really hard to cover up ignorance.


----------



## MarcATL

Foxfyre said:


> Laugh away, but you still have no credible facts to dispute anything, and personal insults, ad hominem, and ridicule just make you look like you're working really hard to cover up ignorance.


FOXFyre, hmmm...reminiscent of FOXNews.

Speaking about ignorance, why don't you go ahead and click on the article in my siggy, give it a read and tell me what you think?

It was written by a true conservative BTW.


----------



## Foxfyre

MarcATL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh away, but you still have no credible facts to dispute anything, and personal insults, ad hominem, and ridicule just make you look like you're working really hard to cover up ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> FOXFyre, hmmm...reminiscent of FOXNews.
> 
> Speaking about ignorance, why don't you go ahead and click on the article in my siggy, give it a read and tell me what you think?
> 
> It was written by a true conservative BTW.
Click to expand...


I've read a lot of Bruce Bartlett.  I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others just as I do with most people.  This article is no different.   Why don't you post the article in a separate thread and invite a discussion?  It would probably be a good one.


----------



## MarcATL

Foxfyre said:


> I've read a lot of Bruce Bartlett.  I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others just as I do with most people.  This article is no different.   *Why don't you post the article in a separate thread and invite a discussion?*  It would probably be a good one.


Do a search FOXFyre...been there, done that.

I'm curious though...what in that article do you disagree with? And what do you agree with?


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh away, but you still have no credible facts to dispute anything, and personal insults, ad hominem, and ridicule just make you look like you're working really hard to cover up ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> FOXFyre, hmmm...reminiscent of FOXNews.
> 
> Speaking about ignorance, why don't you go ahead and click on the article in my siggy, give it a read and tell me what you think?
> 
> It was written by a true conservative BTW.
Click to expand...

typical ignorant bullshit from you, you ASSume that her name has anything to do with fox news
you are just proving me correct in just calling you a fucking moron with every post


----------



## MarcATL

*looking up*

DiveNeo-Con, don't you be mean...MORAN?


----------



## Murf76

These poor libs don't know what they're missing....  Mark Steyn subbing for Rush just now... encouraging us to convert to Amish so we can do our barn-raising without paying the healthcare tax.  

See.  These  socialists trying to stick us with the bill aren't going to know the ins and outs of the new system, and all because they're too stuck-up to listen to talk radio.  How sad... for them.  We'll all be Amish... and they'll all be paying the tab.


----------



## MarcATL

Murf76 said:


> These poor libs don't know what they're missing....  Mark Steyn subbing for Rush just now... encouraging us to convert to Amish so we can do our barn-raising without paying the healthcare tax.
> 
> See.  These  socialists trying to stick us with the bill aren't going to know the ins and outs of the new system, and all because they're too stuck-up to listen to talk radio.  How sad... for them.  We'll all be Amish... and they'll all be paying the tab.


Glad to know you're currently listing to RW talk radio.

Now tell me, tell us, the rest of the class...what have you learned today on RW radio?


----------



## Murf76

MarcATL said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These poor libs don't know what they're missing....  Mark Steyn subbing for Rush just now... encouraging us to convert to Amish so we can do our barn-raising without paying the healthcare tax.
> 
> See.  These  socialists trying to stick us with the bill aren't going to know the ins and outs of the new system, and all because they're too stuck-up to listen to talk radio.  How sad... for them.  We'll all be Amish... and they'll all be paying the tab.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know you're currently listing to RW talk radio.
> 
> Now tell me, tell us, the rest of the class...what have you learned today on RW radio?
Click to expand...


.... I learned that I can stick you with the healthcare fine and avoid it myself by saying I'm Amish.


----------



## MarcATL

Murf76 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These poor libs don't know what they're missing....  Mark Steyn subbing for Rush just now... encouraging us to convert to Amish so we can do our barn-raising without paying the healthcare tax.
> 
> See.  These  socialists trying to stick us with the bill aren't going to know the ins and outs of the new system, and all because they're too stuck-up to listen to talk radio.  How sad... for them.  We'll all be Amish... and they'll all be paying the tab.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know you're currently listing to RW talk radio.
> 
> Now tell me, tell us, the rest of the class...what have you learned today on RW radio?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .... I learned that I can stick you with the healthcare fine and avoid it myself by saying I'm Amish.
Click to expand...

No problem. I don't mind my tax money going towards people who are unable to afford health care for whatever reason.


----------



## Murf76

MarcATL said:


> No problem. I don't mind my tax money going towards people who are unable to afford health care for whatever reason.



Good to know.  Maybe you'd be nice enough to post your name and address, so we can all send you our tax bills.


----------



## DiveCon

MarcATL said:


> *looking up*
> 
> DiveNeo-Con, don't you be mean...MORAN?


thus proving me correct once again


----------



## dan22

We need Freedom to come back to america


----------



## MarcATL

When was FreeDom lost Dan?


----------



## DiveCon

dan22 said:


> We need Freedom to come back to america


it hasnt left


----------



## MarcATL

According to dan22 there...FreeDom has been taken away.

I'd like to know WHO took it? And WHEN did they take it?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

I think some Conservative Talk Radio is great but some is not so great. I mainly listen to Conservative Talk Radio to balance out the Liberal dominance of the overall Mainstream Media. Liberals really do dominate most of the MSM News we receive. There's a Liberal slant to their coverage for the most part. I think most common sense thinking people can see this. Media outlets like CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,PBS,NPR,and the NY Times do slant their coverage far Left. It is what it is. Conservative Talk Radio provides at least a little balance in my opinion. It's not all great but some of it is. Hey that's just my take anyway.


----------



## Foxfyre

Murf76 said:


> These poor libs don't know what they're missing....  Mark Steyn subbing for Rush just now... encouraging us to convert to Amish so we can do our barn-raising without paying the healthcare tax.
> 
> See.  These  socialists trying to stick us with the bill aren't going to know the ins and outs of the new system, and all because they're too stuck-up to listen to talk radio.  How sad... for them.  We'll all be Amish... and they'll all be paying the tab.



I did catch a bit of Mark this morning and he was really on a roll.  He (and you), however tongue in cheek, do make a very good point.


----------



## MarcATL

LibocalypseNow said:


> I think some Conservative Talk Radio is great but some is not so great. I mainly listen to Conservative Talk Radio to balance out the Liberal dominance of the overall Mainstream Media. Liberals really do dominate most of the MSM News we receive. There's a Liberal slant to their coverage for the most part. I think most common sense thinking people can see this. Media outlets like CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,PBS,NPR,and the NY Times do slant their coverage far Left. It is what it is. Conservative Talk Radio provides at least a little balance in my opinion. It's not all great but some of it is. Hey that's just my take anyway.


Snap out of it Apocalypto...the last 8 years should have squashed that Neo-Con talking point about "da librul media."


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Funny how the Neo-Nazi's wet their pants over conservative radio shows.... strangly reminsicent of the German Socialist Movement of the late 30's.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Hope and Change = Nationalsozialismus


----------



## LibocalypseNow

If it weren't for Fox News and Talk Radio there would be absolutely no Conservative representation in the Mainstream Media. Most of the MSM leans far Left and i really do think most common sense thinking people understand this. There are very few Conservative MSM outlets in this country. Fox News & Talk Radio provide a little balance but the vast majority of the MSM still pushes a Left agenda. For example,i used to like NPR & PBS but they have now gone so far Left in their reporting that i just had to stop watching and listening. This goes for CNN,NBC,ABC,CBS,and most major Newspapers as well. Some balance is better than no balance and Fox News and Talk Radio provide this.


----------



## Foxfyre

LibocalypseNow said:


> I think some Conservative Talk Radio is great but some is not so great. I mainly listen to Conservative Talk Radio to balance out the Liberal dominance of the overall Mainstream Media. Liberals really do dominate most of the MSM News we receive. There's a Liberal slant to their coverage for the most part. I think most common sense thinking people can see this. Media outlets like CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,PBS,NPR,and the NY Times do slant their coverage far Left. It is what it is. Conservative Talk Radio provides at least a little balance in my opinion. It's not all great but some of it is. Hey that's just my take anyway.



No quarrel with that.  I think you pretty well nailed it for anybody who actually wants to be informed rather than just indoctrinated.  I don't like all of conservative talk radio or the very limited amount of conservative TV there is either.  There aren't any of the hosts either on TV or radio who hold my interest all the time, but God bless them for being out there to provide that balance.  Without them we would be at the mercy of leftwing indoctrination and would have no way to get any kind of different perspective.


----------



## Foxfyre

MarcATL said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a lot of Bruce Bartlett.  I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others just as I do with most people.  This article is no different.   *Why don't you post the article in a separate thread and invite a discussion?*  It would probably be a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> Do a search FOXFyre...been there, done that.
> 
> I'm curious though...what in that article do you disagree with? And what do you agree with?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I'm pretty old fashioned and not all that up on some of this high tech stuff. But if you'll post a link to the thread related to that article, I'll be happy to comment on it there.


----------



## ozzmdj

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 


RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut -- breaking news from CNN.  It's a poll, and in this poll half of the respondents, half of the American people think the Obama presidency has been a failure.  Whoa.  Did I call it or did I call it?  "Americans are giving Barack Obama a split decision on his first year in office, according to a national poll released Tuesday.  Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey said Obama's presidency has been a failure so far, while 47 percent of respondents said the year has been a success.  The poll's release came just eight days before Obama marks one year in the White House." (interruption) Oh, yeah, they're asking me to be on all of them, Snerdley.  I mean every network is doing a one-year look-back.  In Europe the BBC wants me, Polish TV wants me, Al Jazeera wants me.  Honest to Allah, Al Jazeera wants me on a year-end review of Obama's presidency.  ABC, CBS, NBC, they all do.  I don't want to do 'em.  

Snerdley, I have to turn over a new leaf here.  I still do too many things out of a sense of obligation rather than desire.  And every time I say I'll do something when I really don't want to do it I'm doing it because I think I either should or it's easier to say yes than no, and I end up getting mad at myself.  And when the day comes that I've said yes, I'll do it, I am mad the whole day and I'm thinking about how I can lie to get out of it.  So I gotta trust my instincts.  I don't want to do it.  I don't want to sit in front of a camera for 45 minutes for maybe two minutes of it to air.  I don't need to.  They're a year behind.  I said I hope he fails a year ago.  They're just now concluding that he has.  This is what being on the cutting edge is all about.  So, no, I really don't want to do it.  I was tempted by Al Jazeera but I was more amused than tempted by Al Jazeera.  

Philip Klein, the American Spectator blog: "I see this Public Policy Polling survey showing Rep. Larry Kissell, a freshman swing district Democrat from North Carolina, doing quite well -- beating a generic Republican by 14 points and his potential Republican rivals by 14 points to 18 points. Why is he doing so well while other swing districts are trending toward the GOP? The difference, says the Democratic polling firm PPP, is his vote against the health care bill."  So the Democrats who voted against health care in the House are doing well in local polling for reelection.  Now, remember, Bill Clinton and everybody went out and told these guys, "If you don't vote for this you're going to lose.  The reason that we lost the House is because we didn't pass health care in 1994."  And, of course, it was just the exact opposite.  And now there's polling data out there to actually document this. 




END TRANSCRIPT


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rush Limbaugh, the Minister of Truth, and his show is a great example of "Doublethink" as are Tea Parties rallies mindful of hate week.
You 'cons' need to read 1984, a novel so descriptive of what you have become it is scary.  It's almost as if George Orwell had a time machine which enabled him to see today's right wing from 1948.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Rush Limbaugh, the Minister of Truth, and his show is a great example of "Doublethink" as are Tea Parties rallies mindful of hate week.
> You 'cons' need to read 1984, a novel so descriptive of what you have become it is scary.  It's almost as if George Orwell had a time machine which enabled him to see today's right wing from 1948.



Project much?

Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, the Minister of Truth, and his show is a great example of "Doublethink" as are Tea Parties rallies mindful of hate week.
> You 'cons' need to read 1984, a novel so descriptive of what you have become it is scary.  It's almost as if George Orwell had a time machine which enabled him to see today's right wing from 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss
Click to expand...

In high def too.


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, the Minister of Truth, and his show is a great example of "Doublethink" as are Tea Parties rallies mindful of hate week.
> You 'cons' need to read 1984, a novel so descriptive of what you have become it is scary.  It's almost as if George Orwell had a time machine which enabled him to see today's right wing from 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss
Click to expand...


Don't these Libs know, only CON$ can condemn people for making a profit!!!!! 

January 12, 2010
RUSH: ... they saved it for the sake of profit.  They saved the information for a book which is being sold for cash money.  They saved it, they withheld the news for profit.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, the Minister of Truth, and his show is a great example of "Doublethink" as are Tea Parties rallies mindful of hate week.
> You 'cons' need to read 1984, a novel so descriptive of what you have become it is scary.  It's almost as if George Orwell had a time machine which enabled him to see today's right wing from 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't these Libs know, only CON$ can condemn people for making a profit!!!!!
> 
> January 12, 2010
> RUSH: ... they saved it for the sake of profit.  They saved the information for a book which is being sold for cash money.  They saved it, they withheld the news for profit.
Click to expand...

leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
like you ALWAYS do
you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't these Libs know, only CON$ can condemn people for making a profit!!!!!
> 
> January 12, 2010
> RUSH: ... they saved it for the sake of profit.  They saved the information for a book which is being sold for cash money.  They saved it, they withheld the news for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
> like you ALWAYS do
> you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post
Click to expand...

It is far less out of context than the crapaganda the previous poster mindlessly parroted.
CON$ hate the fact that Libs are more financially successful than you jealous underachieving CON$. CON$ hate the achievers in this country, so lazy CON$ pretend to be more successful than they really are, and then project their insane jealousy on the more successful Libs. It never dawns on the CON$ervative slackers to get a job and work as hard as Libs to become as financially successful as Libs. 

September 2, 2008
RUSH:   America has made this man wealthy.  America has made this man obscenely wealthy,
 That's P. Diddy, ladies and gentlemen, the man America has made enormously wealthy by buying up his rotgut music and insulting John McCain and Sarah Palin.


----------



## noose4

Well in context this sure seems to be pretty fucked up

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdx_eSDSM0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdx_eSDSM0[/ame]

nahh this guy is not a racist.

Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti



> RUSH:  Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste.  This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate.  They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.  It's made-to-order for them.  That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Insurance companiessssssssss we hates them and their nasty profitsesesessssssssss!!!  Booooooooo!!! Boooooo!!!! Down with Insurance companies and their nasty profitssssss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't these Libs know, only CON$ can condemn people for making a profit!!!!!
> 
> January 12, 2010
> RUSH: ... they saved it for the sake of profit.  They saved the information for a book which is being sold for cash money.  They saved it, they withheld the news for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
> like you ALWAYS do
> you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post
Click to expand...


Is a "fucking idiot" different than a 'normal' run of the mill idiot?  Should I be greatly insulted to be called a "fucking Idiot" and not a stupid idiot?  Should I be at all insulted to be called names by you?  I don't like you DiveCon, I bet you piss in your wet suit and foul the Ocean much as you foul this message board with your profane idiotgrams.


----------



## edthecynic

noose4 said:


> Well in context this sure seems to be pretty fucked up
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdx_eSDSM0
> 
> nahh this guy is not a racist.
> 
> Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUSH:  Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste.  This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate.  They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.  It's made-to-order for them.  That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there
Click to expand...

Notice how the lying hypocrite edits out of his transcripts all his stuttering and "ahhhs" that he ridicules Obama for!

What I caught later in that rant was his lying rationalization for Obama directing people to whitehouse.gov to get info or donate.

There were a couple of obvious lies. Nowhere do you have to give contact info to Obama to make a donation, and Obama's speech FOLLOWS the donation info rather than precedes the info as the pathological liar claims.

Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti
January 13, 2010
CALLER:* Mega Rush Baby dittos.* My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he's talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov --

RUSH:* Yeah.

CALLER: -- to direct you how to do so.* If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and --

RUSH:* Exactly.* Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?

CALLER:* No.

RUSH:* Would you trust that *your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.*

CALLER:** Absolutely.*

RUSH:* *Absolutely right.*

RUSH:* Well, I'm glad you did and I'm glad you called, Carol.* Thanks very much.* I had somebody go to WhiteHouse.gov to see what the donation process is.* And this is all the guidance you get on donating to Haiti at the White House site.* *What I'm going to read to you is buried in a very long blog post about what Obama said about the earthquake.* You get that first, you gotta read what Obama said, the maximum leader, you gotta read what he says and then you get to the bottom and here's what it says.* "You can also help, immediately, by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort.* Contribute online here, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting Haiti.* Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information."** So that's all the guidance you get.* Now, that's pretty easy, text Haiti and you're gonna get billed for ten bucks and that money ostensibly is going to go to Haiti.

The White House
Help for Haiti | The White House

The White House Blog
Help for Haiti
Posted by Jesse Lee on January 13, 2010 at *09:53 AM EST*
The President has been receiving updates on the urgent situation in Haiti late into last night and throughout the day, and top members of his team have been convening to formulate the government response.**
You can also help immediately by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort. Contribute online to the Red Cross, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting "HAITI" to "90999."* Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.
Families of Americans living in Haiti are encouraged to contact the State Department at 888-407-4747.
Update: Watch the President's remarks this morning *below, or read the transcript.*


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't these Libs know, only CON$ can condemn people for making a profit!!!!!
> 
> January 12, 2010
> RUSH: ... they saved it for the sake of profit.  They saved the information for a book which is being sold for cash money.  They saved it, they withheld the news for profit.
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
> like you ALWAYS do
> you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a "fucking idiot" different than a 'normal' run of the mill idiot?  Should I be greatly insulted to be called a "fucking Idiot" and not a stupid idiot?  Should I be at all insulted to be called names by you?  I don't like you DiveCon, I bet you piss in your wet suit and foul the Ocean much as you foul this message board with your profane idiotgrams.
Click to expand...

Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.


----------



## elvis

ed has a secret crush on limbaugh.


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
> like you ALWAYS do
> you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a "fucking idiot" different than a 'normal' run of the mill idiot?  Should I be greatly insulted to be called a "fucking Idiot" and not a stupid idiot?  Should I be at all insulted to be called names by you?  I don't like you DiveCon, I bet you piss in your wet suit and foul the Ocean much as you foul this message board with your profane idiotgrams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

i wasnt then, but i have before
hes an asshole of the first order
and i really dont give a rats ass what HE thinks because he has shown he is an idiot also


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> leave it to a dipshit like you to take that totally out of context
> like you ALWAYS do
> you just keep proving yourself a fucking idiot with every post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a "fucking idiot" different than a 'normal' run of the mill idiot?  Should I be greatly insulted to be called a "fucking Idiot" and not a stupid idiot?  Should I be at all insulted to be called names by you?  I don't like you DiveCon, I bet you piss in your wet suit and foul the Ocean much as you foul this message board with your profane idiotgrams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a "fucking idiot" different than a 'normal' run of the mill idiot?  Should I be greatly insulted to be called a "fucking Idiot" and not a stupid idiot?  Should I be at all insulted to be called names by you?  I don't like you DiveCon, I bet you piss in your wet suit and foul the Ocean much as you foul this message board with your profane idiotgrams.
> 
> 
> 
> Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.
Click to expand...

how the fuck is that being a coward you whining idiot?
piss off

you just proved me right once again
thanks


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in context this sure seems to be pretty fucked up
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdx_eSDSM0
> 
> nahh this guy is not a racist.
> 
> Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUSH:  Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste.  This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate.  They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.  It's made-to-order for them.  That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how the lying hypocrite edits out of his transcripts all his stuttering and "ahhhs" that he ridicules Obama for!
> 
> What I caught later in that rant was his lying rationalization for Obama directing people to whitehouse.gov to get info or donate.
> 
> There were a couple of obvious lies. Nowhere do you have to give contact info to Obama to make a donation, and Obama's speech FOLLOWS the donation info rather than precedes the info as the pathological liar claims.
> 
> Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti
> January 13, 2010
> CALLER:* Mega Rush Baby dittos.* My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he's talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov --
> 
> RUSH:* Yeah.
> 
> CALLER: -- to direct you how to do so.* If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and --
> 
> RUSH:* Exactly.* Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
> 
> CALLER:* No.
> 
> RUSH:* Would you trust that *your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.*
> 
> CALLER:** Absolutely.*
> 
> RUSH:* *Absolutely right.*
> 
> RUSH:* Well, I'm glad you did and I'm glad you called, Carol.* Thanks very much.* I had somebody go to WhiteHouse.gov to see what the donation process is.* And this is all the guidance you get on donating to Haiti at the White House site.* *What I'm going to read to you is buried in a very long blog post about what Obama said about the earthquake.* You get that first, you gotta read what Obama said, the maximum leader, you gotta read what he says and then you get to the bottom and here's what it says.* "You can also help, immediately, by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort.* Contribute online here, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting Haiti.* Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information."** So that's all the guidance you get.* Now, that's pretty easy, text Haiti and you're gonna get billed for ten bucks and that money ostensibly is going to go to Haiti.
> 
> The White House
> Help for Haiti | The White House
> 
> The White House Blog
> Help for Haiti
> Posted by Jesse Lee on January 13, 2010 at *09:53 AM EST*
> The President has been receiving updates on the urgent situation in Haiti late into last night and throughout the day, and top members of his team have been convening to formulate the government response.**
> You can also help immediately by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort. Contribute online to the Red Cross, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting "HAITI" to "90999."* Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.
> Families of Americans living in Haiti are encouraged to contact the State Department at 888-407-4747.
> Update: Watch the President's remarks this morning *below, or read the transcript.*
Click to expand...




Meister said:


> edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.





elvis3577 said:


> ed has a secret crush on limbaugh.


Notice how the CON$ can't argue the fact that their MessiahRushie is LYING, so they resort to a personal attack on me instead. LimpBoy's lies don't phase CON$ one little bit, they only inspire CON$ to make ad hominem attacks, as they have been programmed to do.

And notice how that personal attack contradicts the CON$ personal attack of last week on another thread. Last week I never listened to LimpBoy and got my quotes from some unnamed Lib site, and this week I listen too much. 
First they say you can't criticize him if you don't listen to him and LimpBoy himself says you must listen to him at least 6 consecutive weeks to understand him, but if you take the time to really listen to him, you are STILL wrong to criticize him.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *how the fuck is that being a coward* you whining idiot?
> piss off
> 
> you just proved me right once again
> thanks
Click to expand...

Nobody plays DUMB better than DumbCon.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.
> 
> 
> 
> *how the fuck is that being a coward* you whining idiot?
> piss off
> 
> you just proved me right once again
> thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody plays DUMB better than DumbCon.
Click to expand...

don't underestimate yourself
LOL


oh wait, you don't play
LOL


----------



## Meister

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how the fuck is that being a coward* you whining idiot?
> piss off
> 
> you just proved me right once again
> thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody plays DUMB better than DumbCon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't underestimate yourself
> LOL
> 
> 
> oh wait, you don't play
> LOL
Click to expand...


Yup, your right there, Dive....ed isn't playing dumb


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dive wasn't naming calling you from what i read, Wry.  It goes directly to edthecynic, who seems to have an addiction to Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the fuck is that being a coward you whining idiot?
> piss off
> 
> you just proved me right once again
> thanks
Click to expand...


I've been in enough situations where cowardly punks called me and others out when they knew they were safe (such as sitting in the cage of a patrol car, or behind the 'door' in a jail cell).  Cowards are particularly brazen when seated in an interview room with cameras on, or sitting behind a keyboard.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, the cowardly divecon sent me a negative rep and this message:  "fuck off you pissant asswipe".  Divecon is a coward and like most cowards a bully who hides his cowardice behind macho language.
> 
> 
> 
> how the fuck is that being a coward you whining idiot?
> piss off
> 
> you just proved me right once again
> thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been in enough situations where cowardly punks called me and others out when they knew they were safe (such as sitting in the cage of a patrol car, or behind the 'door' in a jail cell).  Cowards are particularly brazen when seated in an interview room with cameras on, or sitting behind a keyboard.
Click to expand...

:Lol:
you just proved you are a fucking idiot
thanks


----------



## ozzmdj

On Friday's Mark Levin Show: If Reagan or Bush were currently President, the response by the mainstream media with the pace of aid being delivered to Haiti would be a lot different. The people there are in desperate need and we need to get them help and relief as quickly as possible. Mark also discusses the Massachusetts Senate race and how no matter where you live in the country, you can still help out. The American people are fed up and rising up about the direction our country is going, and they don't want it to continue this way. The time is now and the Democrats are becoming scared that their Marxist policies might lose strength.


----------



## edthecynic

ozzmdj said:


> On Friday's Mark Levin Show: If Reagan or Bush were currently President, the response by the mainstream media with the pace of aid being delivered to Haiti would be a lot different.


Keep playing that Perpetual Victim card! 
You crybabies don't whine enough about how everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.


----------



## logical4u

Political Junky said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.......
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to Michael Weiner [Savage] sometimes when there's nothing else interesting on. It's entertaining to hear that fool rant and carry on. He changes from one person to another day to day, if not within the same show. He lit into Hannity yesterday, saying that Hannity should put on an apron and tend bar.
Click to expand...


Do you think that was a racist statement (against the Irish)?


----------



## Foxfyre

logical4u said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.......
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to Michael Weiner [Savage] sometimes when there's nothing else interesting on. It's entertaining to hear that fool rant and carry on. He changes from one person to another day to day, if not within the same show. He lit into Hannity yesterday, saying that Hannity should put on an apron and tend bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that was a racist statement (against the Irish)?
Click to expand...




Michael Savage has had nothing but sneering scorn for Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or any of the other conservative talk show hosts, has never defended any of them when unfairly attacked, and has repeatedly (and annoyingly) expressed how superior he is to any of them.  Then he whines when they don't rush to his defense when he is under attack.

Nevertheless, he does take on topics that the others won't touch and he too gets it right a lot of the time which is why he is ranked/rated #3 among talk radio hosts. I have to take him in small doses, but he is on in the evenings here and I occasionally have him running in the background when I work nights.  He offers a different perspective, and, like the others, occasionally comes up with something I didn't know or has me scurrying to research to see if he is right.  He usually is.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday's Mark Levin Show: If Reagan or Bush were currently President, the response by the mainstream media with the pace of aid being delivered to Haiti would be a lot different.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep playing that Perpetual Victim card!
> You crybabies don't whine enough about how everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.
Click to expand...


It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.  Bush's response to the Tsunami in Indonesia was exemplary, but no praise from the press.

Obama was being praised by the same press for his response four days later when they were still not getting food and water and medical supplies to the victims.  And Obama wasn't being stalled by the existing government either.

I'm not saying that President Bush's team did a good job with Katrina in all respects because it didn't.   But it didn't get credit for what it did do either.  President Obama is being praised for exemplary response when little or nothing had happened yet and any mistakes will not likely show up on the evening NBC news.

There is a double standard and anybody with a brain or who is the least bit fair minded knows it.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday's Mark Levin Show: If Reagan or Bush were currently President, the response by the mainstream media with the pace of aid being delivered to Haiti would be a lot different.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep playing that Perpetual Victim card!
> You crybabies don't whine enough about how everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT!!!!!!

Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE

Monday, August 29
7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE 

Wednesday, August 31
11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.

3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.

Thursday, September 1
MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.

Friday, September 2
10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.

BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.

BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep playing that Perpetual Victim card!
> You crybabies don't whine enough about how everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT &#8212; KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT &#8212; FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Brown&#8217;s press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: &#8220;He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.&#8221;
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: &#8220;With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center &#8212; and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them &#8212; collecting a body was no one&#8217;s priority. &#8230; Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.&#8221;
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: &#8220;We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.&#8221;
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT &#8212; BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: &#8220;Brownie, you&#8217;re doing a heck of a job.&#8221;
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: &#8220;Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bush&#8217;s visit to New Orleans, officials said.&#8221;
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTT&#8217;S HOUSE: &#8220;Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott&#8217;s house &#8212; he&#8217;s lost his entire house &#8212; there&#8217;s going to be a fantastic house. And I&#8217;m looking forward to sitting on the porch.&#8221; Time called the remarks &#8220;astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.&#8221;
Click to expand...


Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?  At least you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.

One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.


----------



## skookerasbil

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep playing that Perpetual Victim card!
> You crybabies don't whine enough about how everybody picks on you dear sweet CON$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
Click to expand...








Katrina = this simple......................


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or *made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?*  At least you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
Click to expand...

Still parroting your brainwashing without even clicking on the link, which makes you more functionally illiterate than most.

Every quote is linked to its source, such as, the Office of the Governor, the White House, DOD, CNN, the National Weather Service, and numerous local and national newspapers and wire servaces.

One of these days you mindless CON$ will actually check something for yourself and I'm going to be major impressed. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.


----------



## MIPS

Wry Catcher said:


> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.




Blah, blah, blah, how typical, attack the man and his audience but always fail to refute his arguments, I hope you realize that Americans are waking up to this old, tired tactic of "debate" and most of us really don't care anymore.  

That being said, Rush Limbaugh 1, You and Your IlK 0, have a nice day.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or *made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?*  At least you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still parroting your brainwashing without even clicking on the link, which makes you more functionally illiterate than most.
> 
> Every quote is linked to its source, such as, the Office of the Governor, the White House, DOD, CNN, the National Weather Service, and numerous local and national newspapers and wire servaces.
> 
> One of these days you mindless CON$ will actually check something for yourself and I'm going to be major impressed. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
Click to expand...


You may not be entirely functionally literate if you don't know the definition of 'cherry picked', but then you've already shown that you don't understand what 'in context' means.  But have a great day anyway.


----------



## Wry Catcher

MIPS said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, how typical, attack the man and his audience but always fail to refute his arguments, I hope you realize that Americans are waking up to this old, tired tactic of "debate" and most of us really don't care anymore.
> 
> That being said, Rush Limbaugh 1, You and Your IlK 0, have a nice day.
Click to expand...


In my informed opinion, Limbaugh never argues an issue, he starts with a false premise, and build a case against a strawman.  Those who taken a college level course in critical thinking, or a course in logic, quickly see through his sophistry.  
Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court.  Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.


----------



## MIPS

Wry Catcher said:


> .
> Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court.  Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.



Actually I found your post rather inane and only responded to it because it was so typical of the fodder commonly found on message boards of this type, i.e. you "ditto heads" are blah, blah because you pay attention to <insert some talking heads name here> says, if you wish to impress somebody, you're going to have to try much harder than you have up to this point. 

That being said, feel free to continue demonstrating your "sheephood", I'm very hopeful that it'll prove entertaining at some point along the way and while you're at it have yourself an excellent day!


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> MIPS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is Limbaugh is a sophist, a hypocrite, arrogant and does lead a whole lot of ditto heads into believing in an ideology based  primarily on selfishness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, how typical, attack the man and his audience but always fail to refute his arguments, I hope you realize that Americans are waking up to this old, tired tactic of "debate" and most of us really don't care anymore.
> 
> That being said, Rush Limbaugh 1, You and Your IlK 0, have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my informed opinion, Limbaugh never argues an issue, he starts with a false premise, and build a case against a strawman.  Those who taken a college level course in critical thinking, or a course in logic, quickly see through his sophistry.
> Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court.  Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.
Click to expand...


You require the member to provide a valid argument of Limbaugh's rhetoric but do not require that of yourself?

I have taken a college level course in criticial thinking and I also know the definition of sophistry.  Your statement could easily be interpreted as an excellent illustration of sophistry woven into a prejudicial statement grounded in no basis of fact.

Perhaps if you provided an illustration to support your statement, you would have more justification in asking another member to do so.


----------



## Wry Catcher

MIPS said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court.  Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I found your post rather inane and only responded to it because it was so typical of the fodder commonly found on message boards of this type, i.e. you "ditto heads" are blah, blah because you pay attention to <insert some talking heads name here> says, if you wish to impress somebody, you're going to have to try much harder than you have up to this point.
> 
> That being said, feel free to continue demonstrating your "sheephood", I'm very hopeful that it'll prove entertaining at some point along the way and while you're at it have yourself an excellent day!
Click to expand...


So, you can't provide a valid argument, and you called me a name in an oblique manner  - what a surprise.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?  At ast you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
Click to expand...


One of these days, one of YOU guys will realize most of us were alive and watching as the Katrina debacle unfolded.  The MSM was on top of the story before landfall, and the Bush Administration was AWOL.  
Candy was shoe shopping, Bush was at a Birthday Party and Cheney was playing Risk with real people.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?  At ast you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of these days, one of YOU guys will realize most of us were alive and watching as the Katrina debacle unfolded.  The MSM was on top of the story before landfall, and the Bush Administration was AWOL.
> Candy was shoe shopping, Bush was at a Birthday Party and Cheney was playing Risk with real people.
Click to expand...


And some of us get our information from more reliable and less intentionally dishonest sources than Think Progress and Daily KOS.


----------



## sitarro

skookerasbil said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't playing a victim card.  It's a fact.  Bush was absolutely crucified by the press because of slow response to Katrina, yet FEMAs response to Katrina was getting in food and water and medical supplies to the victims within a couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katrina = this simple......................
Click to expand...


No shit! I was sitting at home in Houston saying that this was finally going to be the one that flushed the toilet that is known as New Orleans, anyone watching and I guarantee that everyone in NO were watching, anyone that stayed were suicidal. It's not like Katrina was just going to collapse right before hitting the coast line. The predictions were that the she would follow the Mississippi up to Pontchartrain and then just park itself over the lake and empty it into New Orleans......... that didn't happen(there wouldn't be a New Orleans left if it had). It turned East at the last second and destroyed the Mississippi coast. As bad as it was, it could have been a lot worse. I am from Louisiana and the predictions have been the same for as long as I remember, the Mississippi is going to decide that it doesn't like the way the Corps of Engineers has directed it and it would just wash New Orleans away one day. If the levees on the banks of the Mississippi had failed, there would be a huge section of the Gulf where New Orleans used to be.

Those that blame anyone but the incompetent governments in New Orleans and Louisiana for well over 30 years is full of shit. New Orleans knew this would happen eventually and there were suggestions of stocking up food and water at numerous locations including the convention center and the Super Dome, I'm sure some politician pocketed the funds. The Federal government were there immediately doing what the were suppose to do, rescuing people off of roof tops by the thousands. The extraordinarily brave acts by the U.S. Coast Guard saved over a thousand people and they barely get any credit. The city of New Orleans did nothing, Ray Nagin was in Baton Rouge. Governor Kathleen Blanco and her staff were easily the most dimwitted in the whole debacle.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!
> 
> Think Progress » KATRINA TIMELINE
> 
> Monday, August 29
> 7AM CDT  KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE
> 
> Wednesday, August 31
> 11:20 AM CDT  FEMA STAFF WARNED BROWN THAT PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE SUPERDOME: Three hours later, Browns press secretary wrote to colleagues complaining that Brown needed more time scheduled to eat at a restaurant: He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
> 
> 3,000 STRANDED AT CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER: With 3,000 or more evacuees stranded at the convention center  and with no apparent contingency plan or authority to deal with them  collecting a body was no ones priority.  Some had been at the convention center since Tuesday morning but had received no food, water or instructions.
> 
> Thursday, September 1
> MICHAEL BROWN FINALLY LEARNS OF EVACUEES IN CONVENTION CENTER: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.
> 
> Friday, September 2
> 10:35AM CDT  BUSH PRAISES MICHAEL BROWN: Brownie, youre doing a heck of a job.
> 
> BUSH VISIT GROUNDS FOOD AID: Three tons of food ready for delivery by air to refugees in St. Bernard Parish and on Algiers Point sat on the Crescent City Connection bridge Friday afternoon as air traffic was halted because of President Bushs visit to New Orleans, officials said.
> 
> BUSH COMMENTS ON SEN. TRENT LOTTS HOUSE: Out of the rubbles of Trent Lotts house  hes lost his entire house  theres going to be a fantastic house. And Im looking forward to sitting on the porch. Time called the remarks astonishingly tone-deaf to the homeless black citizens still trapped in the postapocalyptic water world of New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?  At ast you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of these days, one of YOU guys will realize most of us were alive and watching as the Katrina debacle unfolded.  The MSM was on top of the story before landfall, and the Bush Administration was AWOL.
> Candy was shoe shopping, Bush was at a Birthday Party and Cheney was playing Risk with real people.
Click to expand...

what a fucking joke

the MSM was reporting all kinds of falsehoods during katrina
all over it, LOL
you have shown you lack what you claim others lack, critical thinking skills


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or *made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?*  At least you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Still parroting your brainwashing without even clicking on the link, which makes you more functionally illiterate than most.
> 
> Every quote is linked to its source, such as, the Office of the Governor, the White House, DOD, CNN, the National Weather Service, and numerous local and national newspapers and wire servaces.
> 
> One of these days you mindless CON$ will actually check something for yourself and I'm going to be major impressed. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not be entirely functionally literate if you don't know the definition of 'cherry picked', but then you've already shown that you don't understand what 'in context' means.  But have a great day anyway.
Click to expand...

But you are entirely brainwashed since you could not show one single "made up quote" nor could you show any other "context" even though each quote contained a link to the ENTIRE article it came from. So I do know BULLSHIT when you post it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah another Think Progress collection of cherry picked or made up quotes gathered and repeated from other hate site eh?  At ast you know where to go to get this stuff which makes you less functionally illiterate than some.  Pretty much the same list found at Daily Kos or I hate Bush or Republicans Suck or similar sites.
> 
> One of these days, one of you guys is actually going to actually use a credible source and I'm going to be major impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, one of YOU guys will realize most of us were alive and watching as the Katrina debacle unfolded.  The MSM was on top of the story before landfall, and the Bush Administration was AWOL.
> Candy was shoe shopping, Bush was at a Birthday Party and Cheney was playing Risk with real people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And some of us get our information from more reliable and less intentionally dishonest sources than Think Progress and Daily KOS.
Click to expand...


Of course, so do I.  I have never read anything from either of those sources.  And, I do tune in to Fox and Limbaugh regularly - at least until I start laughing so hard at their piss poor effort to guise propaganda as news, also known as intentinally dishonest reporting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, one of YOU guys will realize most of us were alive and watching as the Katrina debacle unfolded.  The MSM was on top of the story before landfall, and the Bush Administration was AWOL.
> Candy was shoe shopping, Bush was at a Birthday Party and Cheney was playing Risk with real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us get our information from more reliable and less intentionally dishonest sources than Think Progress and Daily KOS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, so do I.  I have never read anything from either of those sources.  And, I do tune in to Fox and Limbaugh regularly - at least until I start laughing so hard at their piss poor effort to guise propaganda as news, also known as intentinally dishonest reporting.
Click to expand...


Yeah well, you keep repeating that Wry.  A few here are gullible enough to believe you.  If you say it often enough you might even believe it yourself.  Maybe you already do.  It sure doesn't show in your posts, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.

(You might start with considering why you would defend a post from a source that you say you've never read anything from.)


----------



## Wry Catcher

Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to describe the MSM as having a liberal bias:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And some of us get our information from more reliable and less intentionally dishonest sources than Think Progress and Daily KOS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, so do I.  I have never read anything from either of those sources.  And, I do tune in to Fox and Limbaugh regularly - at least until I start laughing so hard at their piss poor effort to guise propaganda as news, also known as intentinally dishonest reporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, you keep repeating that Wry.  A few here are gullible enough to believe you.  If you say it often enough you might even believe it yourself.  Maybe you already do.  It sure doesn't show in your posts, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.
> 
> (You might start with considering why you would defend a post from a source that you say you've never read anything from.)
Click to expand...


Explain your final parenthetical challenge.  Which post am I 'defending'?


----------



## SwingVoter

Wry Catcher said:


> Question for the fringe



interesting comment coming from someone in San Francisco

you MSNBC sheep are broken records - Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus, Heck of a Job Brownie, repeat

few people hated Bush more than I did - he was the worst two term president in history,  but you need to learn to think for yourself and develop some ideas that originate in your brain, not Keith Olbermann's mouth


----------



## SwingVoter

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah well, you keep repeating that Wry.



he's out of new arguments, and is waiting for Rachel Maddow to supply him with some new talking points


----------



## Wry Catcher

SwingVoter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interesting comment coming from someone in San Francisco
> 
> you MSNBC sheep are broken records - Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus, Heck of a Job Brownie, repeat
> 
> few people hated Bush more than I did - he was the worst two term president in history,  but you need to learn to think for yourself and develop some ideas that originate in your brain, not Keith Olbermann's mouth
Click to expand...


LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco".   FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.  
And, I don't hate Bush.  He was an incompetent tool of the far right, and (we agree) the worst president, two term or one in our nations history.  
As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> SwingVoter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interesting comment coming from someone in San Francisco
> 
> you MSNBC sheep are broken records - Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus, Heck of a Job Brownie, repeat
> 
> few people hated Bush more than I did - he was the worst two term president in history,  but you need to learn to think for yourself and develop some ideas that originate in your brain, not Keith Olbermann's mouth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco".   FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.
> And, I don't hate Bush.  He was an incompetent tool of the far right, and (we agree) the worst president, two term or one in our nations history.
> As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.
Click to expand...

you prove how far out on the left fringe you are by calling Bush "far right"


----------



## Wry Catcher

SwingVoter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, you keep repeating that Wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he's out of new arguments, and is waiting for Rachel Maddow to supply him with some new talking points
Click to expand...


Neither of you post anything of substance.  You both seem to be rather dim.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> SwingVoter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, you keep repeating that Wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he's out of new arguments, and is waiting for Rachel Maddow to supply him with some new talking points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you post anything of substance.  You both seem to be rather dim.
Click to expand...

what irony


but i'm totally sure you wont get it


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.



From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. 

A Measure of Media Bias


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwingVoter said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting comment coming from someone in San Francisco
> 
> you MSNBC sheep are broken records - Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus, Heck of a Job Brownie, repeat
> 
> few people hated Bush more than I did - he was the worst two term president in history,  but you need to learn to think for yourself and develop some ideas that originate in your brain, not Keith Olbermann's mouth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco".   FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.
> And, I don't hate Bush.  He was an incompetent tool of the far right, and (we agree) the worst president, two term or one in our nations history.
> As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you prove how far out on the left fringe you are by calling Bush "far right"
Click to expand...


You prove how ignorant you are, everytime you post.  Consider, my words, not your spin.  I wrote, "Bush was a tool of the far right"; maybe you're not ignorant, maybe a liar is a more accurate assessment.  Of course, Bush is far right in terms of his appointments, consider how many in his administration attended Regency Law School.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco".   FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.
> And, I don't hate Bush.  He was an incompetent tool of the far right, and (we agree) the worst president, two term or one in our nations history.
> As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> you prove how far out on the left fringe you are by calling Bush "far right"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prove how ignorant you are, everytime you post.  Consider, my words, not your spin.  I wrote, "Bush was a tool of the far right"; maybe you're not ignorant, maybe a liar is a more accurate assessment.  Of course, Bush is far right in terms of his appointments, consider how many in his administration attended Regency Law School.
Click to expand...

maybe your just too fucked up to know what was actually said


btw, the name of the school you are refering to isnt "regency" its REGENT UNIVERSITY
http://regent.edu/acad/schlaw/

and just because someone is "Christian" it doesnt mean they are "far right" or even "right" at all


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
Click to expand...


Meister, I looked at your link, sorry, I'm much more into the Colts v. Ravens to read that much.  Post the executive summary, please.


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
Click to expand...


Yes, this was a great study that blew holes in a lot of myths about Fox News and the media in general.

For those who want the data broken down into more digestable segments, here is Meg Sullivan's (UCLA newsroom) analysis of the study.  This data has also been featured in pieces by George Will, Real Politics, Chas Krauthammer, and other credible journalists/analysts:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you prove how far out on the left fringe you are by calling Bush "far right"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove how ignorant you are, everytime you post.  Consider, my words, not your spin.  I wrote, "Bush was a tool of the far right"; maybe you're not ignorant, maybe a liar is a more accurate assessment.  Of course, Bush is far right in terms of his appointments, consider how many in his administration attended Regency Law School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maybe your just too fucked up to know what was actually said
> 
> 
> btw, the name of the school you are refering to isnt "regency" its REGENT UNIVERSITY
> Regent University School of Law
> 
> and just because someone is "Christian" it doesnt mean they are "far right" or even "right" at all
Click to expand...


Well at least he cited UC as a great education institution, so maybe he'll accept UCLA as a credible source even though he already has said he won't read the summary of the study.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meister, I looked at your link, sorry, I'm much more into the Colts v. Ravens to read that much.  Post the executive summary, please.
Click to expand...

unable to multitask?????

i'm watching that game as well and I can keep up

i guess you are not as good as you like to claim for yourself


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prove how ignorant you are, everytime you post.  Consider, my words, not your spin.  I wrote, "Bush was a tool of the far right"; maybe you're not ignorant, maybe a liar is a more accurate assessment.  Of course, Bush is far right in terms of his appointments, consider how many in his administration attended Regency Law School.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe your just too fucked up to know what was actually said
> 
> 
> btw, the name of the school you are refering to isnt "regency" its REGENT UNIVERSITY
> Regent University School of Law
> 
> and just because someone is "Christian" it doesnt mean they are "far right" or even "right" at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well at least he cited UC as a great education institution, so maybe he'll accept UCLA as a credible source even though he already has said he won't read the summary of the study.
Click to expand...

i'm just tired of arrogant pricks such as him trying to proclaim themselves so intellectually superior to those they disagree with on politics yet display a complete lack of knowledge of that same subject


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meister, I looked at your link, sorry, I'm much more into the Colts v. Ravens to read that much.  Post the executive summary, please.
Click to expand...


That was the executive summary.  Just look at how in depth the link gets.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prove how ignorant you are, everytime you post.  Consider, my words, not your spin.  I wrote, "Bush was a tool of the far right"; maybe you're not ignorant, maybe a liar is a more accurate assessment.  Of course, Bush is far right in terms of his appointments, consider how many in his administration attended Regency Law School.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe your just too fucked up to know what was actually said
> 
> 
> btw, the name of the school you are refering to isnt "regency" its REGENT UNIVERSITY
> Regent University School of Law
> 
> and just because someone is "Christian" it doesnt mean they are "far right" or even "right" at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well at least he cited UC as a great education institution, so maybe he'll accept UCLA as a credible source even though he already has said he won't read the summary of the study.
Click to expand...


The fact that you lie does not escape anyone.  I said, I'm more into the game than reading a study.  Since you're not very bright, I'm sure you don't 'get' what an executive summary provides.
You're correct, it's not Regency University - but a fourth tier law school by any name is still a fourth tier law school.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News Special Report, and all three network television news shows.  Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle? or Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?  To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.  As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches?  This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.  Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.  Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center.  Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPRs Morning Edition, NBCs Nightly News and ABCs World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCs Good Morning America.  Fox News Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks evening news broadcasts.  All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.  That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister, I looked at your link, sorry, I'm much more into the Colts v. Ravens to read that much.  Post the executive summary, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the executive summary.  Just look at how in depth the link gets.
Click to expand...


Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meister, I looked at your link, sorry, I'm much more into the Colts v. Ravens to read that much.  Post the executive summary, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the executive summary.  Just look at how in depth the link gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.
Click to expand...

Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe your just too fucked up to know what was actually said
> 
> 
> btw, the name of the school you are refering to isnt "regency" its REGENT UNIVERSITY
> Regent University School of Law
> 
> and just because someone is "Christian" it doesnt mean they are "far right" or even "right" at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least he cited UC as a great education institution, so maybe he'll accept UCLA as a credible source even though he already has said he won't read the summary of the study.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you lie does not escape anyone.  I said, I'm more into the game than reading a study.  Since you're not very bright, I'm sure you don't 'get' what an executive summary provides.
> You're correct, it's not Regency University - but a fourth tier law school by any name is still a fourth tier law school.
Click to expand...

the only "LIAR" here, is YOU


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the executive summary.  Just look at how in depth the link gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
> In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

you got that right, he IS a pompous ass


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.*
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
Click to expand...

That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.

And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!

There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV. 
So much for Free Speech GOP style.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.*
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.
> 
> And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!
> 
> There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
> So much for Free Speech GOP style.
Click to expand...


The town idiot speaks, thanks for your input, Phyllis


----------



## Foxfyre

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.*
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.
> 
> And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!
> 
> There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
> So much for Free Speech GOP style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The town idiot speaks, thanks for your input, Phyllis
Click to expand...




I suppose we should pass his opinion on to UCLA and all the pretty smart PhD types who have cited it since it came out.  I'm sure they will  immediately recant, retract, and apologize to the entire media world who haven't been able to discredit it yet.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the fringe, or those who believe they are not a member of the fringe but continue to *describe the MSM as having a liberal bias*:  How was the reporting on Katrina before landfall, the video of Katrina after landfall and video of the flooding and human misery after landfall not journalism?
> After explaining all of that, please explain, _Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job, _and his subsequent 'transfer' as well as Brownies later testemony before Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.*
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.
> 
> And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!
> 
> There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
> So much for Free Speech GOP style.
Click to expand...

yeah, that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA

this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT


----------



## Meister

As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.


*To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1]  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet*.  



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches?  This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.  



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is.  That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology.  Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank.  This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.  

A Measure of Media Bias


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meister said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the executive summary.  Just look at how in depth the link gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
> In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3.  That's what my pompus ass is doing.
Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious.  The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity.  The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
And now, back to the game.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
> In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3.  That's what my pompus ass is doing.
> Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious.  The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity.  The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
> And now, back to the game.
Click to expand...

proof you ARE a pompous ass


besides, its 20-3 right now


----------



## Meister

Wry Catcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  I've read many executive summaries, most come with bullet points, references to pages, points and authorities, and are never (in my experience) one paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
> In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3.  That's what my pompus ass is doing.
> Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious.  The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity.  The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
> And now, back to the game.
Click to expand...


Wow....does Wry know that all he did with all those words was deflect?

I guess he told us....but not a peep about the liberal main stream media bias....go figure.
I bet he doesn't even know that I don't listen to Rush.
I think this is about the time he will spout off on how wealthy he is.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a 2004 study, and things haven't changed much.
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.*
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.
> 
> And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!
> 
> There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
> So much for Free Speech GOP style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah, *that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA*
> 
> this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT
Click to expand...

Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you pompous ass, your just going to have to do your own reading, and not have me do it for you.  I provided the link to the study.  You may not want to read it, because it blows your assumption right out of the water.
> In fact, that may be the reason you haven't read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3.  That's what my pompus ass is doing.
> Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious.  The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity.  The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
> And now, back to the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof you ARE a pompous ass
> 
> 
> besides, its 20-3 right now
Click to expand...

Wow, your right.  Now, tell us what the final score will be, that's seems to be what you clowns on the right do, predict the future.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the STUPIDEST "study" in history. Determining bias by the "think tanks" cited. First of all, the vast majority of the 50 think tanks, over 30, were CON$ervative to begin with, another 10 or so were moderate and just a handful could be called Liberal.
> 
> And this is how the CON$ claim Liberal bias, they call anyone more moderate than the most extreme Right Wing whackos a "Liberal." You can see it when they try to pass Bush off as Liberal. There is not a Liberal bone in Bush's worthless body. CON$ even try to pass LBJ or Hubert Humphrey off as Libs. The Libs HATED LBJ and HHH. The real Liberal back then was Eugene McCarthy!!!!!
> 
> There are no Libs in media. The last true Libs in media were the Smothers Brothers, who were kicked off the air by "LIBERAL" CBS to curry favor with Nixon, another president the CON$ try to pass off as "Liberal." The Smothers Bros crucified LBJ over Vietnam every week but he did nothing to them. When Nixon became president and they then went after him, he got them kicked off the air and blackballed from TV.
> So much for Free Speech GOP style.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, *that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA*
> 
> this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.
Click to expand...

he dumbfuck
the SOURCE was UCLA


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Ind 17, Balt. 3.  That's what my pompus ass is doing.
> Listen Miester, you and the other clowns on the right are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and obnoxious.  The problem with Limbaugh, et al, is that you and the other members of the conservative chic, are too lazy to think critically (even if you were able) and parrot his bull shit as if it had validity.  The fact is, it is all emotion; hence, the hysteria of you and your partners.
> And now, back to the game.
> 
> 
> 
> proof you ARE a pompous ass
> 
> 
> besides, its 20-3 right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, your right.  Now, tell us what the final score will be, that's seems to be what you clowns on the right do, predict the future.
Click to expand...

no, thats what clowns like YOU do
try to tell others what they believe

the point is, i can do this thread AND watch the game while also playing a couple of online games at the same time
its called MULTITASKING


----------



## Meister

Seems a little more than just a couple of people were involved with the research headed up by UCLA
We are grateful for the research assistance by *Aviva Aminova, Jose Bustos, Anya Byers, Evan Davidson, Kristina Doan, Wesley Hussey, David Lee, Pauline Mena, Orges Obeqiri, Byrne Offut, Matt Patterson, David Primo, Darryl Reeves, Susie Rieniets, Tom Rosholt, Michael Uy, Diane Valos, Michael Visconti, Margaret Vo, Rachel Ward, and Andrew Wright.  Also, we are grateful for comments and suggestions by Matt Baum, Mark Crain, Tim Groeling, Phil Gussin, Jay Hamilton, Wesley Hussey, Chap Lawson, Steve Levitt, Jeff Lewis, Andrew Martin, David Mayhew, Jeff Minter, Mike Munger, David Primo, Andy Waddell, Barry Weingast, John Zaller, and Jeff Zwiebel. * We also owe gratitude to *UCLA*, *University of Missouri*, *Stanford University*, and the *University of Chicago. * *These universities paid our salaries, funded our research assistants*, and paid for services such as Lexis-Nexis, which were necessary for our data collection.  *No other organization or person helped to fund this research project*.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.
> 
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1]  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet*.
> 
> 
> 
> As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches?  This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> A feature of our method is that it *does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is.*  That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology.  Instead, *we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank.*  This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias


It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.

As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> Seems a little more than just a couple of people were involved with the research headed up by UCLA
> We are grateful for the *research assistance* by *Aviva Aminova, Jose Bustos, Anya Byers, Evan Davidson, Kristina Doan, Wesley Hussey, David Lee, Pauline Mena, Orges Obeqiri, Byrne Offut, Matt Patterson, David Primo, Darryl Reeves, Susie Rieniets, Tom Rosholt, Michael Uy, Diane Valos, Michael Visconti, Margaret Vo, Rachel Ward, and Andrew Wright.  Also, we are grateful for comments and suggestions by Matt Baum, Mark Crain, Tim Groeling, Phil Gussin, Jay Hamilton, Wesley Hussey, Chap Lawson, Steve Levitt, Jeff Lewis, Andrew Martin, David Mayhew, Jeff Minter, Mike Munger, David Primo, Andy Waddell, Barry Weingast, John Zaller, and Jeff Zwiebel. * We also owe gratitude to *UCLA*, *University of Missouri*, *Stanford University*, and the *University of Chicago. * *These universities paid our salaries, funded our research assistants*, and paid for services such as Lexis-Nexis, which were necessary for our data collection.  *No other organization or person helped to fund this research project*.


The "research assistants" were STUDENTS hired to code the data!!!!!!!

"Because, at times, there is some subjectivity in coding our data, when we hired our research assistants we asked (i) for whom they voted *or would have voted* if they were limited to choosing only Al Gore and George Bush. We chose research assistants so that approximately half our data was coded by Gore supporters and half by Bush supporters."


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, *that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA*
> 
> this is why most everyone thinks you're a fucking IDIOT
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he dumbfuck
> the SOURCE was UCLA
Click to expand...

Prove it DumbCon.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.
> 
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1]  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet*.
> 
> 
> 
> As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches?  This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> A feature of our method is that it *does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is.*  That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology.  Instead, *we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank.*  This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> 
> 
> It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.
> 
> As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:
> 
> (1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.
> 
> (2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."
Click to expand...


Phyllis, your going to have to take everything this study has in it's entirety.  There shows other studies that were done that came to the same conclusion.

I know, I know, that would mean that you couldn't leave out key components, and taking data out of context, which is your method of operation, but you need to look at the whole picture.  Once you do that, the picture is very much clearer, and more honest than your drivel.  Good evening, Phyllis....have a good Sunday.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always you take things out of context or exclude key components, Phyllis.
> 
> 
> *To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1]  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet*.
> 
> 
> 
> As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative.  Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one.  Our method asks:  What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches?  This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> A feature of our method is that it *does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is.*  That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology.  Instead, *we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank.*  This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.
> 
> A Measure of Media Bias
> 
> 
> 
> It's moronic to think that ADA scores have anything to do with think tanks and even less to do with media bias.
> 
> As Brendan Nyhan points out, "the paper's methodology doesn't allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:
> 
> (1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.
> 
> (2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn't allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phyllis, your going to have to take everything this study has in it's entirety.  *There shows other studies that were done that came to the same conclusion.*
> 
> I know, I know, that would mean that you couldn't leave out key components, and taking data out of context, which is your method of operation, but you need to look at the whole picture.  Once you do that, the picture is very much clearer, and more honest than your drivel.  Good evening, Phyllis....have a good Sunday.
Click to expand...


Con$ are very good at producing PHONY "studies" that will show any conclusion they want. The fact remains that there is no Liberal media, and there never has been Liberal media, and if corporate media has its way, there never will be any Liberal media.


----------



## Wry Catcher

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  My own personal idiotgram - so much more substance then the dribble from the right.


----------



## SwingVoter

Wry Catcher said:


> LOL, "interesting comment from someone in San Francisco".   FYI, San Francisco (the SF Bay Area) is a large, diverse, cosmopolitan region with world renown universities (CAL, UCSF and Stanford; USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's) and other top tier schools of higher learning.
> As for my opinons, they are based on principles formed over my lifetime - I'm 62 - and well developed before Olbermann appeared on TV.



typical smug liberal baby boomer from SF, crappy public transportation for a large city, museums are a joke compared to NY or DC, no diversity of opinion, ugly women (I know they're womyn and I'm sexist) and can't get over itself 

your views are the same as every other sheep liberal, your arguments are the same, just what happens when you're surrounded by people who all think the same


----------



## SwingVoter

edthecynic said:


> and there never has been Liberal media.



maybe, but there are very liberal journalists, from Katie Couric to Dan Rather to Matt Lauer, who pretend to be "objective" when there is no doubt from their coverage which party they prefer

but these guys are old school, modern liberals like Olbermann and the MSNBC crew don't pretend to be objective, and they are needed by the many sheep liberals who are unable to think for themselves, and can only support cult of personality candidates like Obama


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbo, it was not a UCLA study! It was ONE Poly Sci professor from UCLA and one from the U of Missouri who was actually an economist.
> 
> 
> 
> he dumbfuck
> the SOURCE was UCLA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it DumbCon.
Click to expand...

look at the link moron


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> he dumbfuck
> the SOURCE was UCLA
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it DumbCon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look at the link moron
Click to expand...

The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.

There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MIPS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, how typical, attack the man and his audience but always fail to refute his arguments, I hope you realize that Americans are waking up to this old, tired tactic of "debate" and most of us really don't care anymore.
> 
> That being said, Rush Limbaugh 1, You and Your IlK 0, have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my informed opinion, Limbaugh never argues an issue, he starts with a false premise, and build a case against a strawman.  Those who taken a college level course in critical thinking, or a course in logic, quickly see through his sophistry.
> Your post suggests you are a dittohead and offended by my post - the ball is in your court.  Either call me a name or offer a valid argument of Limabughs rhetoric - if you can find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You require the member to provide a valid argument of Limbaugh's rhetoric but do not require that of yourself?
> 
> I have taken a college level course in criticial thinking and I also know the definition of sophistry.  Your statement could easily be interpreted as an excellent illustration of sophistry woven into a prejudicial statement grounded in no basis of fact.
> 
> Perhaps if you provided an illustration to support your statement, you would have more justification in asking another member to do so.
Click to expand...


Several pages back, I posted this question to you:  





Wry Catcher said:


> Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true?  Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.



You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it DumbCon.
> 
> 
> 
> look at the link moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.
> 
> There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.
Click to expand...

damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> look at the link moron
> 
> 
> 
> The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.
> 
> There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
> if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed
Click to expand...


If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus.  Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The link only proves the teacher who is the source of the asinine "study" is from UCLA. Students can post to the same sscnet site, it in no way proves the phony "study" was sanctioned by UCLA.
> 
> There are some dead giveaways of how ridiculous the sham "study" is when you have the Drudge Report listed as Liberal. This again shows that the media is so completely dominated by CON$ that they have to pass off any CON$ervative who isn't the most extreme as Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
> if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus.  Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.
Click to expand...

ed, the moron is a fucking liar
and an idiot
as you have shown you are as well
fuck off pissant


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true?  Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
Click to expand...


Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.

Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.

As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true?  Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your response, surprised maybe accurate too.  I'll respond to each paragraph, because each presents in a different manner.
As to #2:  This paragraph is imho all opinion, and typical of the RW rhetoric posted every day on this and other message boards.
In #1 you lay claim that Obama's response to an economic crisis (can we agree on that?) was 'socialism' which you define as not a single entity, but on a continuum of  government control or interference in the markets and means of production.  Obama has 'interferred' in the markets, as well as the means of producton, NOT as persumed by many on the right out of ideological desire, but (IMO) as a pragmatic approach to a crisis.
I believe that had Obama not acted as he did, and acted within the Constitutional powers of his office, the economic crisis may have had '1929' consequences.  Of course, we are not out of the woods yet, and it is also my opinion that the RW rehtoric of doom, gloom and  allegations of "reckless socialism" has retarded economic recovery.
Many on the right - and this includes 'conservative radio - believe a lassiez faire response would have been the correct course, and this was the course of Pres. Hoover - and we know how that turned out.  With the '29 crisis and the response by Hoover and Roosevelt as a guide, I side with Obama. 
There is not time to respond to your third paragraph, though I will discuss some of the ideas of those you cite.
Adam Smith, as we know posited economic Laws.  The first law of the market is Self Interest, and the second, competitition.  What if Obama had allowed GM and Chrysler to fail?  
How would that have played into our nations economic self interest?  German, Japanese and maybe China and Korea would soon further dominate our market, more than they do today.  And what of the workers who would have lost their jobs?  More homes in default, higher unemployment, more homeless children, more demand on social services and more local and state government failures?
That said, I disagree with the bailout of those banks too big to fail.  I would have preferred a bail out allowing homeowners to remain in their homes, and that local banks service the loans for the commuities effected by the crisis.  I would have allowed the big guys to fail, and screw the money changers, the bankers and their share holders.
In short, I don't believe the answer to our current economic woes is to rely on an ideology, rather, our leaders need to understand history, and look to pragmatic strategies at first, and long term solutions as we pull back from the precipice.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you just keep proving hoiw much of a fucking idiot you are
> if you had an ounce of common sense you would be embarrassed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus.  Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ed, the moron is a fucking liar
> and an idiot
> as you have shown you are as well
> fuck off pissant
Click to expand...

In other words, YES the Drudge Report was scored as liberal. 

Any media that scored higher than 50.1 was defined by the phony "study" as Liberal and Drudge scored 60.4. BTW, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal scored the highest LIBERAL rating, 85.1, even higher than the N Y Times, 73.7.


----------



## Wry Catcher

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Drudge Report was listed as Liberal, the entire RW argument is bogus.  Answer the allegation DC, or do the DC thing and call the witness a name.
> 
> 
> 
> ed, the moron is a fucking liar
> and an idiot
> as you have shown you are as well
> fuck off pissant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, YES the Drudge Report was scored as liberal.
> 
> Any media that scored higher than 50.1 was defined by the phony "study" as Liberal and Drudge scored 60.4. BTW, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal scored the highest LIBERAL rating, 85.1, even higher than the N Y Times, 73.7.
Click to expand...


Now you've done it, the coward DC will have an hysterical fit - be prepared for an onslaught of profanity and personal attacks.


----------



## DiveCon

Wry Catcher said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ed, the moron is a fucking liar
> and an idiot
> as you have shown you are as well
> fuck off pissant
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, YES the Drudge Report was scored as liberal.
> 
> Any media that scored higher than 50.1 was defined by the phony "study" as Liberal and Drudge scored 60.4. BTW, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal scored the highest LIBERAL rating, 85.1, even higher than the N Y Times, 73.7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you've done it, the coward DC will have an hysterical fit - be prepared for an onslaught of profanity and personal attacks.
Click to expand...

what a pussy you must be in real life


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling policies of the Obama Administration "reckless socialism" may or may not be a lie, but is it true?  Maybe Foxfyre will define socialism, or what he thinks socialism is by suggesting an alternative policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and *economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production* and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
Click to expand...

I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.

Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.

Marxism - The workers control the means of production.

Socialism - Society controls the means of production.

Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.


----------



## Wry Catcher

DiveCon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, YES the Drudge Report was scored as liberal.
> 
> Any media that scored higher than 50.1 was defined by the phony "study" as Liberal and Drudge scored 60.4. BTW, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal scored the highest LIBERAL rating, 85.1, even higher than the N Y Times, 73.7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've done it, the coward DC will have an hysterical fit - be prepared for an onslaught of profanity and personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a pussy you must be in real life
Click to expand...


I suspect you're posting from the deep, or else you are always drinking when you post.  Add some helium to your tank, or less vodka.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and *economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production* and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.
> 
> Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.
> 
> Marxism - The workers control the means of production.
> 
> Socialism - Society controls the means of production.
> 
> Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.
Click to expand...


Wow you got us all, Phyllis.  Go back to the MSNBC messageboard and tell them you got us good.    Your pathetic.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and *economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production* and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.
> 
> Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.
> 
> Marxism - The workers control the means of production.
> 
> Socialism - Society controls the means of production.
> 
> Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.
Click to expand...


Wow.  My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.  I wonder what you used to confirm yours?


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and *economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production* and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> 
> 
> I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.
> 
> Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.
> 
> Marxism - The workers control the means of production.
> 
> Socialism - Society controls the means of production.
> 
> Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.  I wonder what you used to confirm yours?
Click to expand...

ed is such a moron he thinks conservatives control the media


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and *economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production* and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> 
> 
> I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.
> 
> Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.
> 
> Marxism - The workers control the means of production.
> 
> Socialism - Society controls the means of production.
> 
> Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.  I wonder what you used to confirm yours?
Click to expand...

Economics 101.


----------



## JimH52

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them





makes sense to me!


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several pages back, I posted this question to you:
> 
> You call Obama's 'policy' "reckless socialism"; now, tell us, how and why you use such rhetoric.  Define your terms, and then I will provide you with the "illustration" you desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your response, surprised maybe accurate too.  I'll respond to each paragraph, because each presents in a different manner.
> As to #2:  This paragraph is imho all opinion, and typical of the RW rhetoric posted every day on this and other message boards.
Click to expand...


Really?  I didn't know I posted every day on this and other message boards.  I can assure you nobody other than me formed that opinion for me.  I have been beating that drum, however, because I believe it is important for people to be realistic about the intentions and methods and motives of those in government.  Such should be judged on a) what they say now vs b) what they have said in the past vs c) what they do now vs d) what they have done in the past.  Add to that an e) what sort of company do they keep and have surrounded themselves with on their climb to power?  Who were their heroes?  Mentors?  Advocates?  Promoters?  Benefactors?

While we can legitimately disagree on the ramifocations of this or that word, action, or relationship, to dismiss such concepts as RW rhetoric could be interpreted as intentionally choosing to be ignorant and/or misinformed for ideological or partisan reasons.



> In #1 you lay claim that Obama's response to an economic crisis (can we agree on that?) was 'socialism' which you define as not a single entity, but on a continuum of  government control or interference in the markets and means of production.  Obama has 'interferred' in the markets, as well as the means of producton, NOT as persumed by many on the right out of ideological desire, but (IMO) as a pragmatic approach to a crisis.
> I believe that had Obama not acted as he did, and acted within the Constitutional powers of his office, the economic crisis may have had '1929' consequences.  Of course, we are not out of the woods yet, and it is also my opinion that the RW rehtoric of doom, gloom and  allegations of "reckless socialism" has retarded economic recovery.



The initial bailouts I could forgive as an ill advised and poorly executed pragmatic approach to an economic crisis.  And we may already see '1929' consequences which many credible economists now see as being far worse and of much longer duration than would have been the case if the federal government had not meddled to the extent that it did both in the 1930's and now.  There is room for differences of opinion about that too of course.  The rhetoric of doom, gloom, and recklessness has not come from the right or very little of it has.  It was used as a club to instill terror in the people, perhaps such as yourself, so that government could claim justification for actions that many on the right to this day believe was unwarranted and unjustified.

But when you see your government on a course you believe to be wrong headed or intentionally destructive for political/ideological purposes, do you think the people should not be concerned?  Angry?  Outspoken?



> Many on the right - and this includes 'conservative radio - believe a lassiez faire response would have been the correct course, and this was the course of Pres. Hoover - and we know how that turned out.  With the '29 crisis and the response by Hoover and Roosevelt as a guide, I side with Obama.



You think Hoover was laizzez faire?  An economic concept he conclusively denounced in his own book *American Individualism*?  Like Obama, Hoover in no way trusted laizzez faire but tried to regulate the economy back to health and, when that failed, toward the end he started trying to spend it back to health on a far lesser scale than FDR, but on a much broader scale than had been done by any previous president.  Roosevelt continued with much of Hoover's policies but evenmoreso by trying to manipulate the system and spend the nation back to prosperity.

As previously stated, many credible analysts who have studied this thoroughly now conclude that had Hoover and Roosevelt imposed what regulation was necessary to ensure the solvency of the banks, removed unnecessary regulation and provided incentive for private enterprise to move ahead, the history books would likely have recorded the period as a stock market crash and recession rather than the Great Depression.  Again, this is because they theorize that had they encouraged the private sector rather than try to impose more and more government, the Depression would have been far less severe and of far shorter duration.

And now Obama is implementing and magnifying all the failed policies of Hoover and FDR and doing nothing to encourage the private sector to get busy and get the economy moving again.




> There is not time to respond to your third paragraph, though I will discuss some of the ideas of those you cite.
> Adam Smith, as we know posited economic Laws.  The first law of the market is Self Interest, and the second, competitition.  What if Obama had allowed GM and Chrysler to fail?



Obama DID allow GM and Chrysler to fail.  He sold the bailout on the claim that bankruptcy was not an option.  So we bailed them out and the bankruptcy happened anyway, but with the federal government as the major creditor, Obama could demand reorganization so that the government and the unions would be in charge along with all the baggage that put them in trouble in the first place.  Had he left it alone, they could have filed bankruptcy and reorganized without much of the baggage that was causing them to fail. 



> How would that have played into our nations economic self interest?  German, Japanese and maybe China and Korea would soon further dominate our market, more than they do today.  And what of the workers who would have lost their jobs?  More homes in default, higher unemployment, more homeless children, more demand on social services and more local and state government failures?



Obama has done nothing but perpetuate the policies that encourage German, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean opportunists to exploit the US market.  I doubt you'll be able to come up with a significant policy he has even tried to implement that has strengthened our hand anywhere.



> That said, I disagree with the bailout of those banks too big to fail.  I would have preferred a bail out allowing homeowners to remain in their homes, and that local banks service the loans for the commuities effected by the crisis.  I would have allowed the big guys to fail, and screw the money changers, the bankers and their share holders.
> In short, I don't believe the answer to our current economic woes is to rely on an ideology, rather, our leaders need to understand history, and look to pragmatic strategies at first, and long term solutions as we pull back from the precipice.



People who borrow over their ability to repay should not be bailed out.  Businesses, large or small, who do not succeed should not be bailed out.   Would there be much short term pain?  Absolutely, but we have had that in the past and we got through it with neighbor helping neighbor and in our core belief that we would overcome difficulty.

A government who rewards incompetence and irresponsibility and punishes success is no friend of the people.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Socialism is a rather broad term in itself and can include various sociopolitical and economic theories of government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.  In Obama's version, it is illustrated by government ownership of large auto companies and some banks and also assigning ownership to unions, firmly under government control in practice if not by law.  It is further illustrated in the government presuming to assign appropriate wages for executives to earn and imposing punative measures on those who fail to toe the line as the government dictates.
> 
> Obama seems to be enamored with a soft Marxist view of socialism in which it will be necessary to impose a heavy hand of authoritative government to crush opposition and eventually bring about the collective good.  I presume that in his world there will eventually be no rich and poor and all will live happily ever after in eternal gratitude to the great messiah who saved them.  He sort of skims over the part, however, where no government has ever willingly passed through the heavy handed stage once it gets there.
> 
> As to the alternative policy, I go with the theory of government as proposed by the Founders and great concepts of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and others.   The basic principle is that property precedes government and, when acquired legally is sacrosanct.  The federal government restricts itself to securing and defending our unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and human rights and then gets out of our way to let us create the sort of society that we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your response, surprised maybe accurate too.  I'll respond to each paragraph, because each presents in a different manner.
> As to #2:  This paragraph is imho all opinion, and typical of the RW rhetoric posted every day on this and other message boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  I didn't know I posted every day on this and other message boards.  I can assure you nobody other than me formed that opinion for me.  I have been beating that drum, however, because I believe it is important for people to be realistic about the intentions and methods and motives of those in government.  Such should be judged on a) what they say now vs b) what they have said in the past vs c) what they do now vs d) what they have done in the past.  Add to that an e) what sort of company do they keep and have surrounded themselves with on their climb to power?  Who were their heroes?  Mentors?  Advocates?  Promoters?  Benefactors?
> 
> While we can legitimately disagree on the ramifocations of this or that word, action, or relationship, to dismiss such concepts as RW rhetoric could be interpreted as intentionally choosing to be ignorant and/or misinformed for ideological or partisan reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> The initial bailouts I could forgive as an ill advised and poorly executed pragmatic approach to an economic crisis.  And we may already see '1929' consequences which many credible economists now see as being far worse and of much longer duration than would have been the case if the federal government had not meddled to the extent that it did both in the 1930's and now.  There is room for differences of opinion about that too of course.  The rhetoric of doom, gloom, and recklessness has not come from the right or very little of it has.  It was used as a club to instill terror in the people, perhaps such as yourself, so that government could claim justification for actions that many on the right to this day believe was unwarranted and unjustified.
> 
> But when you see your government on a course you believe to be wrong headed or intentionally destructive for political/ideological purposes, do you think the people should not be concerned?  Angry?  Outspoken?
> 
> 
> 
> You think Hoover was laizzez faire?  An economic concept he conclusively denounced in his own book *American Individualism*?  Like Obama, Hoover in no way trusted laizzez faire but tried to regulate the economy back to health and, when that failed, toward the end he started trying to spend it back to health on a far lesser scale than FDR, but on a much broader scale than had been done by any previous president.  Roosevelt continued with much of Hoover's policies but evenmoreso by trying to manipulate the system and spend the nation back to prosperity.
> 
> As previously stated, many credible analysts who have studied this thoroughly now conclude that had Hoover and Roosevelt imposed what regulation was necessary to ensure the solvency of the banks, removed unnecessary regulation and provided incentive for private enterprise to move ahead, the history books would likely have recorded the period as a stock market crash and recession rather than the Great Depression.  Again, this is because they theorize that had they encouraged the private sector rather than try to impose more and more government, the Depression would have been far less severe and of far shorter duration.
> 
> And now Obama is implementing and magnifying all the failed policies of Hoover and FDR and doing nothing to encourage the private sector to get busy and get the economy moving again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama DID allow GM and Chrysler to fail.  He sold the bailout on the claim that bankruptcy was not an option.  So we bailed them out and the bankruptcy happened anyway, but with the federal government as the major creditor, Obama could demand reorganization so that the government and the unions would be in charge along with all the baggage that put them in trouble in the first place.  Had he left it alone, they could have filed bankruptcy and reorganized without much of the baggage that was causing them to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would that have played into our nations economic self interest?  German, Japanese and maybe China and Korea would soon further dominate our market, more than they do today.  And what of the workers who would have lost their jobs?  More homes in default, higher unemployment, more homeless children, more demand on social services and more local and state government failures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has done nothing but perpetuate the policies that encourage German, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean opportunists to exploit the US market.  I doubt you'll be able to come up with a significant policy he has even tried to implement that has strengthened our hand anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I disagree with the bailout of those banks too big to fail.  I would have preferred a bail out allowing homeowners to remain in their homes, and that local banks service the loans for the commuities effected by the crisis.  I would have allowed the big guys to fail, and screw the money changers, the bankers and their share holders.
> In short, I don't believe the answer to our current economic woes is to rely on an ideology, rather, our leaders need to understand history, and look to pragmatic strategies at first, and long term solutions as we pull back from the precipice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who borrow over their ability to repay should not be bailed out.  Businesses, large or small, who do not succeed should not be bailed out.   Would there be much short term pain?  Absolutely, but we have had that in the past and we got through it with neighbor helping neighbor and in our core belief that we would overcome difficulty.
> 
> A government who rewards incompetence and irresponsibility and punishes success is no friend of the people.
Click to expand...


I'd enjoy a seminar with you, where all of us read the same books and discussed policy.  Though I'm certain we would ultimately disagree, you supporting an ideological policy and me a pragmatic one
I need to point out you don't 'listen' well, I never wrote YOU do anything everyday - you need not be so defensive.
I stand by my concern that if your ideological ideas had prevailed, and all of those who work for GM, and their suppliers, lost their jobs, as well as all Chrysler employees, and their suppliers, we would not be in recovery, but in a deep and desperate situation.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> I'd enjoy a seminar with you, where all of us read the same books and discussed policy.  Though I'm certain we would ultimately disagree, you supporting an ideological policy and me a pragmatic one.



If you honestly believe you're coming from a pragmatic perspective while I am coming from an ideological one, I serously doubt you would enjoy a seminar whether we all read the same books or not.  At least I've read some, including Hoover's, and therefore formed my opinion about his perspective from what HE said rather than from some made up nonsense from a poorly researched but quite ideological leftwing site.



> I need to point out you don't 'listen' well, I never wrote YOU do anything everyday - you need not be so defensive.



I wasn't being defensive at all.  Nor did I say that you were referring to me in that context.  So which of us is not listening well?   If you're going to use an illustration as an implied ad hominem criticism of somebody, you really should expect the other person to call you on it.



> I stand by my concern that if your ideological ideas had prevailed, and all of those who work for GM, and their suppliers, lost their jobs, as well as all Chrysler employees, and their suppliers, we would not be in recovery, but in a deep and desperate situation



And I stand by my observation that under the Obama bailout, GM cut 10,000 jobs in February and reduced wages of many thousands of others and now operates under the thumb of the President and the UAW which means it has little or no hope of correcting the problems that got it into trouble in the first place.  That isn't ideology.  That is just the way it is.  Neither you nor I can say that it would have been worse had GM been allowed to file a normal bankruptcy and then reorganize the old fashioned way.

In April 2008, I believe GM stock was at the highest it had ever been and, if I remember right, the company value was right at $57 billion.  Then came the crash and the bailout to prevent GM from filing bankruptcy which happened anyway.  GM stock remains in the toilet now and the oversight committee acknowledges that it is highly doubtful that the American taxpayer will ever get all its money back if it gets any.    The last time I looked into it, GM's shares would have to be worth something over $40 billion in order for it to repay the TARP funds and that would mean the market cap would have to be something like $68 billion, an amount GM has never achieved.  The chances of that happening in our lifetime, especially with the UAW having control of operations, is slim or none.

In other words, Obama Motors, if it is kept open, is likely to be another bottomless pit draining taxpayer money into perpetuity.

That's not ideology.  That's the brutal facts.


----------



## Foxfyre

Now back on topic.

This sidebar discussion between Wry and I is discussed pretty thoroughly on most conservative talk radio.  They don't usually get into the fine details and the various amounts of money because the listener's eyes would glaze over, but they do deal with it and provide enough information to allow the listeners to know what to look for when they research it for themselves.

I wonder how many leftwing sites or liberal talk radio hosts are providing that kind of information.  Or do they, like Wry, think it is all wingnut ideology and Obama is truly the great messiah doing the very best that anybody could do under the circumstances?  And wind up parroting the nonsense that supports their point of view but simply won't hold up in the cold, clear light of real history?

But on the liberal side of talk radio we get jewels like this:  

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/16/ed-schultz-id-cheat-keep-brown-winning/

If Rush or Hannity had said anything even remotely like this, how do you think the leftwingers here would have presented it for our edification?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Now back on topic.
> 
> This sidebar discussion between Wry and I is discussed pretty thoroughly on most conservative talk radio.  They don't usually get into the fine details and the various amounts of money because the listener's eyes would glaze over, but they do deal with it and provide enough information to allow the listeners to know what to look for when they research it for themselves.
> 
> I wonder how many leftwing sites or liberal talk radio hosts are providing that kind of information.  Or do they, like Wry, think it is all wingnut ideology and Obama is truly the great messiah doing the very best that anybody could do under the circumstances?  And wind up parroting the nonsense that supports their point of view but simply won't hold up in the cold, clear light of real history?
> 
> But on the liberal side of talk radio we get jewels like this:
> 
> Ed Schultz: I&#39;d cheat to keep Brown from winning - Water Cooler - Washington Times
> 
> If Rush or Hannity had said anything even remotely like this, how do you think the leftwingers here would have presented it for our edification?


I'm going to feed you some of your own CON$ervative BS.

OUT OF CONTEXT, it's SATIRE, don't you know SARCASM when you see it?


----------



## ozzmdj

Rush on in 30 min


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love when CON$ show they have no idea what the words they use mean, other than the lies fed to them by GOP controlled Hate Media.
> 
> Capitalism - Capital controls the means of production.
> 
> Marxism - The workers control the means of production.
> 
> Socialism - Society controls the means of production.
> 
> Communism - A central authority controls the means of production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.  I wonder what you used to confirm yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economics 101.
Click to expand...


Maybe at the Seminary for Leftwing Wacko Radicals.   When I took Economics 101, I actually learned about economic systems.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



Imbecillic statements such as this demonstrate what a waste of time it is for you to think....


----------



## edthecynic

ozzmdj said:


> Rush on in 30 min


And how long before the racist puts his racist foot in his racist mouth? 

January 13, 2010
CALLER:* Hello, Rush.* I just got a quick explanation needed from you.** You claim that Bill Clinton made a racist comment by saying that Kennedy was voting for Obama because he was black.* But you said the exact same words about Colin Powell voting for Obama because he was black.*

RUSH:* *That's right.*

CALLER:* So is *your comment racist, too*?


----------



## ozzmdj

edthecynic said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush on in 30 min
> 
> 
> 
> And how long before the racist puts his racist foot in his racist mouth?
> 
> January 13, 2010
> CALLER:* Hello, Rush.* I just got a quick explanation needed from you.** You claim that Bill Clinton made a racist comment by saying that Kennedy was voting for Obama because he was black.* But you said the exact same words about Colin Powell voting for Obama because he was black.*
> 
> RUSH:* *That's right.*
> 
> CALLER:* So is *your comment racist, too*?
Click to expand...


No Dinggy Harry was not a guess


----------



## ozzmdj

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show: Mark gives updates on what is happening in the Massachusetts Senate election. He says that this is a sign for other states and other politicians that they are next if they don't stop their Marxist ways. Obama repudiated the American people and now they are repudiating him back. The Democrats have taken a recession and made it worst and the American people are fed up with it. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann calls in and says that the passion can be felt all across America. Finally, this can't be blamed solely on the candidate; but rather on the issue of not losing more of our liberty. Mark Levin


----------



## Modbert

ozzmdj said:


> On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show: Mark gives updates on what is happening in the Massachusetts Senate election. He says that this is a sign for other states and other politicians that they are next if they don't stop their Marxist ways. Obama repudiated the American people and now they are repudiating him back. The Democrats have taken a recession and made it worst and the American people are fed up with it. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann calls in and says that the passion can be felt all across America. Finally, this can't be blamed solely on the candidate; but rather on the issue of not losing more of our liberty. Mark Levin



Newsflash: The election already happened.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Conservative talk radio reaches an audience who already agrees with them. Rush doesn't convert liberals - he preachs to his base. Just like Olbermann, and all the others. People listen to talk radio to hear things they already agree with.

I'm not a fan of hearing things I already agree with, which is why I post here and at the Hannity forums, instead of DU or HuffPo. I get most of my news from this site, and Hannity - because people with much more time on their hands than me inevitabilly start threads on every story as soon as it breaks. From there, I'll do my own research.

It's never interested me to be surrounded by people who I agree with on everything. I take too much pleasure in the art of argument.


----------



## Foxfyre

theDoctorisIn said:


> Conservative talk radio reaches an audience who already agrees with them. Rush doesn't convert liberals - he preachs to his base. Just like Olbermann, and all the others. People listen to talk radio to hear things they already agree with.
> 
> I'm not a fan of hearing things I already agree with, which is why I post here and at the Hannity forums, instead of DU or HuffPo. I get most of my news from this site, and Hannity - because people with much more time on their hands than me inevitabilly start threads on every story as soon as it breaks. From there, I'll do my own research.
> 
> It's never interested me to be surrounded by people who I agree with on everything. I take too much pleasure in the art of argument.



While it is true that Rush and other conservative radio and television programming allows us to hear opinion that we share and don't hear anywhere else, I disagree that they only offer what their audience already knows or agrees with.  I can't tell you how many times I've practically thrown things at the radio or TV because I was frustrated that Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or whomever got something so wrong, or had zeroed in on the wrong perspective on something.   They simply cannot broadcast as many hours as they do every week and get it right 100% of the time.  Nobody could.

But they are all extremely well researched, and come up with facts and figures that you simply don't get anywhere else.  Nobody who listens for the purpose of learning something can come away from any of their programs on any given day without having at least one new keyword or name or fact or number or something to use in personal research.

And you'll hear a lot less stupidity and nonsense there than you'll hear on these message boards.

However I come here because there are some folks I genuinely enjoy here and it also gives me a chance to test my theories and opinions against those with different theories and opinions.  I figure if I can't defend mine, I have no business holding them.


----------



## bodecea

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



Well, I will say this....seems like everytime I happen to catch some conservative talk radio show in the car or FOX news on TV...it does not fail that several people bring up the exact same topic with the exact same talking points the next day here and on other conservative message boards.   

If one goes beyond the scope of what the talk show said, that's when the personal insults and various versions of "oh yeah!?!?" come out.


This, of course, has been only my personal observations.


----------



## Meister

bodecea said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I will say this....seems like everytime I happen to catch some conservative talk radio show in the car or FOX news on TV...it does not fail that several people bring up the exact same topic with the exact same talking points the next day here and on other conservative message boards.
> 
> If one goes beyond the scope of what the talk show said, that's when the personal insults and various versions of "oh yeah!?!?" come out.
> 
> 
> This, of course, has been only my personal observations.
Click to expand...


Perhaps talk radio is parroting the people.  Bet you haven't heard that on the radio, Bo.
That is my observation.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio reaches an audience who already agrees with them. Rush doesn't convert liberals - he preachs to his base. Just like Olbermann, and all the others. People listen to talk radio to hear things they already agree with.
> 
> I'm not a fan of hearing things I already agree with, which is why I post here and at the Hannity forums, instead of DU or HuffPo. I get most of my news from this site, and Hannity - because people with much more time on their hands than me inevitabilly start threads on every story as soon as it breaks. From there, I'll do my own research.
> 
> It's never interested me to be surrounded by people who I agree with on everything. I take too much pleasure in the art of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that Rush and other conservative radio and television programming allows us to hear opinion that we share and don't hear anywhere else, I disagree that they only offer what their audience already knows or agrees with.  I can't tell you how many times I've practically thrown things at the radio or TV because I was frustrated that Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or whomever got something so wrong, or had zeroed in on the wrong perspective on something.   They simply cannot broadcast as many hours as they do every week and get it right 100% of the time.  Nobody could.
> 
> *But they are all extremely well researched, and come up with facts and figures that you simply don't get anywhere else.*  Nobody who listens for the purpose of learning something can come away from any of their programs on any given day without having at least one new keyword or name or fact or number or something to use in personal research.
> 
> And you'll hear a lot less stupidity and nonsense there than you'll hear on these message boards.
> 
> However I come here because there are some folks I genuinely enjoy here and it also gives me a chance to test my theories and opinions against those with different theories and opinions.  I figure if I can't defend mine, I have no business holding them.
Click to expand...

They are not well researched, they are well SCRIPTED.

Everything CON$ervative pundits say comes straight from GOP think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. And observant people can tell they are merely parroting their scripts when they ALL parrot the same mistake, like claiming that Obama was the first president to bow. They ALL could not have INDEPENDENTLY made that same error. Obviously, they ALL parroted the SAME erroneous SCRIPT on the same day.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I will say this....seems like everytime I happen to catch some conservative talk radio show in the car or FOX news on TV...it does not fail that several people bring up the exact same topic with the exact same talking points the next day here and on other conservative message boards.
> 
> If one goes beyond the scope of what the talk show said, that's when the personal insults and various versions of "oh yeah!?!?" come out.
> 
> 
> This, of course, has been only my personal observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps talk radio is parroting the people.  *Bet you haven't heard that on the radio*, Bo.
> That is my observation.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is what CON$ have been programmed to say, repeatedly drummed into them by GOP hate radio. So you are not very "observant" if you pretend never to have heard that said many times on GOP hate radio!!!

It is highly illogical to think the people all INDEPENDENTLY found the same sound bites and quotes, taken out of context and with the same words changed to create the same new context, on the same day as the pundits.


----------



## Some Guy

Wry Catcher said:


> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.


How bout me?  I'm an easy target that listens to Rush; i've only got a few posts and i'm 27 years old.  I graduated in 4 years from Iowa State University with a degree in management information systems and got a job using the degree only a month out.  My credit score is over 800, i've never been behind a credit card payment nor have i ever not paid the bill in full. 

But by virtue of being a Rush listener, i must be an idiot.  Thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio reaches an audience who already agrees with them. Rush doesn't convert liberals - he preachs to his base. Just like Olbermann, and all the others. People listen to talk radio to hear things they already agree with.
> 
> I'm not a fan of hearing things I already agree with, which is why I post here and at the Hannity forums, instead of DU or HuffPo. I get most of my news from this site, and Hannity - because people with much more time on their hands than me inevitabilly start threads on every story as soon as it breaks. From there, I'll do my own research.
> 
> It's never interested me to be surrounded by people who I agree with on everything. I take too much pleasure in the art of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that Rush and other conservative radio and television programming allows us to hear opinion that we share and don't hear anywhere else, I disagree that they only offer what their audience already knows or agrees with.  I can't tell you how many times I've practically thrown things at the radio or TV because I was frustrated that Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or whomever got something so wrong, or had zeroed in on the wrong perspective on something.   They simply cannot broadcast as many hours as they do every week and get it right 100% of the time.  Nobody could.
Click to expand...

It's not that they don't "get it right" - although I'm sure you agree with them most of the time, I'm not one of those people who think that every Rush fan agrees with him on every single thing - he's preaching to his audience, and not every member of his audience is the same.



> But they are all extremely well researched, and come up with facts and figures that you simply don't get anywhere else.  Nobody who listens for the purpose of learning something can come away from any of their programs on any given day without having at least one new keyword or name or fact or number or something to use in personal research.


Exactly, that's what I mean. Although I disagree with Rush on almost everything he stands for, I do learn a lot every time I listen to his show. If nothing else, he'll tell me about something, and then I'll do my own research on it.



> And you'll hear a lot less stupidity and nonsense there than you'll hear on these message boards.
> 
> However I come here because there are some folks I genuinely enjoy here and it also gives me a chance to test my theories and opinions against those with different theories and opinions.  I figure if I can't defend mine, I have no business holding them.



I've already explained why I come here - I like to argue. I do it for a living, and I do it for fun. But the stupidity and nonsense on these boards can be avoided - simply by not letting it get to you.


----------



## edthecynic

Some Guy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to believe anything you like, and make any judgments about me you please.  I told you what I think and I'll add one more thought, this time about you.  You hold opinions which you never challenge, you make assumptions based on emotion and your 'gut' and you limit your 'education' on current events to Fox News and conservative talk radio.  You may have attended college, likely a Jr. or commuity college but did not graduate, you owe on credit cards more  than you can pay each month and you hate those who challenge your assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> How bout me?  I'm an easy target that listens to Rush; i've only got a few posts and i'm 27 years old.  I graduated in 4 years from Iowa State University with a degree in management information systems and got a job using the degree only a month out.  My credit score is over 800, i've never been behind a credit card payment nor have i ever not paid the bill in full.
> 
> But by virtue of being a Rush listener, i must be an idiot.  Thanks for enlightening me.
Click to expand...

You tell 'em! Doesn't he know only your MessiahRushie can call Americans stupid ignorant idiots!!!

January 18, 2010
RUSH: * What do you mean, Rush, arrogant?* What do you mean liberals are arrogant? What do you mean that they hold average people in contempt?* Well, I have the two sound bites that will illustrate this as well as anything could.

September 3, 2008
RUSH:  You know, it's a sad shame we've got so many stupid people in this country that we have to deal with, but we do.

April 2, 2008
RUSH:    I keep telling people: The most expensive commodity we have in this country is ignorance, not gasoline, not rice, not wheat, not corn. The most expensive commodity we have is the ignorance of way too many Americans. 

-----------------------
January 18, 2010
RUSH: * This is what people are fed up with, all these people that openly claim, "We're smarter than you. We know better than you. You don't know what's good for you; we know what's good for you."

November 4, 2008
RUSH: * We all love seeing stupid people learn something.* One of the greatest things in life is to see the stupid actually learn something.* And that's what Steve here in Peoria is basically saying.* Obama's people are a bunch of... They're just glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, total

November 5, 2008
RUSH:  * Like I said yesterday, I love enlightening stupid people.* There is nothing to me -- well, I can't say nothing, there are things I like more than this -- but, folks, you talk about euphoria, I get euphoric when I turn the light on inside some stupid person's brain.* Well, does that sound cruel, Mr. Snerdley?* What's wrong with the word "stupid"?* It has a definition.* There are some stupid people.* There are also some ignorant people. (interruption)* You prefer "ignorant"?* Now you're starting to sound like people, "Don't offend them, Rush, don't offend them."* All right, I'll say ignorant people. (interruption)* I'm not talking about our side.* I'm talking about the people that voted for Obama.


----------



## Some Guy

edthecynic said:


> You tell 'em! Doesn't he know only your MessiahRushie can call Americans stupid ignorant idiots!!!
> 
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * What do you mean, Rush, arrogant?* What do you mean liberals are arrogant? What do you mean that they hold average people in contempt?* Well, I have the two sound bites that will illustrate this as well as anything could.
> 
> September 3, 2008
> RUSH:  You know, it's a sad shame we've got so many stupid people in this country that we have to deal with, but we do.
> 
> April 2, 2008
> RUSH:    I keep telling people: The most expensive commodity we have in this country is ignorance, not gasoline, not rice, not wheat, not corn. The most expensive commodity we have is the ignorance of way too many Americans.
> 
> -----------------------
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * This is what people are fed up with, all these people that openly claim, "We're smarter than you. We know better than you. You don't know what's good for you; we know what's good for you."
> 
> November 4, 2008
> RUSH: * We all love seeing stupid people learn something.* One of the greatest things in life is to see the stupid actually learn something.* And that's what Steve here in Peoria is basically saying.* Obama's people are a bunch of... They're just glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, total
> 
> November 5, 2008
> RUSH:  * Like I said yesterday, I love enlightening stupid people.* There is nothing to me -- well, I can't say nothing, there are things I like more than this -- but, folks, you talk about euphoria, I get euphoric when I turn the light on inside some stupid person's brain.* Well, does that sound cruel, Mr. Snerdley?* What's wrong with the word "stupid"?* It has a definition.* There are some stupid people.* There are also some ignorant people. (interruption)* You prefer "ignorant"?* Now you're starting to sound like people, "Don't offend them, Rush, don't offend them."* All right, I'll say ignorant people. (interruption)* I'm not talking about our side.* I'm talking about the people that voted for Obama.


I guess because by virtue of being a Rush listener that i'm an idiot, i don't get the point of your post.  How does posting Rush quotes have anything to do with what i said?


----------



## Meister

Some Guy said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em! Doesn't he know only your MessiahRushie can call Americans stupid ignorant idiots!!!
> 
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * What do you mean, Rush, arrogant?* What do you mean liberals are arrogant? What do you mean that they hold average people in contempt?* Well, I have the two sound bites that will illustrate this as well as anything could.
> 
> September 3, 2008
> RUSH:  You know, it's a sad shame we've got so many stupid people in this country that we have to deal with, but we do.
> 
> April 2, 2008
> RUSH:    I keep telling people: The most expensive commodity we have in this country is ignorance, not gasoline, not rice, not wheat, not corn. The most expensive commodity we have is the ignorance of way too many Americans.
> 
> -----------------------
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * This is what people are fed up with, all these people that openly claim, "We're smarter than you. We know better than you. You don't know what's good for you; we know what's good for you."
> 
> November 4, 2008
> RUSH: * We all love seeing stupid people learn something.* One of the greatest things in life is to see the stupid actually learn something.* And that's what Steve here in Peoria is basically saying.* Obama's people are a bunch of... They're just glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, total
> 
> November 5, 2008
> RUSH:  * Like I said yesterday, I love enlightening stupid people.* There is nothing to me -- well, I can't say nothing, there are things I like more than this -- but, folks, you talk about euphoria, I get euphoric when I turn the light on inside some stupid person's brain.* Well, does that sound cruel, Mr. Snerdley?* What's wrong with the word "stupid"?* It has a definition.* There are some stupid people.* There are also some ignorant people. (interruption)* You prefer "ignorant"?* Now you're starting to sound like people, "Don't offend them, Rush, don't offend them."* All right, I'll say ignorant people. (interruption)* I'm not talking about our side.* I'm talking about the people that voted for Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess because by virtue of being a Rush listener that i'm an idiot, i don't get the point of your post.  How does posting Rush quotes have anything to do with what i said?
Click to expand...

Don't be offended, ed has a addiction to take Rush's words out of context.  He does this a lot, and people have learned to ignore him for the most part.


----------



## Some Guy

Meister said:


> Don't be offended, ed has a addiction to take Rush's words out of context.  He does this a lot, and people have learned to ignore him for the most part.


I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I will say this....seems like everytime I happen to catch some conservative talk radio show in the car or FOX news on TV...it does not fail that several people bring up the exact same topic with the exact same talking points the next day here and on other conservative message boards.
> 
> If one goes beyond the scope of what the talk show said, that's when the personal insults and various versions of "oh yeah!?!?" come out.
> 
> 
> This, of course, has been only my personal observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps talk radio is parroting the people.  *Bet you haven't heard that on the radio*, Bo.
> That is my observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that is what CON$ have been programmed to say, repeatedly drummed into them by GOP hate radio. So you are not very "observant" if you pretend never to have heard that said many times on GOP hate radio!!!
> 
> It is highly illogical to think the people all INDEPENDENTLY found the same sound bites and quotes, taken out of context and with the same words changed to create the same new context, on the same day as the pundits.
Click to expand...


  What in hell do you really know? Your so screwed up in your head that you wouldn't know free thought unless Rush told you that you have it.  So go back to your sandbox, sonny.


----------



## edthecynic

Some Guy said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em! Doesn't he know only your MessiahRushie can call Americans stupid ignorant idiots!!!
> 
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * What do you mean, Rush, arrogant?* What do you mean liberals are arrogant? What do you mean that they hold average people in contempt?* Well, I have the two sound bites that will illustrate this as well as anything could.
> 
> September 3, 2008
> RUSH:  You know, it's a sad shame we've got so many stupid people in this country that we have to deal with, but we do.
> 
> April 2, 2008
> RUSH:    I keep telling people: The most expensive commodity we have in this country is ignorance, not gasoline, not rice, not wheat, not corn. The most expensive commodity we have is the ignorance of way too many Americans.
> 
> -----------------------
> January 18, 2010
> RUSH: * This is what people are fed up with, all these people that openly claim, "We're smarter than you. We know better than you. You don't know what's good for you; we know what's good for you."
> 
> November 4, 2008
> RUSH: * We all love seeing stupid people learn something.* One of the greatest things in life is to see the stupid actually learn something.* And that's what Steve here in Peoria is basically saying.* Obama's people are a bunch of... They're just glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, total
> 
> November 5, 2008
> RUSH:  * Like I said yesterday, I love enlightening stupid people.* There is nothing to me -- well, I can't say nothing, there are things I like more than this -- but, folks, you talk about euphoria, I get euphoric when I turn the light on inside some stupid person's brain.* Well, does that sound cruel, Mr. Snerdley?* What's wrong with the word "stupid"?* It has a definition.* There are some stupid people.* There are also some ignorant people. (interruption)* You prefer "ignorant"?* Now you're starting to sound like people, "Don't offend them, Rush, don't offend them."* All right, I'll say ignorant people. (interruption)* I'm not talking about our side.* I'm talking about the people that voted for Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess because by virtue of being a Rush listener that i'm an idiot, i don't get the point of your post.  How does posting Rush quotes have anything to do with what i said?
Click to expand...

First of all, it is a Straw Man to suggest that Libs say people are idiots for merely listening to LimpBoy. It's pretty clear the Libs are saying idiots PARROT LimpBoy in agreement. 
Ditto that?

And the point of my post was, it is just as valid, OR INVALID, to say people are idiots for agreeing with MassiahRushie as it is for him to say people are stupid if they don't agree with him and need to be educated by him. He exposes his OWN arrogant condescension that he condemns in others. So the point is, it is hypocritical for his cult followers to whine like crybabies when the Golden Rule bites them in their hypocritical condescending asses.

Get it?


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps talk radio is parroting the people.  *Bet you haven't heard that on the radio*, Bo.
> That is my observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is what CON$ have been programmed to say, repeatedly drummed into them by GOP hate radio. So you are not very "observant" if you pretend never to have heard that said many times on GOP hate radio!!!
> 
> It is highly illogical to think the people all INDEPENDENTLY found the same sound bites and quotes, taken out of context and with the same words changed to create the same new context, on the same day as the pundits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in hell do you really know? Your so screwed up in your head that you wouldn't know free thought unless Rush told you that you have it.  So go back to your sandbox, sonny.
Click to expand...

In typical CON$ervative fashion, when you can't rebut the fact that when CON$ervative pundits and their sheep parrot the same errors they cannot ALL be thinking INDEPENDENTLY, so you resort to personal attacks.
Your white flag is accepted.


----------



## Meister

Right, my observation about you is not a personal attack, it's just an observation.  I don't know what that white flag crap is all about.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> Right, my observation about you is not a personal attack, it's just an observation.  *I don't know what that white flag crap is all about.*


Along with personal attacks, the other staple of the CON$ervative "debate" tactics is playing dumb.
Thank you again.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some Guy said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be offended, ed has a addiction to take Rush's words out of context.  He does this a lot, and people have learned to ignore him for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!
Click to expand...


First, welcome to USMB SomeGuy.  Be sure your bullshit detector has fresh batteries and your bullet proof vest is in place and wade right on in.  Hopefully, you'll find a few here worth sparring with and/or having a discussion on some interesting stuff.

But may I be so bold as to explain why you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush on occasion?

First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.

Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.

Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to those who judge without ever listening.

I tend to be wary of those who look to Rush or any other talk show host as some kind of guru with all the answers.  Anybody who lets others do all their thinking for them are most likely going to be wrong much of the time.  But I look with more suspicion on those who are so damned sure of what is said on those programs when they have never seriously listened to them.   They tend to be wrong almost all of the time.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be offended, ed has a addiction to take Rush's words out of context.  He does this a lot, and people have learned to ignore him for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, welcome to USMB SomeGuy.  Be sure your bullshit detector has fresh batteries and your bullet proof vest is in place and wade right on in.  Hopefully, you'll find a few here worth sparring with and/or having a discussion on some interesting stuff.
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to those who judge without ever listening.
> 
> I tend to be wary of those who look to Rush or any other talk show host as some kind of guru with all the answers.  Anybody who lets others do all their thinking for them are most likely going to be wrong much of the time.  But I look with more suspicion on those who are so damned sure of what is said on those programs when they have never seriously listened to them.   They tend to be wrong almost all of the time.
Click to expand...


As to #3, maybe you might be inclined to enlighen us as to an interesting and/or informative idea, policy or judgment from one of Limbaugh's shows.
I should add, you might actually learn something by watching/listening to Ratchel Maddow -the difference between she and Limbaugh is striking if one listens without bias.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, welcome to USMB SomeGuy.  Be sure your bullshit detector has fresh batteries and your bullet proof vest is in place and wade right on in.  Hopefully, you'll find a few here worth sparring with and/or having a discussion on some interesting stuff.
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to those who judge without ever listening.
> 
> I tend to be wary of those who look to Rush or any other talk show host as some kind of guru with all the answers.  Anybody who lets others do all their thinking for them are most likely going to be wrong much of the time.  But I look with more suspicion on those who are so damned sure of what is said on those programs when they have never seriously listened to them.   They tend to be wrong almost all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to #3, maybe you might be inclined to enlighen us as to an interesting and/or informative idea, policy or judgment from one of Limbaugh's shows.
> I should add, you might actually learn something by watching/listening to Ratchel Maddow -the difference between she and Limbaugh is striking if one listens without bias.
Click to expand...


Hee hee, was the RAT-chel Maddow a Freudian slip?  

Certainly Rachel does have a pertinent point or two to make and now and then actually gets past the snarky how awful they are themes enough to make one.  Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.  And that's why liberal talk radio or TV becomes so boring so quickly.  Those on the left have a very difficult time articulating a rationale for their ideology, values, or point of view and/or why that of the other side is wrong or, as they so often seem to express, despicable.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be offended, ed has a addiction to take Rush's words out of context.  He does this a lot, and people have learned to ignore him for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why *you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush* on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to *those who judge without ever listening.*
Click to expand...

Well there you go  again. Obviously I would never call someone an idiot for merely listening to your MessiahRushie since it is obvious I listen to him too!!!! The idiots are those who parrot all his lies and rationalizations without ever checking them, like YOU.

You have repeatedly accused me of not listening to LimpBoy and getting my quotes from some unnamed "Lib" site, but when challenged you can never post a link to the MYTHICAL site. I have even googled the quote and posted the search for you, since you are too stupid and lazy to do anything for yourself, and the only sites that come up are my posts here and at the AOL board, and LimpBoy's site and other GOP hate sites like freerepublic, yet you continue to say I don't listen to him.

I have even shown how he likes to mock his followers by linking you to articles that expose his lies knowing his cult followers will be to lazy to check the link and even if I post that his own link proves him a liar, you will block out that truth and run away without comment.

Here is his satellite radio lie exposed with his own link which I posted in this very thread, and a google search of the quote.

Now explain how I could know about this lie if I don't listen since it was posted nowhere else but LimpBoy's hate site and my post in this thread????

Please don't cut and run without an answer, like a typical CON$ervative pusillanimous poltroon.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1864077-post155.html

"it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot" - Google Search


----------



## Foxfyre

Sorry Ed, I do not believe that you have ever sat down and listened to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative programming with an interest in understanding the content.  I do not believe you do not cherry pick quotations out of context and portray them as something they are not.  When you actually can show me that you are dealing with a Rush quotation in its full context, then we might have a basis for discussion.  Otherwise I intentionally choose not to engage in an exercise in what I believe would be utter futility and mind numbingly boring.  Thanks so much for understanding.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anyone could say anything on here to offend me.  I'm just curious to learn why i'm an idiot simply for listening to Rush occasionally.  I'm sure the explanation is going to be very enlightening; i can't wait!
> 
> 
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why *you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush* on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to *those who judge without ever listening.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there you go  again. Obviously I would never call someone an idiot for merely listening to your MessiahRushie since it is obvious I listen to him too!!!! The idiots are those who parrot all his lies and rationalizations without ever checking them, like YOU.
> 
> You have repeatedly accused me of not listening to LimpBoy and getting my quotes from some unnamed "Lib" site, but when challenged you can never post a link to the MYTHICAL site. I have even googled the quote and posted the search for you, since you are too stupid and lazy to do anything for yourself, and the only sites that come up are my posts here and at the AOL board, and LimpBoy's site and other GOP hate sites like freerepublic, yet you continue to say I don't listen to him.
> 
> I have even shown how he likes to mock his followers by linking you to articles that expose his lies knowing his cult followers will be to lazy to check the link and even if I post that his own link proves him a liar, you will block out that truth and run away without comment.
> 
> Here is his satellite radio lie exposed with his own link which I posted in this very thread, and a google search of the quote.
> 
> Now explain how I could know about this lie if I don't listen since it was posted nowhere else but LimpBoy's hate site and my post in this thread????
> 
> Please don't cut and run without an answer, like a typical CON$ervative pusillanimous poltroon.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1864077-post155.html
> 
> "it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot" - Google Search
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> Sorry Ed, I do not believe that you have ever sat down and listened to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative programming with an interest in understanding the content.  I do not believe you do not cherry pick quotations out of context and portray them as something they are not. * When you actually can show me that you are dealing with a Rush quotation in its full context, then we might have a basis for discussion.*  Otherwise I intentionally choose not to engage in an exercise in what I believe would be utter futility and mind numbingly boring.  Thanks so much for understanding.


Well at least you didn't cut and run, I'll give you that much, but you also didn't click on the link which would have spared you making such a complete fool of yourself and at the same time exposing your closed-mindedness! 

You pretend to be someone who checks things out, but obviously you are just blowing smoke. You just gave your programmed knee-jerk "OUT OF CONTEXT" BS.

I quoted the satellite radio lie in its entirety, every word, syllable and punctuation mark from beginning to end and gave you the link to his hate site to confirm it. In a later post, in reply to YOU, I even showed you how he changed the title of the link to the article that exposed his lie, that he used for "proof" of his claim knowing that all CON$ would do is look at his new title and take that as proof and never actually click on the link and, God forbid, read the article themselves.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1865294-post171.html


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, welcome to USMB SomeGuy.  Be sure your bullshit detector has fresh batteries and your bullet proof vest is in place and wade right on in.  Hopefully, you'll find a few here worth sparring with and/or having a discussion on some interesting stuff.
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to those who judge without ever listening.
> 
> I tend to be wary of those who look to Rush or any other talk show host as some kind of guru with all the answers.  Anybody who lets others do all their thinking for them are most likely going to be wrong much of the time.  But I look with more suspicion on those who are so damned sure of what is said on those programs when they have never seriously listened to them.   They tend to be wrong almost all of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to #3, maybe you might be inclined to enlighen us as to an interesting and/or informative idea, policy or judgment from one of Limbaugh's shows.
> I should add, you might actually learn something by watching/listening to Ratchel Maddow -the difference between she and Limbaugh is striking if one listens without bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hee hee, was the RAT-chel Maddow a Freudian slip?
> 
> Certainly Rachel does have a pertinent point or two to make and now and then actually gets past the snarky how awful they are themes enough to make one.  Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.  And that's why liberal talk radio or TV becomes so boring so quickly.  Those on the left have a very difficult time articulating a rationale for their ideology, values, or point of view and/or why that of the other side is wrong or, as they so often seem to express, despicable.
Click to expand...


Well, after correcting my spelling and telling us all about Rachell's theme, you failed to respond to my simple question.  Tell me, what informative idea, policy or judgment has Limbaugh ever put forth?


----------



## Foxfyre

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to #3, maybe you might be inclined to enlighen us as to an interesting and/or informative idea, policy or judgment from one of Limbaugh's shows.
> I should add, you might actually learn something by watching/listening to Ratchel Maddow -the difference between she and Limbaugh is striking if one listens without bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hee hee, was the RAT-chel Maddow a Freudian slip?
> 
> Certainly Rachel does have a pertinent point or two to make and now and then actually gets past the snarky how awful they are themes enough to make one.  Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.  And that's why liberal talk radio or TV becomes so boring so quickly.  Those on the left have a very difficult time articulating a rationale for their ideology, values, or point of view and/or why that of the other side is wrong or, as they so often seem to express, despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, after correcting my spelling and telling us all about Rachell's theme, you failed to respond to my simple question.  Tell me, what informative idea, policy or judgment has Limbaugh ever put forth?
Click to expand...


Why don't you just visit his website?  There's quite a bit of stuff in the free area of that.

But though I tune in to the show rather infrequently these days, when I do I generally get an update on the current events of the day, reference to some good quotes or articles that Rush uses in his monologue or to lead into a discussion, some general statistics or data with sources mentioned so that if I have time to jot them down, I can check those out.

His own philosophy is pretty basic modern American conservatism:  Small, efficient, effective government that is no more intrusive than is absolutely necessary, a belief that America is basically a good place and Americans are basically good people, that bad choices generally result in bad results; good choices will almost always result in better results; entreprenourship and small business is the primary source of new jobs in this country and they should not be discouraged or hindered. . . .

In the 15 hours of broadcast plus an occasional book, an occasional article, and an occasional speech or other public appearance, there is a plethora of information provided.  But this pretty well is the general gist of it.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But may I be so bold as to explain why *you are idiot in the eyes of Ed et al when you admit that you listen to Rush* on occasion?
> 
> First, you are honest enough to admit it, a trait some have a great deal of trouble with.
> 
> Second, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the nuance, metaphors, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and other qualities of those programs that go right over the head of most radical wingnuts or certain young skulls full of mush.
> 
> Third, you appreciate that you actually can get some interesting or even useful information from those shows on occasion.  Listening in hopes of learning something is too often a concept totally foreign to *those who judge without ever listening.*
> 
> 
> 
> Well there you go  again. Obviously I would never call someone an idiot for merely listening to your MessiahRushie since it is obvious I listen to him too!!!! The idiots are those who parrot all his lies and rationalizations without ever checking them, like YOU.
> 
> You have repeatedly accused me of not listening to LimpBoy and getting my quotes from some unnamed "Lib" site, but when challenged you can never post a link to the MYTHICAL site. I have even googled the quote and posted the search for you, since you are too stupid and lazy to do anything for yourself, and the only sites that come up are my posts here and at the AOL board, and LimpBoy's site and other GOP hate sites like freerepublic, yet you continue to say I don't listen to him.
> 
> I have even shown how he likes to mock his followers by linking you to articles that expose his lies knowing his cult followers will be to lazy to check the link and even if I post that his own link proves him a liar, you will block out that truth and run away without comment.
> 
> Here is his satellite radio lie exposed with his own link which I posted in this very thread, and a google search of the quote.
> 
> Now explain how I could know about this lie if I don't listen since it was posted nowhere else but LimpBoy's hate site and my post in this thread????
> 
> Please don't cut and run without an answer, like a typical CON$ervative pusillanimous poltroon.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1864077-post155.html
> 
> "it doesn't matter what the total number is, because one in ten satellite subscribers are in un-owned cars still sitting on the car lot" - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ed, I do not believe that you have ever sat down and listened to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative programming with an interest in understanding the content.  I do not believe you do not cherry pick quotations out of context and portray them as something they are not. * When you actually can show me that you are dealing with a Rush quotation in its full context, then we might have a basis for discussion.*  Otherwise I intentionally choose not to engage in an exercise in what I believe would be utter futility and mind numbingly boring.  Thanks so much for understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you didn't cut and run, I'll give you that much, but you also didn't click on the link which would have spared you making such a complete fool of yourself and at the same time exposing your closed-mindedness!
> 
> You pretend to be someone who checks things out, but obviously you are just blowing smoke. You just gave your programmed knee-jerk "OUT OF CONTEXT" BS.
> 
> I quoted the satellite radio lie in its entirety, every word, syllable and punctuation mark from beginning to end and gave you the link to his hate site to confirm it. In a later post, in reply to YOU, I even showed you how he changed the title of the link to the article that exposed his lie, that he used for "proof" of his claim knowing that all CON$ would do is look at his new title and take that as proof and never actually click on the link and, God forbid, read the article themselves.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1865294-post171.html
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like I complimented you for not cutting and running like a typical CON$ervative coward too soon!

You have posted in this thread after this post was made and avoided explaining how I could have taken the satellite radio lie "out of context" by quoting his lie in its entirety!!!

But maybe that was a wise choice after all, this way you can't make an even bigger fool of yourself.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> You have posted in this thread after this post was made and avoided explaining how I could have taken the satellite radio lie "out of context" by quoting his lie in its entirety!!!



You again demonstrate that you don't have a clue what 'in context' means and you have consistently avoided my patient attempts to educate you about that.  So again, I will choose not to engage you in a circular argument that is suffocatingly boring to other members.  I acknowledge that you think I'm the idiot.  I acknowledge that you are incapable of engaging in reasonable debate.  Do have a nice day.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have posted in this thread after this post was made and avoided explaining how I could have taken the satellite radio lie "out of context" by quoting his lie in its entirety!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You again demonstrate that you don't have a clue what 'in context' means and you have consistently avoided my patient attempts to educate you about that.  So again, I will choose not to engage you in a circular argument that is suffocatingly boring to other members.  I acknowledge that you think I'm the idiot.  I acknowledge that you are incapable of engaging in reasonable debate.  Do have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You again demonstrate your CON$ervative dishonesty.
What possible "context" could possibly justify lying about satellite radio????????
If you are going to be condescending, like a typical CON$ervative, then "educate" me how "context" can change a lie into the truth, rather than rationalizing your cutting and running like a coward.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have posted in this thread after this post was made and avoided explaining how I could have taken the satellite radio lie "out of context" by quoting his lie in its entirety!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You again demonstrate that you don't have a clue what 'in context' means and you have consistently avoided my patient attempts to educate you about that.  So again, I will choose not to engage you in a circular argument that is suffocatingly boring to other members.  I acknowledge that you think I'm the idiot.  I acknowledge that you are incapable of engaging in reasonable debate.  Do have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You again demonstrate your CON$ervative dishonesty.
> What possible "context" could possibly justify lying about satellite radio????????
> If you are going to be condescending, like a typical CON$ervative, then "educate" me how "context" can change a lie into the truth, rather than rationalizing your cutting and running like a coward.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you didn't understand just what he was saying to you.


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You again demonstrate that you don't have a clue what 'in context' means and you have consistently avoided my patient attempts to educate you about that.  So again, I will choose not to engage you in a circular argument that is suffocatingly boring to other members.  I acknowledge that you think I'm the idiot.  I acknowledge that you are incapable of engaging in reasonable debate.  Do have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> You again demonstrate your CON$ervative dishonesty.
> What possible "context" could possibly justify lying about satellite radio????????
> If you are going to be condescending, like a typical CON$ervative, then "educate" me how "context" can change a lie into the truth, rather than rationalizing your cutting and running like a coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you didn't understand just what he was saying to you.
Click to expand...

it's beyond his capability


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You again demonstrate your CON$ervative dishonesty.
> What possible "context" could possibly justify lying about satellite radio????????
> If you are going to be condescending, like a typical CON$ervative, then "educate" me how "context" can change a lie into the truth, rather than rationalizing your cutting and running like a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you didn't understand just what he was saying to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's beyond his capability
Click to expand...

Well, you finally crawled out of your spider hole to post something instead of sniping in silence with your neg reps.

Well why don't you two condescending cowards explain how "context" can turn the satellite radio lie into the truth, especially since I quoted every word in your MessiahRushie's satellite radio lie rant.

Like I said, his own link exposes his lie and he gave you the link to MOCK your intelligence knowing that even armed with the truth you will never catch him lying.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you didn't understand just what he was saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> it's beyond his capability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you finally crawled out of your spider hole to post something instead of sniping in silence with your neg reps.
> 
> Well why don't you two condescending cowards explain how "context" can turn the satellite radio lie into the truth, especially since I quoted every word in your MessiahRushie's satellite radio lie rant.
> 
> Like I said, his own link exposes his lie and he gave you the link to MOCK your intelligence knowing that even armed with the truth you will never catch him lying.
Click to expand...


Why don't you assume the position of respect.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you didn't understand just what he was saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> it's beyond his capability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you finally crawled out of your spider hole to post something instead of sniping in silence with your neg reps.
> 
> Well why don't you two condescending cowards explain how "context" can turn the satellite radio lie into the truth, especially since I quoted every word in your MessiahRushie's satellite radio lie rant.
> 
> Like I said, his own link exposes his lie and he gave you the link to MOCK your intelligence knowing that even armed with the truth you will never catch him lying.
Click to expand...

fucktards like you hide in spider holes


----------



## amrchaos

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



I listen to right wing radio to sharpen my arguement skills.

Like "How do you handle an overbearen personality?"
"How to tackle 'Hypothetical situtations' in a skillful manner?"


Basically, it helps in this situation:
"How to recognize right wing propaganda?"


I need some left wing talk radio to help do the same for the lefties. Unfortunately, I live in South Florida!!


----------



## Some Guy

edthecynic said:


> First of all, it is a Straw Man to suggest that Libs say people are idiots for merely listening to LimpBoy. It's pretty clear the Libs are saying idiots PARROT LimpBoy in agreement. Ditto that?


I'm not sure if i can tell or not, but inferring that Rush listeners just parrot him is basically calling his listeners idiots who can't think for themselves.  Correct me if i'm wrong on that.

And for the record, i'm sure you'll never hear Rush suggest that legalization of marijuana is a good idea, whereas i would.




edthecynic said:


> And the point of my post was, it is just as valid, OR INVALID, to say people are idiots for agreeing with MassiahRushie as it is for him to say people are stupid if they don't agree with him and need to be educated by him. He exposes his OWN arrogant condescension that he condemns in others. So the point is, it is hypocritical for his cult followers to whine like crybabies when the Golden Rule bites them in their hypocritical condescending asses.
> 
> Get it?


The difference between Rush's arrogance and elected officials' arrogance is that Rush isn't in position to enact legislation that affects your life.  He's simply an entertainer with something to say on politics.  It's no different than the talkers on the left.  Stephanie Miller is on the progressive station here in Chicago in morning and she's every bit as arrogant and condescending as Rush is; maybe even moreso as she's more direct with her insults.




			
				Foxfyre said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.


They're pretty much all like that.  So why does Rush get singled out?  Probably because he's the most listened to radio personality in the nation.  Obviously he's doing something right.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's beyond his capability
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you finally crawled out of your spider hole to post something instead of sniping in silence with your neg reps.
> 
> Well why don't you two condescending cowards explain how "context" can turn the satellite radio lie into the truth, especially since I quoted every word in your MessiahRushie's satellite radio lie rant.
> 
> Like I said, his own link exposes his lie and he gave you the link to MOCK your intelligence knowing that even armed with the truth you will never catch him lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you assume the position of respect.
Click to expand...




DiveCon said:


> fucktards like you hide in spider holes


Just as I thought, neither of you can do any better than Ff at rationalizing how quoting your MessiahRushie's entire satellite radio lie takes it out of context.
Thank you both.


----------



## edthecynic

Some Guy said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it is a Straw Man to suggest that Libs say people are idiots for merely listening to LimpBoy. It's pretty clear the Libs are saying idiots PARROT LimpBoy in agreement. Ditto that?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if i can tell or not, but inferring that Rush listeners just parrot him is basically calling his listeners idiots who can't think for themselves.  Correct me if i'm wrong on that.
> 
> And for the record, i'm sure you'll never hear Rush suggest that legalization of marijuana is a good idea, whereas i would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the point of my post was, it is just as valid, OR INVALID, to say people are idiots for agreeing with MassiahRushie as it is for him to say people are stupid if they don't agree with him and need to be educated by him. He exposes his OWN arrogant condescension that he condemns in others. So the point is, it is hypocritical for his cult followers to whine like crybabies when the Golden Rule bites them in their hypocritical condescending asses.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between Rush's arrogance and elected officials' arrogance is that Rush isn't in position to enact legislation that affects your life.  He's simply an entertainer with something to say on politics.  It's no different than the talkers on the left.  Stephanie Miller is on the progressive station here in Chicago in morning and she's every bit as arrogant and condescending as Rush is; maybe even moreso as she's more direct with her insults.
Click to expand...

It's calling listeners WHO parrot him idiots.
Get it now?

And regarding LimpBoy's hypocritical arrogance, that's a distinction without a difference he programmed his mindless followers to say. Only today he was taking singlehanded credit for killing health care, after saying how he doesn't like to BRAG, of course. So he seems to think he has power to effect legislation and the lives of Americans even if you parrot that he doesn't.

January 21, 2008
RUSH:  * I am a conservative and an all-powerful media figure; a powerful, influential member of the media.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some Guy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.
> 
> 
> 
> They're pretty much all like that.  So why does Rush get singled out?  Probably because he's the most listened to radio personality in the nation.  Obviously he's doing something right.
Click to expand...


No, they don't all do that.  Rush doesn't do that.  If he is going to say that somebody is wrong, dishonest, off base or whatever, he will give a specific, well-articulated reason, analysis, and rationale for his opinion about that and, more often than not, will cite a source that his listeners can follow up to verify what he has said.  He is sometimes partisan and judgmental in his more all inclusive criticisms of liberals and liberalism in general, but while he doesn't bother to explain a rationale each time he does that, he does explain it within his full context over a period of time.

This is why Rush is interesting and somebody like Rachel Maddow isn't.  Whether or not you agree with him, Rush does deal in actual ideas and concepts to back up his criticisms and/or gives specific explanation for why criticism is warranted.  She seldom does.

And that in a nutshell is why conservative programming is far more successful than any liberal programming.  The liberals even bore their constituency to tears and have a really tough time building any kind of ratings.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, like most of her ilk, she focuses so much attention on criticism of the 'other side' that she never gets around to expressing a coherant reason for why the 'other side' is wrong, off base, hateful, or whatever the negative adjective of the day might be.
> 
> 
> 
> They're pretty much all like that.  So why does Rush get singled out?  Probably because he's the most listened to radio personality in the nation.  Obviously he's doing something right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't all do that.  Rush doesn't do that.  If he is going to say that somebody is wrong, dishonest, off base or whatever, *he will give a specific, well-articulated reason,* analysis, and rationale for his opinion about that and, more often than not, will cite a source that his listeners can follow up to verify what he has said.  He is sometimes partisan and judgmental in his more all inclusive criticisms of liberals and liberalism in general, but while he doesn't bother to explain a rationale each time he does that, he does explain it within his full context over a period of time.
Click to expand...

You obviously never listen to LimpBoy, or you are a pathological liar just like your MessiahRushie.

He spews his "well articulated" pure CON$ervative hate day in and day out, year in and year out.

February 2, 2007
RUSH:  We may not, cockroaches will. That means some liberals will.

January 21, 2010
RUSH:  You gotta understand, folks. See, I know liberals -- I know these cockroaches -- 

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/
Dehumanization

*Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration.*

The Psychology of Dehumanization

*Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent.* During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

*An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good.* Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

*Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents.* This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.


----------



## Foxfyre

And speaking of turning out the lights, the party's over, it was reported on the news today that Air America is in Chapter 7, is currently running only reruns, and will cease broadcasting altogether come Monday.

I am guessing that George Soros pulled the plug on their funding.  Even a bottomless money pit eventually has to admit a horse is dead.  When Soros stopped running Move-on.Org ads on Air America, that was most likely the death knell.  And since few would pay Air America for its programs and it had to mostly pay stations to run its stuff, it simply couldn't make it without the big money donors.

But what can they expect?  Liberal programming is boring to most people.  It just is.


----------



## ozzmdj

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that the First Amendment was defended today when the Supreme Court stood up for liberty in their decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Mark speaks with David Bossie of Citizens United as they discuss how the Court's decision upheld free political speech and the impact of it. The leftists don't want us to have free speech; they want to run our lives and re-write the Constitution. Finally, the liberals are connected to tyranny, while the American people are connected to liberty. We are tired of the politicians promoting their own careers and agendas, and not putting the country first. Mark Levin


----------



## naomibee

ozzmdj said:


> On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that the First Amendment was defended today when the Supreme Court stood up for liberty in their decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Mark speaks with David Bossie of Citizens United as they discuss how the Court's decision upheld free political speech and the impact of it. The leftists don't want us to have free speech; they want to run our lives and re-write the Constitution. Finally, the liberals are connected to tyranny, while the American people are connected to liberty. We are tired of the politicians promoting their own careers and agendas, and not putting the country first. Mark Levin



thank  god we have a radio that can tell people the truth.some one has to.


----------



## Foxfyre

ozzmdj said:


> On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that the First Amendment was defended today when the Supreme Court stood up for liberty in their decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Mark speaks with David Bossie of Citizens United as they discuss how the Court's decision upheld free political speech and the impact of it. The leftists don't want us to have free speech; they want to run our lives and re-write the Constitution. Finally, the liberals are connected to tyranny, while the American people are connected to liberty. We are tired of the politicians promoting their own careers and agendas, and not putting the country first. Mark Levin



The left leaning pundits on the alphabet networks are spinning this as a 'deeply divided nation' on this issue, however.  What do you suppose that means?  A handful of liberals are squealing in protest because somebody turned over their toy box?


----------



## Nevadamedic

ozzmdj said:


> Ditto.......



I agree, personally one of my favorites is Mark Levin. I was a huge fan of Roger Hedgecock then I found out that he committed a crime or to while holding an elected office and got kicked out of office, so Republican or not that is a deal breaker for me.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that the First Amendment was defended today when the Supreme Court stood up for liberty in their decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Mark speaks with David Bossie of Citizens United as they discuss how the Court's decision upheld free political speech and the impact of it. The leftists don't want us to have free speech; they want to run our lives and re-write the Constitution. Finally, the liberals are connected to tyranny, while the American people are connected to liberty. We are tired of the politicians promoting their own careers and agendas, and not putting the country first. Mark Levin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left leaning pundits on the alphabet networks are spinning this as a 'deeply divided nation' on this issue, however.  What do you suppose that means?  A handful of liberals are squealing in protest because somebody turned over their toy box?
Click to expand...

If corporations are the same as people then people are the same as corporations and both should pay the same tax rate.
If they are the same regarding speech then they are the same regarding taxes.


----------



## JimH52

But they are not.  This was a win for the GOP.  It is obvious from the justices who voted for it.  Big Business will be knocking down republican congressmen's doors, buying more favors.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nevadamedic said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, personally one of my favorites is Mark Levin. I was a huge fan of Roger Hedgecock then I found out that he committed a crime or to while holding an elected office and got kicked out of office, so Republican or not that is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...


Nobody is in politics long before he or she steps on a landmine or two.  If it makes any difference, Hedgecock's 'conviction' was more than 20 years ago and many believe the charges were politically motivated.  The charges were campaign finance impropriety and perjury regarding that, not misconduct in office.  The first trial ended in a hung jury.  He was convicted in a retrial in which many thought the jury was tampered with, but that was never conclusively proved.  The conviction was overturned on appeal, however, with a ruling of an error in instruction to the jury and juror misconduct.  Rather than incur the expense of still another trial, Hedgecock allowed a misdemeanor charge to stand (no lo contendre) but did not plead guilty.  That charge was dismissed after Hedgecock completed a short probation.  Was he as pure as the driven snow?  Probably not.  Nobody in politics is.  But he had an excellent solidly conservative record in public service, including being mayor of San Diego, and given the apparent mildness of whatever 'crime' he committed, he has probably paid his dues.

I think you would be safe in enjoying Roger Hedgecock's broadcasts again.


----------



## Mozilla

If your a Fan of Conservative Radio then you should listen over the web to Herman Cain out of Atlanta, Dana Loesch from Saint Louis, Jesse Lee Peterson from Los Angeles or Chris Stigall in Kansas City. These four are destined to be rising stars.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that the First Amendment was defended today when the Supreme Court stood up for liberty in their decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Mark speaks with David Bossie of Citizens United as they discuss how the Court's decision upheld free political speech and the impact of it. The leftists don't want us to have free speech; they want to run our lives and re-write the Constitution. Finally, the liberals are connected to tyranny, while the American people are connected to liberty. We are tired of the politicians promoting their own careers and agendas, and not putting the country first. Mark Levin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left leaning pundits on the alphabet networks are spinning this as a 'deeply divided nation' on this issue, however.  What do you suppose that means?  A handful of liberals are squealing in protest because somebody turned over their toy box?
Click to expand...


No partisanship here at all.

Listen to a steady diet of this, do you?


----------



## Foxfyre

Mozilla said:


> If your a Fan of Conservative Radio then you should listen over the web to Herman Cain out of Atlanta, Dana Loesch from Saint Louis, Jesse Lee Peterson from Los Angeles or Chris Stigall in Kansas City. These four are destined to be rising stars.



There's really a lot of good local folks out there.  The room at the top though is really small so its tough to break out of the local markets.  If they are really good though, the old guard will eventually hang it up and make room for others..

And welcome to USMB Mozilla.  We hope you find your niche and a happy home with us.  If you decide to stick around check in at the Coffee Shop.  It takes just a little extroversion and effort to fit right in and its a good place to get acquainted with folks.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Does conservative radio make you hate liberals?


----------



## uscitizen

I listen to no talk radio con or lib.


----------



## Sky Dancer

uscitizen said:


> I listen to no talk radio con or lib.



I listen to NPR a couple of times a week.  I listen to Dr Laura.  She's as conservative as they come.


I'd like to ask the conservatives what radio station offers your views without disrespecting liberals.  I would listen.


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> Does conservative radio make you hate liberals?


not me


----------



## Charles_Main

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



Yeah sure that is what caller after caller calling in a discussion issues is. Just Ideas being given to people. STFU asswipe you have no idea what you are talking about. Go watch some ABC and suck it up!


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does conservative radio make you hate liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> not me
Click to expand...


You must not listen to Limbaugh.


----------



## Mozilla

Foxfyre said:


> Mozilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your a Fan of Conservative Radio then you should listen over the web to Herman Cain out of Atlanta, Dana Loesch from Saint Louis, Jesse Lee Peterson from Los Angeles or Chris Stigall in Kansas City. These four are destined to be rising stars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really a lot of good local folks out there.  The room at the top though is really small so its tough to break out of the local markets.  If they are really good though, the old guard will eventually hang it up and make room for others..
> 
> And welcome to USMB Mozilla.  We hope you find your niche and a happy home with us.  If you decide to stick around check in at the Coffee Shop.  It takes just a little extroversion and effort to fit right in and its a good place to get acquainted with folks.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I am glad to be here. And thanks for the tips.


----------



## uscitizen

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does conservative radio make you hate liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


He laready hated them before listening to talk radio.  Talk radio just reinforces his faith in his party.


----------



## rightwinger

Sinatra said:


> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...



Yet it is the conservatives who flock to Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity to hear how bad they have it and who they should blame


----------



## Sky Dancer

I'd love to hear conservatives explain some of their positions without putting down the other side.


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does conservative radio make you hate liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

i have, but not every day
and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
but to each his own


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He laready hated them before listening to talk radio.  Talk radio just reinforces his faith in his party.
Click to expand...

hmm sounds familiar


----------



## Sky Dancer

rightwinger said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it is the conservatives who flock to Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity to hear how bad they have it and who they should blame
Click to expand...


That's the problem with so-called 'news analysis'.  We're not just gonna give you the facts we're gonna tell you how to think about it.


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
Click to expand...


Yeah, feminazi isn't hateful.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." 
Rush Limbaugh


----------



## uscitizen

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
Click to expand...


You hear no hate from Rush?
I think he coined the Feminazi and Hitlery terms?

You sure you listen to rush?


----------



## Sky Dancer

I once fired my house painter for blasting Rush Limbaugh into my home office.   

Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to view the child molester, David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians somehow as innocent victims of what he called an invasion by U.S. military tanks.


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, feminazi isn't hateful.
> 
> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...

no, i dont see that as hate
i see it as a JOKE


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hear no hate from Rush?
> I think he coined the Feminazi and Hitlery terms?
> 
> You sure you listen to rush?
Click to expand...

you clearly lack a sense of HUMOR


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> I once fired my house painter for blasting Rush Limbaugh into my home office.


wow, such hate


----------



## Charles_Main

Fact is 80% of these people on the left who talk about Conservative Talk Radio. Never actually listen to it. They get all they know about it from the Liberal Media and sites like Media Matters who routinely Take Rush and Others out of context and spin smear stories about them. 

The only one I would say Spews Hate is Mark Levin, and his Hate is not for a race, It is for the Far left and anyone he sees as trampling on the constitution. He hates a lot of Republicans to, and will tell you daily if you choose to listen to him.


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, feminazi isn't hateful.
> 
> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i dont see that as hate
> i see it as a JOKE
Click to expand...


Why doesn't he make fun of bigots?


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once fired my house painter for blasting Rush Limbaugh into my home office.
> 
> 
> 
> wow, such hate
Click to expand...


No.  I had a counseling pracitce in my home and the painter was blasting Rush spewing hate.  I put a stop to it.  I was certainly not going to pay the painter for being so rude and interfering with my business.


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hear no hate from Rush?
> I think he coined the Feminazi and Hitlery terms?
> 
> You sure you listen to rush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly lack a sense of HUMOR
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't have much of a sense of humor for bigotry.


----------



## uscitizen

I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.


----------



## Charles_Main

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, feminazi isn't hateful.
> 
> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> 
> 
> no, i dont see that as hate
> i see it as a JOKE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why doesn't he make fun of bigots?
Click to expand...


I have heard him Make fun of the KKK and their Silly sheets many times.

So um he does.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Charles_Main said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i dont see that as hate
> i see it as a JOKE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesn't he make fun of bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard him Make fun of the KKK and their Silly sheets many times.
> 
> So um he does.
Click to expand...


And then he makes a crack about Oprah and the President.


----------



## Sky Dancer

uscitizen said:


> I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.



They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to &#8220;lesbian spearchuckers,&#8221;


----------



## Charles_Main

Sky Dancer said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesn't he make fun of bigots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard him Make fun of the KKK and their Silly sheets many times.
> 
> So um he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then he makes a crack about Oprah and the President.
Click to expand...


So what he is a shock jock Talking head. Not a reporter. Lets talk about some of the so called objective Journalists on the left shall we. 

Rush makes fun of People so what. He does not preach racism or hate as people claim. If you see them claiming it, Notice how they never include a link, and when they do it is always from some 3rd party left wing site that has taken some small chuck of Tape and given you NO CONTEXT at all.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Sky Dancer said:


> I once fired my house painter for blasting Rush Limbaugh into my home office.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to view the child molester, David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians somehow as innocent victims of what he called an invasion by U.S. military tanks.



Fired the guy for that? Seems pretty harsh & hateful to me,but that's just me i guess. I agree with Limbaugh on this one. I saw a fantastic documentary the other night which showed how the Clinton Administration and the rest of our Government covered that one up big-time. The Democrats & Republicans got together and covered that one up. Janet Reno was responsible for massacring all those innocent women & children at Waco. That damn woman got away with murder. She didn't even get a slap on the wrist. 

They viciously attacked these people who were clearly hurting no one. Those stupid molestation accusations were made up by the Clinton Administration after the massacre to justify their brutal crimes. They punched holes into the building with their tanks and shot toxic explosives into it. Those explosives ignited the awful fire that killed all those kids. The awful toxic chemicals alone killed many of the children and older people. They did not start that fire themselves. That is a Government lie. There has never been justice for those slaughtered at Waco. This is possibly the biggest and most awful cover-up in our nation's history. It really is so sad.


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I once fired my house painter for blasting Rush Limbaugh into my home office.
> 
> 
> 
> wow, such hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I had a counseling pracitce in my home and the painter was blasting Rush spewing hate.  I put a stop to it.  I was certainly not going to pay the painter for being so rude and interfering with my business.
Click to expand...

you mean you couldnt have just asked him to turn off the radio?
you had to fire the guy?
thats hate to me


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> not me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
Click to expand...

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."

"The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo" (The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo)
*Dehumanization*

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a cortical cataract that clouds ones thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.


----------



## SW2SILVER

I listen to NPR almost exclusively. Thing is  (Jesus, I should sponsor them) I just can't. The Pew Hispanic fund. Despite the fact I don't support their objectives, legally or morally. Then there
is the GAY and Lesbian  fund of Colorado.  Contributes to NPR richly here in Colorado. I get the spin they make every day.  It isn't freedom of speech if it is propaganda, what can I SAY?  You can do it here, too here on the USMB.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must not listen to Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
> October 9, 2008
> "I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."
> 
> "The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo" (The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo)
> *Dehumanization*
> 
> At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.
> 
> Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a cortical cataract that clouds ones thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.
Click to expand...

yeah, says the one with a massive obsession with rush
LOL


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have, but not every day
> and i havent ever heard hate come from Rush
> but to each his own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, feminazi isn't hateful.
> 
> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no,* i dont see that as hate
> i see it as a JOKE*
Click to expand...

Only because you are not honest enough to admit it is RIDICULE!

Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to* ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.* 

May 14, 2007
RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point.* We were making fun of and laughing. *

January 24, 2007
RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule*, because there's no response to it. When you get *ridiculed and made fun of*, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's* laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them. *

June 23, 2008
RUSH:* Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"* 

July 23, 2010
CALLER:* So many kids think that being liberal is cool and hip and whatever.* What can we do to combat that?

RUSH:  Now, what can you do about kids who think that being liberal is cool? What can you do to combat it?** Laugh at them.* Mock them.* Make fun of them. *

CALLER: (chuckles)

RUSH:* Ridicule is the single greatest rapier.* Ridicule is the single best way to embarrass somebody and get other people laughing at them.** Whatever you do, do not be defensive.* Don't let them set the agenda. Don't let them let you always be reacting or responding to what they do.* Be on offense. Be assertive. Be confident.* If they say something you disagree with, laugh at them, tell 'em you feel sorry for them.


----------



## The Infidel

Sky Dancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to &#8220;lesbian spearchuckers,&#8221;
Click to expand...


You are a lying sack of shit!

Got some proof of that?


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, such hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I had a counseling pracitce in my home and the painter was blasting Rush spewing hate.  I put a stop to it.  I was certainly not going to pay the painter for being so rude and interfering with my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you couldnt have just asked him to turn off the radio?
> you had to fire the guy?
> thats hate to me
Click to expand...


You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.


----------



## Sky Dancer

The Infidel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to lesbian spearchuckers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got some proof of that?
Click to expand...


Google it yourself.


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I had a counseling pracitce in my home and the painter was blasting Rush spewing hate.  I put a stop to it.  I was certainly not going to pay the painter for being so rude and interfering with my business.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you couldnt have just asked him to turn off the radio?
> you had to fire the guy?
> thats hate to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.
Click to expand...

you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off

if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights


----------



## rightwinger

The Infidel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to lesbian spearchuckers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lying sack of shit!
> 
> Got some proof of that?
Click to expand...


LOL....that is mild for old Rush

Why don't you take the bone out of your nose?


----------



## mudwhistle

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



Most people like listening to it because it gives us the other side of the story.....not just the MSM's version of it.....mainly because what we hear everyday is nonsense.

It's pretty much the reason the left wants to shut it down....because they don't like opposing viewpoints.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

mudwhistle said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people like listening to it because it gives us the other side of the story.....not just the MSM's version of it.....mainly because what we hear everyday is nonsense.
> 
> It's pretty much the reason the left wants to shut it down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the claim that everyone makes. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh make a shitload of money by making you guys afraid of everything.


----------



## rightwinger

theDoctorisIn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people like listening to it because it gives us the other side of the story.....not just the MSM's version of it.....mainly because what we hear everyday is nonsense.
> 
> It's pretty much the reason the left wants to shut it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the claim that everyone makes. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh make a shitload of money by making you guys afraid of everything.
Click to expand...


Its not just the fear of everything, but making the listeners think they are victims.

And then finding the most defenseless members of society to blame


----------



## Mozilla

theDoctorisIn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people like listening to it because it gives us the other side of the story.....not just the MSM's version of it.....mainly because what we hear everyday is nonsense.
> 
> It's pretty much the reason the left wants to shut it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the claim that everyone makes. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh make a shitload of money by making you guys afraid of everything.
Click to expand...


Well, those on the left basically want to scare their base about all things Republican, Libertarian, Conservative and anyone opposing them. That's the majority of what people do on progressive radio and tv. That's all Olbermann, Malloy and Ed Schultz do.


----------



## Sky Dancer

DiveCon said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you couldnt have just asked him to turn off the radio?
> you had to fire the guy?
> thats hate to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off
> 
> if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights
Click to expand...


I was well within my rights whether you think so or not.  How would you like to be blasted with hate when you're trying to counsel someone?


----------



## DiveCon

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off
> 
> if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was well within my rights whether you think so or not.  How would you like to be blasted with hate when you're trying to counsel someone?
Click to expand...

not the way you said it the first time
but oh well
i have no desire to argue with you over this


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off
> 
> if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was well within my rights whether you think so or not.  How would you like to be blasted with hate when you're trying to counsel someone?
Click to expand...


Well you were within your rights but you're still pretty much a loony A*shole for reacting in such a hateful & deranged fashion. The guy was definitely better off for getting the h*ll out of there. Yuze a real loony toonz.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I have no regrets about it.  Not all conservatives are racist, misogynist, bigoted and homophobic but Rush is.

"Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" 
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549


----------



## DiveCon

LibocalypseNow said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off
> 
> if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was well within my rights whether you think so or not.  How would you like to be blasted with hate when you're trying to counsel someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you were within your rights but you're still pretty much a loony A*shole for reacting in such a hateful & deranged fashion. The guy was definitely better off for getting the h*ll out of there. Yuze a real loony toonz.
Click to expand...

when you hire someone to do a job, and you ask them to turn off the radio, then they should turn off the radio
not doing so is stupid of them


----------



## Sky Dancer

Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude and insensitive.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Sky Dancer said:


> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude and insensitive.



lol! Yea the guy was definitely better off getting the h*ll out of there. You're friggin nuts.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I hired a gay painter instead.  He listened to classical music.  Much more peaceful.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mozilla said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people like listening to it because it gives us the other side of the story.....not just the MSM's version of it.....mainly because what we hear everyday is nonsense.
> 
> It's pretty much the reason the left wants to shut it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the claim that everyone makes. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh make a shitload of money by making you guys afraid of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, those on the left basically want to scare their base about all things Republican, Libertarian, Conservative and anyone opposing them. That's the majority of what people do on progressive radio and tv. That's all Olbermann, Malloy and Ed Schultz do.
Click to expand...


Pretty much, yeah.

Doesn't make the fears any more based in reality. Right now, we see it a lot more from the right, because the left is in power. Obama's gonna lock all the "Conservatives" in FEMA camps. Obama's a Marxist sleeper agent. Obama's a Muslim sleeper agent. Birth Certificate! Fairness Doctrine! Amnesty!


----------



## ConHog

Sky Dancer said:


> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude an*d insensitive.*



So you agree, people shouldn't be insensitive? Excellent how about transporting your ass over to the mosque thread and saying that?


By the way Limbaugh is a loon and Hannity is attached to Boosh's cock .


----------



## LibocalypseNow

ConHog said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude an*d insensitive.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree, people shouldn't be insensitive? Excellent how about transporting your ass over to the mosque thread and saying that?
> 
> 
> By the way Limbaugh is a loon and Hannity is attached to Boosh's cock .
Click to expand...


Check-Pant Republicans. Golf-playing cigar-smoking phonies. I don't consider them real Conservatives. They're old-guard Republican types. The Republicans need to purge the party of these phonies. Just can't trust Check-Pant Republicans.


----------



## uscitizen

Sky Dancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I begin to understand rush fans a bit more.  Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to lesbian spearchuckers,
Click to expand...


As long as it is putting down those that right wingers do not like.
Which he basically always does.


----------



## sitarro

Sky Dancer said:


> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude and insensitive.



Grow up....... you are such a whiny ass. I'm sure you've never called a hetero, a breeder, right? You really don't have the brain power to counsel anyone.


----------



## sitarro

A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????













Oh and What The Fuck?????? A black man attended also? Oh yea, that is one of Rush's best friends and his right hand man on the show....Bo Snerdly......
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Here's a few more of a wedding that made Chelsea's 3 million dollar one look like a joke. Rush even hired a .......gasp.......woman, to take these excellent photographs.

Rush & Kathryn's Wedding | Facebook


----------



## uscitizen

Which one of Rush's weddings?  I guess he will have a valid reason for the Viagra for a while.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

sitarro said:


> A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????



Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars. 

Good for him.

Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Because there is no other talk radio out there. NOBODY wanted to listen to the ranting and raving lieing stupid, bone headed, close minded elitist liberals.

Actually, also, it helped me convert some life long liberals to the Republican party


----------



## theDoctorisIn

LuvRPgrl said:


> Because there is no other talk radio out there. NOBODY wanted to listen to the ranting and raving lieing stupid, bone headed, close minded elitist liberals.
> 
> *Actually, also, it helped me convert some life long liberals to the Republican party*



I don't believe you.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Sky Dancer said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think so?   What makes you think I hadn't asked him to lower the volume on the radio.  I have a right to be at peace in my home and office.
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt SAY you had asked him to turn it off
> 
> if you had said you asked him to turn it off and he refused, then you were well within your rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was well within my rights whether you think so or not.  How would you like to be blasted with hate when you're trying to counsel someone?
Click to expand...


Yep, its well within all liberals rights to be closed minded and hateful. Nothing new. Typical censorship by the hypocrites  on the left. Like the DemUnderground board

LOSERS............


----------



## uscitizen

I am a conservative liberal.

I am conservative as far as the debt and responsible spending, etc goes.
I am mostly socially liberal.


----------



## mudwhistle

theDoctorisIn said:


> LuvRPgrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no other talk radio out there. NOBODY wanted to listen to the ranting and raving lieing stupid, bone headed, close minded elitist liberals.
> 
> *Actually, also, it helped me convert some life long liberals to the Republican party*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.
Click to expand...


You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?


----------



## ConHog

mudwhistle said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuvRPgrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no other talk radio out there. NOBODY wanted to listen to the ranting and raving lieing stupid, bone headed, close minded elitist liberals.
> 
> *Actually, also, it helped me convert some life long liberals to the Republican party*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?
Click to expand...


At this particular point, I don't think most lefties are being rational at all.


----------



## Foxfyre

mudwhistle said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuvRPgrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no other talk radio out there. NOBODY wanted to listen to the ranting and raving lieing stupid, bone headed, close minded elitist liberals.
> 
> *Actually, also, it helped me convert some life long liberals to the Republican party*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?
Click to expand...


I absolutely think rational people WANT both sides of every issue before they commit to a conviction about those issues.  And talk radio gives you an in depth perspective of ALL sides of issues better than any other media outlet these days because they have such a large block of time to work with.

I get so frustrated with television discussions of such issues sometimes because the host is pushing people and cutting them off as they come up against the frequent hard breaks.  Talk radio, at least the better hosts, don't do that so much, the commercial breaks are much shorter, and much less intrusive.

I think people who only want their own opinions reinforced and aren't at all willing to consider changing them despise talk radio and won't listen for any time because it grates against those fixed opinions.  They are unwilling to explore other points of view.

People who listen to talk radio regularly do so in order to be informed and not to have their fixed opinions reinforced.  Rational people don't have to agree with the host--most of us don't agree with any host 100% of the time--but there is a tremendous amount of research and investigation that goes into a good talk radio program.  If you're capable of having an open mind at all, you absolutely cannot listen without learning something.


----------



## konradv

Arawyn said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here that's what I thought about those that listen to Air America
Click to expand...


LOL!!!  I thought no one listened to Air America, but now at your convenience they beome some sort of awesome boogey man on a par with O'Limbeck!


----------



## rikules

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



I completely disagree!

conservatives do NOT need "their opinions handed to them"

they don't need rush limbaugh to tell them who to hate or who to beat with a club

They already KNOW who they hate and who they want to kill....

the reason they listen to limbaugh (and his ilk) and read all those books that regurgitate the same vile bile is that they want APPROVAL and VALIDATION for their hatreds and  desires for violence...

limbaugh (and coulter and savage  etc) tell them....."you know those intense feelings of hatred for everyone who isn't conservatively correct?

and your intense desire to kill them all?

well...THAT'S GOOD!

That's RIGHT!"


----------



## Foxfyre

The problem with Air America is that they rarely did give all sides of any issues.  They mostly gave only the side they wanted to support and then condemned everybody else who didn't support it.  And that got boring, tedious, really old really fast.  Even their fan base couldn't stomach it long enough to keep them profitable.

With Conservative talk radio, the host will demonstrate a definite bias and their personal preferences and ideology for sure, but he or she will almost always competently give both sides of every argument even if he or she personally supports a particular side.  It is interesting for its fan base because it is informative.

The one on television who consistently does that better than anybody I've seen is Glenn Beck.  He is no respector of political parties or ideology.  He deals in the basic concepts that make us the people that we are and shows the cause, effect, and consequences of socioeconomic and political issues better than I've ever seen it done on a regular basis.  But because he tramples on so many sacred cows on the Left, he is despised and trashed by them.

Even some on the Right despise him I guess because it is socially popular to do so.  Ditto for some of the more popular conservative radio talk show hosts.


----------



## PixieStix

ConHog said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this particular point, I don't think most lefties are being rational at all.
Click to expand...


Have lefties ever been actually rational or logical at all? All I have seen is complete hypocrisies, and excuses for why they tell the right to live by a different standard than they should


----------



## Foxfyre

PixieStix said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this particular point, I don't think most lefties are being rational at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have lefties ever been actually rational or logical at all? All I have seen is complete hypocrisies, and excuses for why they tell the right to live by a different standard than they should
Click to expand...


There are a few who are rational and logical.  Before he retired a few years ago, I regularly read William Raspberry, and though he and shared different ideological worlds and I often disagreed with him, I admired his perspectives a great deal and his ability to provide a rationale for his views without having to trash somebody or some ideal on the right in order to do it.  And he would support the most controversial opinions on the right--even Limbaugh, Colter, Gingrich, et al, when he knew they were right.   That I think is extremely rare among liberals.  My favorite William Raspberry quotation I keep on my desk:


> Your best shot at happiness, self-worth and personal satisfaction - the things that constitute real success - is not in earning as much as you can but in performing as well as you can something that you consider worthwhile.



Others I read regularly and appreciate their take on things are people like Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd has her moments.  I loved Molly Ivans until her untimely death not long ago.


----------



## ConHog

PixieStix said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think it's possible that when both sides of issues are presented to rational people it would change those people's minds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this particular point, I don't think most lefties are being rational at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have lefties ever been actually rational or logical at all? All I have seen is complete hypocrisies, and excuses for why they tell the right to live by a different standard than they should
Click to expand...


Do you mean like when they scream that Muslims have a right to build a building ( a right that doesn't exist by the way) while telling us to shut up about complaining about it? LOL funny that I started a thread on that very thing last night in the flame forum and it was just total attack mode. They don't want to hear about their double standards


----------



## The Infidel

Sky Dancer said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They like putdown humor.  Rush compared White House staffers to pedophiles, feminists to lesbian spearchuckers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got some proof of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google it yourself.
Click to expand...


You do it.... I'm not the one throwing shit against the wall trying to see if it will stick 




Sky Dancer said:


> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude and insensitive.



That why you have the freedom to turn it off.... better yet, try another Air America and see where it takes ya.

You big whiney baby


----------



## sitarro

Sky Dancer said:


> I hired a gay painter instead.  He listened to classical music.  Much more peaceful.



Did you find this guy in the "Gay Yellow Pages"? I've seen the Houston version, nice little closed society you guy run around in.


----------



## sitarro

The Infidel said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got some proof of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do it.... I'm not the one throwing shit against the wall trying to see if it will stick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blasting racist crap from your radio in a mixed neighborhood is rude and insensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That why you have the freedom to turn it off.... better yet, try another Air America and see where it takes ya.
> 
> You big whiney baby
Click to expand...


That's right, if you want to hear real "hate radio", anyone on Air America fits the bill........oh wait......... is Air America still on the air?


----------



## sitarro

theDoctorisIn said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?


----------



## jillian

sitarro said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
Click to expand...


How is it 'hating' to say he showed up for money? I think it's simply honest.

If Nancy Pelosi paid you $1,000,000 to photograph her party, you'd show up too.

Or would it take $2,000,000?


----------



## DiveCon

jillian said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it 'hating' to say he showed up for money? I think it's simply honest.
> 
> If Nancy Pelosi paid you $1,000,000 to photograph her party, you'd show up too.
> 
> Or would it take $2,000,000?
Click to expand...

yeah, it "LOOKED" like he was just there for the money


----------



## sitarro

jillian said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it 'hating' to say he showed up for money? I think it's simply honest.
> 
> If Nancy Pelosi paid you $1,000,000 to photograph her party, you'd show up too.
> 
> Or would it take $2,000,000?
Click to expand...


Piss poor analogy. I'm not a multimillionaire or known world wide as a gay activist. He could have received great accolades and probably a few blow jobs for publicly turning down the million dollars, it would have shown his disdain for a supposedly homosexual hating public figure......instead, he gave Rush a concert and Rush later said on his radio program, a hand in friendship to he and his wife.

Of course I would photograph Nancy Pelosi for a million bucks........ I might even shoot her in the nude for that kind of money.......... I just wouldn't eat lunch before  and I wouldn't look.


----------



## DiveCon

sitarro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it 'hating' to say he showed up for money? I think it's simply honest.
> 
> If Nancy Pelosi paid you $1,000,000 to photograph her party, you'd show up too.
> 
> Or would it take $2,000,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss poor analogy. I'm not a multimillionaire and known world wide as an gay activist.
> 
> Of course I would photograph Nancy Pelosi for a million bucks........ I might even shoot her in the nude for that kind of money.......... I just wouldn't eat lunch before  and I wouldn't look.
Click to expand...

but i sure as hell wouldnt be posing for pics WITH her


----------



## edthecynic

sitarro said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
Click to expand...

I love how CON$ habitually put words in other peoples' mouths, but cry like little babies if the Golden Rule is applied.

November 5, 2007
RUSH:  Don't put words in my mouth

October 3, 2007
RUSH:  We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others.  What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

October 21, 2008
RUSH:   He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant.


----------



## skookerasbil

Conservative radio dominates and liberal radio well..........doesnt. Know why? Because conservative radio is a fcukking blast to listen to due to the hysterical stuff at the expense of the liberal. Ever listen to a liberal commentator on either radio or TV? ( with the possible exception of Jon Stewart). They are ALL miserable!!!!!!!!! And teh only people who like to listen to miserable people are people who are in a perpetual state of misery. Why do you think virtually every liberal talk radio program goes OFF THE AIR???!!!! Because you cant draw audiences from miserable people alone!!! When I listen to Mancow, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Mark Styne, I spend half the time peeing my pants when they are making fun of the absurdity of liberal thought.


----------



## Foxfyre

skookerasbil said:


> Conservative radio dominates and liberal radio well..........doesnt. Know why? Because conservative radio is a fcukking blast to listen to due to the hysterical stuff at the expense of the liberal. Ever listen to a liberal commentator on either radio or TV? ( with the possible exception of Jon Stewart). They are ALL miserable!!!!!!!!! And teh only people who like to listen to miserable people are people who are in a perpetual state of misery. Why do you think virtually every liberal talk radio program goes OFF THE AIR???!!!! Because you cant draw audiences from miserable people alone!!! When I listen to Mancow, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Mark Styne, I spend half the time peeing my pants when they are making fun of the absurdity of liberal thought.



You know you're probably more in tune with what keeps the audience than anybody else here.  We listen to conservative talk radio to be informed, but we stick with it because it is funny and entertaining.  There are serious moments.  There are times you get so angry you could throw the radio against the wall.  But there are just some plain good belly laughs too.  And why?  Because there is some substance to the humor.  Just like in stand up comedy, when they're making fun of something that we can relate to or know it's real, it's funny.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Sky Dancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to no talk radio con or lib.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to NPR a couple of times a week.  I listen to Dr Laura.  She's as conservative as they come.
> 
> 
> I'd like to ask the conservatives what radio station offers your views without disrespecting liberals.  I would listen.
Click to expand...


michael medved

Dennis Prager


----------



## Foxfyre

It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.

If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.

Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.

And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

sitarro said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of shots of Rush's wedding, he, his gorgeous wife and the featured performer...... recognize him Sky Dancer? What would one of the most famous homosexuals in the world be doing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying he's a good businessman. "Hater"? What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## DiveCon

theDoctorisIn said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elton John was there because Rush paid him 1 MILLION dollars.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> Seriously though, I'm sure the wedding was wonderful. But who the fuck cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying he's a good businessman. "Hater"? What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...

so, it was part of his contract to pose for photos with Rush and his bride?


----------



## Foxfyre

On a conference call for a minute....a really BORING conference call....before I get back to housework here.

But I was thinking we're probably doing it all wrong:

We watch and listen to poliical talk show hosts:





















And the French listen to political talk show hosts:






\






Hmmmm


----------



## theDoctorisIn

DiveCon said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Sir Elton is a whore........ who's the real hater here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying he's a good businessman. "Hater"? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, it was part of his contract to pose for photos with Rush and his bride?
Click to expand...


No, I'm sure he threw that in for free.

Seriously, I'm sure Rush is a really nice guy. I'm sure he and Sir Elton got along like gangbusters. I'm sure Elton was HAPPY to pose for a picture, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stay friends.


----------



## DiveCon

theDoctorisIn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying he's a good businessman. "Hater"? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> so, it was part of his contract to pose for photos with Rush and his bride?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm sure he threw that in for free.
> 
> Seriously, I'm sure Rush is a really nice guy. I'm sure he and Sir Elton got along like gangbusters. I'm sure Elton was HAPPY to pose for a picture, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stay friends.
Click to expand...

i have no doubts they were friends before

Rush isnt the evil incarnate that some on the left think he is


----------



## theDoctorisIn

DiveCon said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, it was part of his contract to pose for photos with Rush and his bride?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sure he threw that in for free.
> 
> Seriously, I'm sure Rush is a really nice guy. I'm sure he and Sir Elton got along like gangbusters. I'm sure Elton was HAPPY to pose for a picture, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stay friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have no doubts they were friends before
> 
> Rush isnt the evil incarnate that some on the left think he is
Click to expand...


I read somewhere that Rush tends to tip 200% or more whenever he goes out to a restaurant.

I've spent enough time when I was younger working as a waiter that that's enough for me to always like him as a person, at least on some level. 

There are many people who I respect, admire, and enjoy the company of who I disagree with on nearly everything. Life would be boring if everyone agreed.


----------



## DiveCon

theDoctorisIn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm sure he threw that in for free.
> 
> Seriously, I'm sure Rush is a really nice guy. I'm sure he and Sir Elton got along like gangbusters. I'm sure Elton was HAPPY to pose for a picture, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stay friends.
> 
> 
> 
> i have no doubts they were friends before
> 
> Rush isnt the evil incarnate that some on the left think he is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read somewhere that Rush tends to tip 200% or more whenever he goes out to a restaurant.
> 
> I've spent enough time when I was younger working as a waiter that that's enough for me to always like him as a person, at least on some level.
> 
> There are many people who I respect, admire, and enjoy the company of who I disagree with on nearly everything. Life would be boring if everyone agreed.
Click to expand...

agreed


not that i would agree with EVERYTHING you say


----------



## RedStateLiberal

Could someone explain something to me? Has any of the talking heads of the media, and I mean Cons. and Libs, ever done anything to help this country. I listen to 3 or 4 different ones during the course of the day. The only thing I hear is that the one in office is either "the second coming" or Satan incarnate. Depending on their point of view. My opinion is the only difference between a Hooker on the corner and talk radio hosts is simply the price. My apologies to the Hookers for putting them in the same company as talk show hosts


----------



## Foxfyre

RedStateLiberal said:


> Could someone explain something to me? Has any of the talking heads of the media, and I mean Cons. and Libs, ever done anything to help this country. I listen to 3 or 4 different ones during the course of the day. The only thing I hear is that the one in office is either "the second coming" or Satan incarnate. Depending on their point of view. My opinion is the only difference between a Hooker on the corner and talk radio hosts is simply the price. My apologies to the Hookers for putting them in the same company as talk show hosts



First, welcome to USMB RSL, and we hope you find your niche and a happy home with us.  

Second, the 'talking heads' are not in business to "help anyone".  They host television or radio programs for profit.  And the more value they have for the station, meaning the higher the market share they attract, the more profit they make for themselves as well.  

They don't attract market share by telling the public what they don't know or by telling them what they don't want to hear.  They attract market share by understanding the values and attitudes and gut feelings of their audience and affirming that.  They provide support for what most of their audience already believes.  Which, depending on the audience, might be that the current occupant of the White House is the Second Coming or at the very least Satan's little helper.

That doesn't mean that most of them don't do their homework and don't inform.  They do.  They provide names and dates and concepts and actions and controversies and keywords that give us all sorts of keywords to do further research.  And most have enough time to take all the fragmented sound bites we get from other media and pull them together in a more comprehensive and coherent form.  We would be naive to think that they are the last word.  But they are useful to help us know what we ought to be paying attention to.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.



So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.


----------



## Sky Dancer

sitarro said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hired a gay painter instead.  He listened to classical music.  Much more peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find this guy in the "Gay Yellow Pages"? I've seen the Houston version, nice little closed society you guy run around in.
Click to expand...


He was a friend of a friend.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
Click to expand...


Only when the liberals deserve or merit a put down.  And they put down those who call themselves conservatives but don't act like it.  And they mostly deal with themes and issues and concepts in depth which is why most people actually listen in as much as they do.

Perhaps you noticed that the point of much of liberal talk radio was to put down conservatives.  And they couldn't ever come up with much else to talk about at all.  And that got old really fast.  Which is why Air America failed and very few liberal talk show programs last very long.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view,* conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers. * Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when the liberals deserve or merit a put down.  And they put down those who call themselves conservatives but don't act like it.  And they mostly deal with themes and issues and concepts in depth which is why most people actually listen in as much as they do.
> 
> Perhaps you noticed that the point of much of liberal talk radio was to put down conservatives.  And they couldn't ever come up with much else to talk about at all.  And that got old really fast.  Which is why Air America failed and very few liberal talk show programs last very long.
Click to expand...

What a pant-load. 

All GOP hate radio does is RIDICULE and MISINFORM. Just like your posts.

And as far as GOP hate radio being profitable for their advertisers, GM started advertising on LimpTard and HanNITWITy and went bankrupt. Now GOP hate radio bashes GM and sales are up.


----------



## MarcATL

Political Junky said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.......
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to Michael Weiner [Savage] sometimes when there's nothing else interesting on. It's entertaining to hear that fool rant and carry on. He changes from one person to another day to day, if not within the same show. He lit into Hannity yesterday, saying that Hannity should put on an apron and tend bar.
Click to expand...

Whenever I stay at the office extra late, I listen to him on my way home.

What an ass-clown.

He's bitter too...bitter that he's relegated to the rungs of the late hours and not in the prime time like his other rightwingnut comrades ala Hannity, GAllagher, Boortz, et all.

This is why he consistently attacks them from time to time, I've heard him on more than one occassion attack Hannity for one reason or the other...also, he's still bitching, whining and moaning about his banning from Britian.

Weiner...get it? Weiner?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## mudwhistle

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
Click to expand...


The point of conservative talk radio is to combat the spin the MSM puts on the news. 

Many times important facts of the story are never released except on talk radio. Liberals in general believe the spin and talk radio focuses on the actual story rather then just the spin.


----------



## mudwhistle

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the liberals deserve or merit a put down.  And they put down those who call themselves conservatives but don't act like it.  And they mostly deal with themes and issues and concepts in depth which is why most people actually listen in as much as they do.
> 
> Perhaps you noticed that the point of much of liberal talk radio was to put down conservatives.  And they couldn't ever come up with much else to talk about at all.  And that got old really fast.  Which is why Air America failed and very few liberal talk show programs last very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a pant-load.
> 
> All GOP hate radio does is RIDICULE and MISINFORM. Just like your posts.
> 
> And as far as GOP hate radio being profitable for their advertisers, GM started advertising on LimpTard and HanNITWITy and went bankrupt. Now GOP hate radio bashes GM and sales are up.
Click to expand...


All Obama does is ridicule...lie....and cause divisions. This statement about the Mosque is  the latest example of it. Before that it was Arizona, Stupid Cops, The Tea Party, Pennsylvania voters, Joe the Plumber, Fox News, Sarah Palin, and anyone who dares to question his ridiculous policy decisions.


----------



## judyd

I remember when talk radio was first used.  At that time, it was the CALLER who was the star.  It wasn't anything like the "lecture" programs that we are exposed to now.  It used to be that the callers would define the subject--and gee, they weren't cut off when they didn't follow the moderator's cues.  

What is out there now is NOT talk radio--it's brainwashing at best.


----------



## mudwhistle

judyd said:


> I remember when talk radio was first used.  At that time, it was the CALLER who was the star.  It wasn't anything like the "lecture" programs that we are exposed to now.  It used to be that the callers would define the subject--and gee, they weren't cut off when they didn't follow the moderator's cues.
> 
> What is out there now is NOT talk radio--it's brainwashing at best.



What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??


----------



## Foxfyre

mudwhistle said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of conservative talk radio is to combat the spin the MSM puts on the news.
> 
> Many times important facts of the story are never released except on talk radio. Liberals in general believe the spin and talk radio focuses on the actual story rather then just the spin.
Click to expand...


Well they do that of course, though I don't know that their motives for their programming is anythng other than zeroing in on what their listeners want.  I accept that Fox News and conservative talk radio exists and is more profitable than any other news medium these days is by giving the people what they want.  Otherwise the people aren't going to tune in and the advertisers won't buy the time to keep them on the air.

Those of us who do want to be informed know that we aren't going to get much news unfavorable to the Left, unfavorable to Democrats, unfavorable to the President from the alphabet radio and television stations and networks and/or wire services these days.  They all shill to put the best possible face on their guys.

If it wasn't for conservative talk radio and the internet, a whole lot of stuff that we need to know about would never be printed or aired at all.   Only when it is put out there and no longer can be ignored will the mainstream media deal with it.

Scooping your competition no longer seems to be a priority.  Controlling the spin does.


----------



## judyd

mudwhistle said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when talk radio was first used.  At that time, it was the CALLER who was the star.  It wasn't anything like the "lecture" programs that we are exposed to now.  It used to be that the callers would define the subject--and gee, they weren't cut off when they didn't follow the moderator's cues.
> 
> What is out there now is NOT talk radio--it's brainwashing at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??
Click to expand...


The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.  

It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.


----------



## DiveCon

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when talk radio was first used.  At that time, it was the CALLER who was the star.  It wasn't anything like the "lecture" programs that we are exposed to now.  It used to be that the callers would define the subject--and gee, they weren't cut off when they didn't follow the moderator's cues.
> 
> What is out there now is NOT talk radio--it's brainwashing at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
Click to expand...

clear proof you never listen


----------



## Foxfyre

judyd said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when talk radio was first used.  At that time, it was the CALLER who was the star.  It wasn't anything like the "lecture" programs that we are exposed to now.  It used to be that the callers would define the subject--and gee, they weren't cut off when they didn't follow the moderator's cues.
> 
> What is out there now is NOT talk radio--it's brainwashing at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
Click to expand...


There are still some programs out there that the host just answers the phone and listens to the callers give their spiel on whatever the subject of the day is and doesn't interject too much of his/her own opinion.  Our afternoon show from 3 pm to 7 pm here in Albuquerque is pretty much that way.  Every now and then it is okay, but as a steady diet it is BORING.  Much more interesting to listen in to be informed as well as to be confirmed.

I suspect very few leftists enjoy conservative talk radio because they do have to hear information that they don't want to hear.   The hosts generally put through most of the more articulate leftists who call though and do give them a fair hearing.  Such callers are likely to get considerably more time than the conservatives who call in.  And, if they are civil, they are treated with complete courtesy.

You have to have a very narrow and strange definition for brain washing if you think that is what they do.


----------



## DiveCon

Foxfyre said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are still some programs out there that the host just answers the phone and listens to the callers give their spiel on whatever the subject of the day is and doesn't interject too much of his/her own opinion.  Our afternoon show from 3 pm to 7 pm here in Albuquerque is pretty much that way.  Every now and then it is okay, but as a steady diet it is BORING.  Much more interesting to listen in to be informed as well as to be confirmed.
> 
> I suspect very few leftists enjoy conservative talk radio because they do have to hear information that they don't want to hear.   The hosts generally put through most of the more articulate leftists who call though and do give them a fair hearing.  Such callers are likely to get considerably more time than the conservatives who call in.  And, if they are civil, they are treated with complete courtesy.
> 
> You have to have a very narrow and strange definition for brain washing if you think that is what they do.
Click to expand...

clearly she doesnt know about the "open line friday"
or the "hate hannity" line


LOL
shes clueless and repeating something she heard someone else say


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> clearly she doesnt know about the "open line friday"
> or the "hate hannity" line
> 
> 
> LOL
> shes clueless and repeating something she heard someone else say



I think those on the Left call into Rush more on regular days than Open Line Friday though.  They are inspired to do so more when there is a specific topic being discussed.

But I had forgotten about the "Hate Hannity Hotline".  It is a hoot.  

But you're right.  Folks who would call any of those shows 'brain washing' simply aren't listening.


----------



## judyd

Foxfyre said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is being done on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, PBS, NPR, etc,??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are still some programs out there that the host just answers the phone and listens to the callers give their spiel on whatever the subject of the day is and doesn't interject too much of his/her own opinion.  Our afternoon show from 3 pm to 7 pm here in Albuquerque is pretty much that way.  Every now and then it is okay, but as a steady diet it is BORING.  Much more interesting to listen in to be informed as well as to be confirmed.
> 
> I suspect very few leftists enjoy conservative talk radio because they do have to hear information that they don't want to hear.   The hosts generally put through most of the more articulate leftists who call though and do give them a fair hearing.  Such callers are likely to get considerably more time than the conservatives who call in.  And, if they are civil, they are treated with complete courtesy.
> 
> You have to have a very narrow and strange definition for brain washing if you think that is what they do.
Click to expand...


No, the method that I refer to was not boring--it depended entirely on the host and what subjects they presented.

You are probably correct in your assessment of "leftists" as you put it.  Unlike conservatives, most don't care to be lectured to by either side.   You should realize that by the fact that "liberal" radio never really got off the ground.   For you to try to say that hannity or limbaugh or any of the others give liberals a fair shot to present their arguments is ridiculous.  They wait until they have a caller who can't put three words together and then put him on--let him go on his drunken spiel and then shut him off and start their one-sided tyraid again.

But again, that wasn't the original purpose of talk radio.  It was simply a MODERATOR posing a subject and then lettting the callers go with it--no matter which direction.   They didn't steer it to only conservative or liberal as conservative radio jocks do now.

What the idiots do now has nothing to do with talk radio.


----------



## DiveCon

judyd said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are still some programs out there that the host just answers the phone and listens to the callers give their spiel on whatever the subject of the day is and doesn't interject too much of his/her own opinion.  Our afternoon show from 3 pm to 7 pm here in Albuquerque is pretty much that way.  Every now and then it is okay, but as a steady diet it is BORING.  Much more interesting to listen in to be informed as well as to be confirmed.
> 
> I suspect very few leftists enjoy conservative talk radio because they do have to hear information that they don't want to hear.   The hosts generally put through most of the more articulate leftists who call though and do give them a fair hearing.  Such callers are likely to get considerably more time than the conservatives who call in.  And, if they are civil, they are treated with complete courtesy.
> 
> You have to have a very narrow and strange definition for brain washing if you think that is what they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the method that I refer to was not boring--it depended entirely on the host and what subjects they presented.
> 
> You are probably correct in your assessment of "leftists" as you put it.  Unlike conservatives, most don't care to be lectured to by either side.   You should realize that by the fact that "liberal" radio never really got off the ground.   For you to try to say that hannity or limbaugh or any of the others give liberals a fair shot to present their arguments is ridiculous.  They wait until they have a caller who can't put three words together and then put him on--let him go on his drunken spiel and then shut him off and start their one-sided tyraid again.
> 
> But again, that wasn't the original purpose of talk radio.  It was simply a MODERATOR posing a subject and then lettting the callers go with it--no matter which direction.   They didn't steer it to only conservative or liberal as conservative radio jocks do now.
> 
> What the idiots do now has nothing to do with talk radio.
Click to expand...

which again, proves you've never actually listened


----------



## Foxfyre

What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.

Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.

What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when the liberals deserve or merit a put down.  And they put down those who call themselves conservatives but don't act like it.  And they mostly deal with themes and issues and concepts in depth which is why most people actually listen in as much as they do.
> 
> Perhaps you noticed that the point of much of liberal talk radio was to put down conservatives.  And they couldn't ever come up with much else to talk about at all.  And that got old really fast.  Which is why Air America failed and very few liberal talk show programs last very long.
Click to expand...


I rarely listen to talk radio.  I listen to dr laura and even christian radio when I'm on road trips.    I listen to NPR which isn't talk radio.

I don't listen to liberal radio.  I tihink I listened to Air America twice before it went off the air.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.



What is conservative talk radio?  What programs do you listen to and why do you listen to them?


----------



## edthecynic

mudwhistle said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on how one defines respectful I guess.
> 
> If you want a program in which liberalism and liberals are held up as the intellectually superior, more open minded, more altruistic, more generous, more caring, more insightful, and/or just "better people" as many see and/or portray themselves, then you're better off sticking with NPR or Air America type programming.
> 
> Conservative talk radio is called conservative talk radio because it disputes, debunks, criticizes, and/or exposes the fallacies it identifies in liberalism and what liberals express individually and in groups and it puts conservative concepts, values, and ideals out there.
> 
> And because so many more Americans relate to the conservative point of view much more closely than they do the liberal point of view, conservative talk radio usually remains successful and profitable for the advertisers.  Liberal talk radio usually doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of conservative talk radio is to combat the spin the MSM puts on the news.
> 
> Many times important facts of the story are never released except on talk radio. Liberals in general believe the spin and talk radio focuses on the actual story rather then just the spin.
Click to expand...

The point of CON$ervative hate radio is to echo GOP disinformation. Corporate MSM protects GOP hate media by only presenting the weakest argument, if any at all, against the GOP disinformation campaign. 

Of course, to CON$, presenting even the very weakest argument against the GOP misinformation makes the media too Liberal for them. CON$ are terrified of even the slightest exposure to any truth whatsoever.


----------



## judyd

Foxfyre said:


> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.



Are you attempting to claim that limbaugh, hannity (the whiner) and beck don't scream and lecture their audience???  And incidentally, I didn't listen to air america once I heard that they tried the same tactic.  I simply will not be screamed at or lectured to.  That is not talk--that is brainwashing, clear and simple.  Perhaps if you weren't already brainwashed by these idiots, you would see that.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of conservative talk radio is to put down liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of conservative talk radio is to combat the spin the MSM puts on the news.
> 
> Many times* important facts of the story are never released except on talk radio.* Liberals in general believe the spin and talk radio focuses on the actual story rather then just the spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they do that of course, though I don't know that their motives for their programming is anythng other than zeroing in on what their listeners want.  I accept that Fox News and conservative talk radio exists and is more profitable than any other news medium these days is by giving the people what they want.  Otherwise the people aren't going to tune in and the advertisers won't buy the time to keep them on the air.
> 
> Those of us who do want to be informed know that we aren't going to get much news unfavorable to the Left, unfavorable to Democrats, unfavorable to the President from the alphabet radio and television stations and networks and/or wire services these days.  They all shill to put the best possible face on their guys.
> 
> *If it wasn't for conservative talk radio and the internet, a whole lot of stuff that we need to know about would never be printed or aired at all.*   Only when it is put out there and no longer can be ignored will the mainstream media deal with it.
> 
> Scooping your competition no longer seems to be a priority.  Controlling the spin does.
Click to expand...

Of course, what CON$ mean by "facts" are the lies scripted by the GOP. For example, GOP hate media and the CON$ervative echo chamber claimed that np president in the history of the US had ever bowed before Obama. CON$ bitch, whine and moan that the MSM didn't "report" that GOP scripted lie, thus they rationalize the need for the FOX gossip Channel and Hate Radio.


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject was TALK RADIO.  None of those claim to be talk programs.  Loons like Dr. Laura, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. supposedly are conservative TALK radio.  Couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> It originally wasn that the host would broach a subject and the callers would run with it--in either direction.  All of the conservatives cut the caller off if they say something not in the script.  It is strictly a lecture series.  There is no discussion of BOTH sides at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are still some programs out there that the host just answers the phone and listens to the callers give their spiel on whatever the subject of the day is and doesn't interject too much of his/her own opinion.  Our afternoon show from 3 pm to 7 pm here in Albuquerque is pretty much that way.  Every now and then it is okay, but as a steady diet it is BORING.  Much more interesting to listen in to be informed as well as to be confirmed.
> 
> I suspect very few leftists enjoy conservative talk radio because they do have to hear information that they don't want to hear.   The hosts generally put through most of the more articulate leftists who call though and do give them a fair hearing.  Such callers are likely to get considerably more time than the conservatives who call in.  And, if they are civil, they are treated with complete courtesy.
> 
> You have to have a very narrow and strange definition for brain washing if you think that is what they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clearly she doesnt know about the "open line friday"
> or the "hate hannity" line
> 
> 
> LOL
> shes clueless and repeating something she heard someone else say
Click to expand...

Open line friday is no different than any other day in that all the calls are heavily screened and the only "Libs" are CON$ pretending to be Libs to make the CON$ervative host look good. 

I've gotten through to Stuttering LimpTard on a couple of Fridays and both times I was screened out rather than moved to the front of the line as the pathological liar claims he does with Libs.


----------



## DiveCon

edthemoron, you are so pathetic


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthemoron, you are so pathetic


Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.

December 11, 2007
RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
*I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*

December 20S, 2007
*Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
December 20, 2007
RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*


----------



## Foxfyre

judyd said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to claim that limbaugh, hannity (the whiner) and beck don't scream and lecture their audience???  And incidentally, I didn't listen to air america once I heard that they tried the same tactic.  I simply will not be screamed at or lectured to.  That is not talk--that is brainwashing, clear and simple.  Perhaps if you weren't already brainwashed by these idiots, you would see that.
Click to expand...


Depends on what you mean by 'scream' and 'lecture'.  Do they provide a lot of substance in their monologues, yes they do.  Do they scream at people, I 've certainly never heard one of them 'scream' at anybody.  Ever.  Michael Savage, yes.  But Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, no way.

And I suggest that you look up a defnition of brainwashing so that you won't continue to sound rather looney tunes on this subject.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> edthemoron, you are so pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.
> 
> December 11, 2007
> RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
> *I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*
> 
> December 20S, 2007
> *Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO
you prove once again you take things totally out of context


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to claim that limbaugh, hannity (the whiner) and beck don't scream and lecture their audience???  And incidentally, I didn't listen to air america once I heard that they tried the same tactic.  I simply will not be screamed at or lectured to.  That is not talk--that is brainwashing, clear and simple.  Perhaps if you weren't already brainwashed by these idiots, you would see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by 'scream' and 'lecture'.  Do they provide a lot of substance in their monologues, yes they do.  Do they scream at people, I 've certainly never heard one of them 'scream' at anybody.  Ever.  Michael Savage, yes.  But Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, no way.
> 
> And I suggest that you look up a defnition of brainwashing so that you won't continue to sound rather looney tunes on this subject.
Click to expand...

Aw come on, Stuttering LimpTard not only screams habitually, you can hear him pounding on his desk even with all the dampening his mic has!


----------



## Foxfyre

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> edthemoron, you are so pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.
> 
> December 11, 2007
> RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
> *I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*
> 
> December 20S, 2007
> *Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMAO
> you prove once again you take things totally out of context
Click to expand...


I learned from experience some time ago that Ed means well and holds real convictions, but he doesn't understand the concept of "in context".


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> edthemoron, you are so pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.
> 
> December 11, 2007
> RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
> *I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*
> 
> December 20S, 2007
> *Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMAO
> you prove once again you take things totally out of context
Click to expand...

As you well know, I never take anything out of context. That would be lowering myself to your MessiahRushie's level.

But here's the recession bet he rejected in full context. VERY REVEALING!!!

Interesting is how LimpTard didn't know the recession was coming even after someone told him, but he puts down Obama claiming someone had to have told him in 2007 what was coming in 2008 that even LimpTard's caller could see. Unless, as the moron claimed, the CALLER had a hand in  it! 

Caller Proposes Recession Bet
December 20, 2007
CALLER:  I was hoping that I might make a wager with you and, to be fair, it was based on income.  So* I'm saying that the economy is going to have a major recession to a depression, within the next two to three years -- and I base that belief on the housing market.*  A case where people are tapped out with equity; they've been living the good life, and now that spigot is shut off.  Now they're going to credit cards and they're showing through the roof on defaults. * I think it's just a matter of time before this house of cards collapses.*  What do you thinks? [sic]

RUSH: * Nope.  I don't think it's going to happen.*  I've been hearing things like this my whole life. * I've been hearing the national debt is going to wipe us out. I've been hearing the annual deficit is going to wipe us out.* I've been hearing the credit card debt and that people are not saving enough money, is going to wipe us out. I keep hearing that Social Security is going to wipe us out in 50 years unless we reform it. * I think that the country is built on far more than a house of cards,* and I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.

April 22, 2010
RUSH: Keep in mind you're listening to President Obama, a guy who has never, ever held a real job in a productive economy.* The only thing he knows about money is how to spend other people's.* He doesn't know how to earn it; he doesn't know anything about capital formation;* he could not have known in 2007 what was coming.* He has no experience. Somebody had to tell him what was coming in 2007, meaning the crash in 2008.* He didn't have any experience to know.* Somebody had to know, somebody had to tell him, for that somebody to know they had to have a hand in it.* *Can anybody say George Soros?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservative talk radio?  What programs do you listen to and why do you listen to them?
Click to expand...


Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)

Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.

Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.
> 
> December 11, 2007
> RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
> *I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*
> 
> December 20, 2007
> *Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> you prove once again you take things totally out of context
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned from experience some time ago that Ed means well and holds real convictions, but he doesn't understand the concept of "in context".
Click to expand...

Oh come on now, what other possible context could it be???

LimpTard repeats a bet over the the air and says he will make it again and 9 days later says he wouldn't make a bet over the air!!!!
Sheeeeesh.


----------



## Foxfyre

I just don't have the inclination or patience to get into it with you Ed, so will just refer you to other discussions we've had on the issue of 'in context' as I am quite certain this discussion would go no differently.  Thank you for understanding.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> I just don't have the inclination or patience to get into it with you Ed, so will just refer you to other discussions we've had on the issue of 'in context' as I am quite certain this discussion would go no differently.  Thank you for understanding.


You never gave the "correct" context in the past, so it is no surprise you would refuse again in this case.
I understand perfectly.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as "pathetic" as you say I am, your MessiahRushie is terrified to debate me.
> 
> December 11, 2007
> RUSH:  By the way,* I want to renew a bet.  I will bet my life's fortune* against Algore's that what he predicts in 2030 will not happen...
> *I made this offer six months ago, and I'll make it again in future days*
> 
> December 20S, 2007
> *Caller Proposes Recession Bet*
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH:  * I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.*
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> you prove once again you take things totally out of context
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you well know, I never take anything out of context. That would be lowering myself to your MessiahRushie's level.
> 
> But here's the recession bet he rejected in full context. VERY REVEALING!!!
> 
> Interesting is how LimpTard didn't know the recession was coming even after someone told him, but he puts down Obama claiming someone had to have told him in 2007 what was coming in 2008 that even LimpTard's caller could see. Unless, as the moron claimed, the CALLER had a hand in  it!
> 
> Caller Proposes Recession Bet
> December 20, 2007
> CALLER:  I was hoping that I might make a wager with you and, to be fair, it was based on income.  So* I'm saying that the economy is going to have a major recession to a depression, within the next two to three years -- and I base that belief on the housing market.*  A case where people are tapped out with equity; they've been living the good life, and now that spigot is shut off.  Now they're going to credit cards and they're showing through the roof on defaults. * I think it's just a matter of time before this house of cards collapses.*  What do you thinks? [sic]
> 
> RUSH: * Nope.  I don't think it's going to happen.*  I've been hearing things like this my whole life. * I've been hearing the national debt is going to wipe us out. I've been hearing the annual deficit is going to wipe us out.* I've been hearing the credit card debt and that people are not saving enough money, is going to wipe us out. I keep hearing that Social Security is going to wipe us out in 50 years unless we reform it. * I think that the country is built on far more than a house of cards,* and I wouldn't enter into a wager like this publicly because I choose not too violate federal gambling laws.
> 
> April 22, 2010
> RUSH: Keep in mind you're listening to President Obama, a guy who has never, ever held a real job in a productive economy.* The only thing he knows about money is how to spend other people's.* He doesn't know how to earn it; he doesn't know anything about capital formation;* he could not have known in 2007 what was coming.* He has no experience. Somebody had to tell him what was coming in 2007, meaning the crash in 2008.* He didn't have any experience to know.* Somebody had to know, somebody had to tell him, for that somebody to know they had to have a hand in it.* *Can anybody say George Soros?
Click to expand...

Hey Fox, since you don't want to discuss the context of the bet, how about your MessiahRushie poo-pooing the national debt and the annual deficit with Bush's trillion dollar deficits and now suddenly the national debt and annual deficits are the scourge of the universe during Obama's presidency.

Is that what you CON$ mean by "facts" you don't get on corporate MSM that you need GOP hate media for???


----------



## George Costanza

ozzmdj said:


> Ditto.......



"Ditto"?  Ditto to WHAT?

I don't get it.  Please explain.


----------



## Foxfyre

"Dittos" in Limbaugh land means "I agree with most of what has been said up to now before I put in my two cents worth and/or I really appreciate the program and/or thanks for taking my call, etc.".  It saves a ton of time by everybody just saying 'dittos' instead of  almost every caller saying the same thing when they call in which gets really boring.  And the trend has caught on for some other programs as well.


----------



## johnrocks

To listen to just one side of an issue daily is tantamount to  being in "re education camps"; imho, I don't listen to just one source, I listen and read different views,match it against the Constitution(how I define it) and free market thinking and come to my opinion on the issue at hand.


----------



## Foxfyre

johnrocks said:


> To listen to just one side of an issue daily is tantamount to  being in "re education camps"; imho, I don't listen to just one source, I listen and read different views,match it against the Constitution(how I define it) and free market thinking and come to my opinion on the issue at hand.



I agree which is another reason that Conservative Talk Radio is so popular.  It usually is advocate for one side, but it puts all the points of view out there and can argue the 'left' point of view as competently as the 'right'.  It just doesn't agree with most of the 'left' as most of its audience does not agree with most of the 'left'.

But if these guys were 'brainwashing' their audience as some in this thread seem to be almost desperate to believe that they do, Bill Clinton would never have been president, twice; Bob Dole would not have been the GOP candidate in 1996; John McCain would not have been the GOP candidate in 2008; and Barack Obama would not have been the Democratic candidate in 2008 and would not be President now.

Conservative talk radio informs but it does not persuade.  It is successful because it gives tens of millions of Americans a voice that resonates with their views that they can't get anywhere else.


----------



## johnrocks

Foxfyre said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> To listen to just one side of an issue daily is tantamount to  being in "re education camps"; imho, I don't listen to just one source, I listen and read different views,match it against the Constitution(how I define it) and free market thinking and come to my opinion on the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree which is another reason that Conservative Talk Radio is so popular.  It usually is advocate for one side, but it puts all the points of view out there and can argue the 'left' point of view as competently as the 'right'.  It just doesn't agree with most of the 'left' as most of its audience does not agree with most of the 'left'.
> 
> But if these guys were 'brainwashing' their audience as some in this thread seem to be almost desperate to believe that they do, Bill Clinton would never have been president, twice; Bob Dole would not have been the GOP candidate in 1996; John McCain would not have been the GOP candidate in 2008; and Barack Obama would not have been the Democratic candidate in 2008 and would not be President now.
> 
> Conservative talk radio informs but it does not persuade.  It is successful because it gives tens of millions of Americans a voice that resonates with their views that they can't get anywhere else.
Click to expand...


I could be wrong but I think most people have this desire to be left alone, to live their lives  and tend to their families as they see fit  and wants people to trumpet this "MYOB" (Mind your own  business) message, I know it appeals to me, I want government out of my pocketbook,my bedroom, my living room, my body, my business and most anywhere else it rears it's ugly head.


----------



## Foxfyre

johnrocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> To listen to just one side of an issue daily is tantamount to  being in "re education camps"; imho, I don't listen to just one source, I listen and read different views,match it against the Constitution(how I define it) and free market thinking and come to my opinion on the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree which is another reason that Conservative Talk Radio is so popular.  It usually is advocate for one side, but it puts all the points of view out there and can argue the 'left' point of view as competently as the 'right'.  It just doesn't agree with most of the 'left' as most of its audience does not agree with most of the 'left'.
> 
> But if these guys were 'brainwashing' their audience as some in this thread seem to be almost desperate to believe that they do, Bill Clinton would never have been president, twice; Bob Dole would not have been the GOP candidate in 1996; John McCain would not have been the GOP candidate in 2008; and Barack Obama would not have been the Democratic candidate in 2008 and would not be President now.
> 
> Conservative talk radio informs but it does not persuade.  It is successful because it gives tens of millions of Americans a voice that resonates with their views that they can't get anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could be wrong but I think most people have this desire to be left alone, to live their lives  and tend to their families as they see fit  and wants people to trumpet this "MYOB" (Mind your own  business) message, I know it appeals to me, I want government out of my pocketbook,my bedroom, my living room, my body, my business and most anywhere else it rears it's ugly head.
Click to expand...


That is a pretty consistent conservative view across the board, and one you usually hear on conservative talk radio.


----------



## johnrocks

Foxfyre said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree which is another reason that Conservative Talk Radio is so popular.  It usually is advocate for one side, but it puts all the points of view out there and can argue the 'left' point of view as competently as the 'right'.  It just doesn't agree with most of the 'left' as most of its audience does not agree with most of the 'left'.
> 
> But if these guys were 'brainwashing' their audience as some in this thread seem to be almost desperate to believe that they do, Bill Clinton would never have been president, twice; Bob Dole would not have been the GOP candidate in 1996; John McCain would not have been the GOP candidate in 2008; and Barack Obama would not have been the Democratic candidate in 2008 and would not be President now.
> 
> Conservative talk radio informs but it does not persuade.  It is successful because it gives tens of millions of Americans a voice that resonates with their views that they can't get anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong but I think most people have this desire to be left alone, to live their lives  and tend to their families as they see fit  and wants people to trumpet this "MYOB" (Mind your own  business) message, I know it appeals to me, I want government out of my pocketbook,my bedroom, my living room, my body, my business and most anywhere else it rears it's ugly head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a pretty consistent conservative view across the board, and one you usually hear on conservative talk radio.
Click to expand...


Except when it comes to foreign policy and issues dealing with morality, I personally find those inconsistent with the "MYOB"  message.


----------



## Foxfyre

johnrocks said:


> Except when it comes to foreign policy and issues dealing with morality, I personally find those inconsistent with the "MYOB"  message.



But that's the part that most opponents of Conservative Talk Radio don't get.  Conservatives do have points of view on morality though we certainly don't always agree on those points.  Many conservatives are pro choice for instance while others are strongly pro life.  Many conservatives would like to see more recreational drugs legalized or at least decriminalized while others oppose that point of view.  Some are okay with 'gay marriage' while others have their reasons for preserving traditional marriage, etc.

As far as foreign policy goes, much of that is the Constitutional function of the federal government.

So it is all interesting to most conservatives for consideration, discussion, and debate.  And it does have a place on Conservative Talk Radio which often gets into areas that aren't pure politics.  The fact that such things are discussed is not necessarily an endorsement for the Federal government to be involved in them exceot as they relate to our unalienable rights which we expect the Federal government to protect.


----------



## johnrocks

Foxfyre said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it comes to foreign policy and issues dealing with morality, I personally find those inconsistent with the "MYOB"  message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part that most opponents of Conservative Talk Radio don't get.  Conservatives do have points of view on morality though we certainly don't always agree on those points.  Many conservatives are pro choice for instance while others are strongly pro life.  Many conservatives would like to see more recreational drugs legalized or at least decriminalized while others oppose that point of view.  Some are okay with 'gay marriage' while others have their reasons for preserving traditional marriage, etc.
> 
> As far as foreign policy goes, much of that is the Constitutional function of the federal government.
> 
> So it is all interesting to most conservatives for consideration, discussion, and debate.  And it does have a place on Conservative Talk Radio which often gets into areas that aren't pure politics.  The fact that such things are discussed is not necessarily an endorsement for the Federal government to be involved in them exceot as they relate to our unalienable rights which we expect the Federal government to protect.
Click to expand...


Foreign policy may be a Constitutional function but ;imho anyway; foreign aid  ,nation building and offensive first strikes isn't and neither is the Federal government involving itself so much in issues that should be left up to the individuals or the States.

I'm just chatting; I'm an "old right" kind of conservative so I just get frustrated by this, that's all.


----------



## Foxfyre

Most of us who identify ourselves as 'conservative' get frustrated with much of that John.  Currently having a discussion on another thread as to what priorities we think government should be focusing on right now.  And most of what the government is focusing on many of us think should be off limits to the Federal government period.

But there's room for all points of view.

And in my opinion, what makes Conservative Talk Radio interesting is that sooner or later it does cover all of them in depth.


----------



## johnrocks

Foxfyre said:


> Most of us who identify ourselves as 'conservative' get frustrated with much of that John.  Currently having a discussion on another thread as to what priorities we think government should be focusing on right now.  And most of what the government is focusing on many of us think should be off limits to the Federal government period.
> 
> But there's room for all points of view.
> 
> And in my opinion, what makes Conservative Talk Radio interesting is that sooner or later it does cover all of them in depth.



You seem like someone I'm going to really enjoy conversing with here.


It's hard though; again, just an opinion; to organize all these various degrees of "conservatism" into a bloc ;politically speaking; it's like trying to herd a bunch of angry cats


----------



## Foxfyre

johnrocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us who identify ourselves as 'conservative' get frustrated with much of that John.  Currently having a discussion on another thread as to what priorities we think government should be focusing on right now.  And most of what the government is focusing on many of us think should be off limits to the Federal government period.
> 
> But there's room for all points of view.
> 
> And in my opinion, what makes Conservative Talk Radio interesting is that sooner or later it does cover all of them in depth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like someone I'm going to really enjoy conversing with here.
> 
> 
> It's hard though; again, just an opinion; to organize all these various degrees of "conservatism" into a bloc ;politically speaking; it's like trying to herd a bunch of angry cats
Click to expand...


LOL, well welcome aboard John.  I think you'll find a lot of folks on USMB you'll enjoy conversing with. 

The whole problem with 'liberal' and 'conservative' definitions is that we all don't march in lockstep and there will be myriad opinions within any given issue or topic.

Basically conservatives are those who hold to Constitutional principles of self governance and who most want the Federal government to secure their rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves and form the society they wish to have.

Conservatives will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.

Basically liberals are those who want the Federal government to be proactive and to govern the people and equalize wealth and dictate many social behaviors.

Liberals will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.


----------



## Foxfyre

One example of why we listen to Conservative talk radio:

Mr. Foxfyre is currently listening to silly songs on the computer so we don't have the radio on, but I just heard a quick blurb from Rush on the bathroom radio right now.

It seems the NEA (teacher's union) just took in over $377 million in dues alone plus several million more in fees and charges.   But we, the taxpayer, are still bailing out their pension fund--Obama just signed a mega bill to 'save teachers jobs' yet again.

You might get the information that teachers jobs are saved via the MSM.  But I bet you don't find much on what the union is taking in while expecting the taxpayer to 'save teachers' jobs'.  But because it was on Conservative Talk Radio, we the taxpayer know about it and will have that information stored away when it comes time to vote this November.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Judy isn't taking into account is that it is called conservative talk radio because there is talking as opposed to playing music or broadcasting a sporting event or whatever . . . AND . . . a conservative theme is promoted.  But the scope is broad enough and diverse enough to hold interest of a broad demographic of listeners.
> 
> Air America liberal talk radio focused on the liberal perspective, but since liberals seem to have a much more difficult time articulating a liberal perspective, it was generally mostly bashing conservatives and conservative perspectives.  And even the liberals found that boring really fast.
> 
> What Judy is describing as talk radio is not talk radio but rather a call in show where people spout off about whatever usually to give their verbal 'vote' yay or nay for something but you don't learn much there other than the immediate sentiment of the callers.  That is not what conservative talk radio is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservative talk radio?  What programs do you listen to and why do you listen to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)
> 
> Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.
> 
> Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.
Click to expand...


Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?


----------



## johnrocks

Foxfyre said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us who identify ourselves as 'conservative' get frustrated with much of that John.  Currently having a discussion on another thread as to what priorities we think government should be focusing on right now.  And most of what the government is focusing on many of us think should be off limits to the Federal government period.
> 
> But there's room for all points of view.
> 
> And in my opinion, what makes Conservative Talk Radio interesting is that sooner or later it does cover all of them in depth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like someone I'm going to really enjoy conversing with here.
> 
> 
> It's hard though; again, just an opinion; to organize all these various degrees of "conservatism" into a bloc ;politically speaking; it's like trying to herd a bunch of angry cats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, well welcome aboard John.  I think you'll find a lot of folks on USMB you'll enjoy conversing with.
> 
> The whole problem with 'liberal' and 'conservative' definitions is that we all don't march in lockstep and there will be myriad opinions within any given issue or topic.
> 
> Basically conservatives are those who hold to Constitutional principles of self governance and who most want the Federal government to secure their rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves and form the society they wish to have.
> 
> Conservatives will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.
> 
> Basically liberals are those who want the Federal government to be proactive and to govern the people and equalize wealth and dictate many social behaviors.
> 
> Liberals will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.
Click to expand...


I enjoy Rush when Walter Williams subs for him, I also like Judge Napolitano's new show on Fox Business; "Freedom Watch" as well as John Stossel, you like those?


----------



## Foxfyre

johnrocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like someone I'm going to really enjoy conversing with here.
> 
> 
> It's hard though; again, just an opinion; to organize all these various degrees of "conservatism" into a bloc ;politically speaking; it's like trying to herd a bunch of angry cats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, well welcome aboard John.  I think you'll find a lot of folks on USMB you'll enjoy conversing with.
> 
> The whole problem with 'liberal' and 'conservative' definitions is that we all don't march in lockstep and there will be myriad opinions within any given issue or topic.
> 
> Basically conservatives are those who hold to Constitutional principles of self governance and who most want the Federal government to secure their rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves and form the society they wish to have.
> 
> Conservatives will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.
> 
> Basically liberals are those who want the Federal government to be proactive and to govern the people and equalize wealth and dictate many social behaviors.
> 
> Liberals will disagree among themselves on how best to do that and to what degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy Rush when Walter Williams subs for him, I also like Judge Napolitano's new show on Fox Business; "Freedom Watch" as well as John Stossel, you like those?
Click to expand...


Yes I adore Walter Williams.  He has become a real inspiration to me and I read his syndicated columns and guests essays regularly.   Our Cable channel doesn't carry Fox Business though--we're working on that--so I only get Stossel and Napolitano when they are guest commentators on Fox News but I do appreciate both there.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I like NPR myself.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservative talk radio?  What programs do you listen to and why do you listen to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)
> 
> Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.
> 
> Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
Click to expand...


To learn something.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)
> 
> Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.
> 
> Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To learn something.
Click to expand...


I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is conservative talk radio?  What programs do you listen to and why do you listen to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)
> 
> Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.
> 
> Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
Click to expand...


I know liberals who want to be informed and not just affirmed in what they have chosen to believe.  So they listen to Conservative talk radio AND watch Fox News because they are informed better there than they are able to be informed anywhere else.

NPR is good for what it is, but you will not get in depth discussion or concepts of conservative ideals and principles there.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative talk radio is programming in which the host or sometimes co-hosts discuss conservative observations, concepts, ideals, principles, and most compare these to liberal observations, concepts, ideals, principles and also provide commentary on the current news and events.   Because they usually have at least an hour and most have up to three hours to develop themes, they are able to get far more in depth in subject matter than most television formats can do.  (The exception there is Glenn Beck who crams a tremendous amount of information into his daily hour long TV show.)
> 
> Dr. Laura is not talk radio in the sense that Rush, Sean, Beck are.  Hers is more what Judy has been talking about - a call in show in which the callers drive the subject matter rather than the host.
> 
> Conservative talk radio also usually does some interaction with callers who give their two cents worth on the subject being discussed or ask questions, but the callers are almost incidental to the show rather than what drives it.  Hosts sometimes have guests on their programs who also interact with the callers.  Some, like Rush, generally do not have guests as they have enough stuff to fill three hours all on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know liberals who want to be informed and not just affirmed in what they have chosen to believe.  So they listen to Conservative talk radio AND watch Fox News because they are informed better there than they are able to be informed anywhere else.
> 
> NPR is good for what it is, but you will not get in depth discussion or concepts of conservative ideals and principles there.
Click to expand...


I know conservatives who want to be informed and they engage in discussions with liberals.  A free exchange of ideas not verbal warfare.  It's not about winning for some of us.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know liberals who want to be informed and not just affirmed in what they have chosen to believe.  So they listen to Conservative talk radio AND watch Fox News because they are informed better there than they are able to be informed anywhere else.
> 
> NPR is good for what it is, but you will not get in depth discussion or concepts of conservative ideals and principles there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know conservatives who want to be informed and they engage in discussions with liberals.  A free exchange of ideas not verbal warfare.
Click to expand...


And I know a few liberals who don't consider people who disagree with them as engaging in verbal warfare.  In other words they don't define 'verbal warfare' as anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know liberals who want to be informed and not just affirmed in what they have chosen to believe.  So they listen to Conservative talk radio AND watch Fox News because they are informed better there than they are able to be informed anywhere else.
> 
> NPR is good for what it is, but you will not get in depth discussion or concepts of conservative ideals and principles there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know conservatives who want to be informed and they engage in discussions with liberals.  A free exchange of ideas not verbal warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I know a few liberals who don't consider people who disagree with them as engaging in verbal warfare.  In other words they don't define 'verbal warfare' as anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.
Click to expand...


Verbal warfare is name calling, putdowns, slurs and insults. It's about dominance and having to be right all the time.  It's not a free exhange of ideas among equals who happen to differ.  It's senseless arguing, not discussion.  It's us vs them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know conservatives who want to be informed and they engage in discussions with liberals.  A free exchange of ideas not verbal warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I know a few liberals who don't consider people who disagree with them as engaging in verbal warfare.  In other words they don't define 'verbal warfare' as anything that doesn't agree with their point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Verbal warfare is name calling, slurs and insults. It's about dominance.  It's not a free exhange of ideas among equals who happen to differ.
Click to expand...


That's exactly why Air America didn't succeed.  That's pretty much all they did.  And it got boring for everybody, even most liberals, realy fast.

Conservative programming offers much much more than that.  But if you zero in on the criticisms and refuse to hear anything else, then you won't like it.  It isn't everybody's cup of tea.


----------



## Sky Dancer

You're right.  Conservative radio is not everyone's cup of tea.  I'd rather listen to NPR and talk to conservatives in person.  One human being to another.  It keeps things real and avoids typecasting.  We often find common ground.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Sky Dancer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a liberal listen to conservative radio?  Masochism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.
Click to expand...


You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?


----------



## Foxfyre

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> To learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?
Click to expand...


Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.


----------



## rikules

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> To learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?
Click to expand...


I've listened to it

I've been listening, off and on, to limbaugh  since roger ailles put him on every radio station in the country back in the late 1980s

and when he isn't on I listen to some of the other dirtbag hatemongers that infest the radio

I even read their books

they use lies, fear, hate, misinformation to rile up people like you.....

apparently the one thing they know about their listeners is;
fear mongering MAKES MONEY!

having read many of your posts I can tell that you are just an ignorant moron upon whom hate and fear and lies work very well.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

rikules said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've listened to it
> 
> I've been listening, off and on, to limbaugh  since roger ailles put him on every radio station in the country back in the late 1980s
> 
> and when he isn't on I listen to some of the other dirtbag hatemongers that infest the radio
> 
> I even read their books
> 
> they use lies, fear, hate, misinformation to rile up people like you.....
> 
> apparently the one thing they know about their listeners is;
> fear mongering MAKES MONEY!
> 
> having read many of your posts I can tell that you are just an ignorant moron upon whom hate and fear and lies work very well.
Click to expand...


Care to give an example of the lies, hate and misinformation you're speaking of?

I don't listen to Rush, I think he's an ass. I listen to Dennis Miller, Michael Berry and Bill O'Reilly when he was on the radio.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> To listen to just one side of an issue daily is tantamount to  being in "re education camps"; imho, I don't listen to just one source, I listen and read different views,match it against the Constitution(how I define it) and free market thinking and come to my opinion on the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree which is another reason that Conservative Talk Radio is so popular.  It usually is advocate for one side, but it puts all the points of view out there and can argue the 'left' point of view as competently as the 'right'.  It just doesn't agree with most of the 'left' as most of its audience does not agree with most of the 'left'.
> 
> *But if these guys were 'brainwashing' their audience as some in this thread seem to be almost desperate to believe that they do, Bill Clinton would never have been president, twice; Bob Dole would not have been the GOP candidate in 1996; John McCain would not have been the GOP candidate in 2008; and Barack Obama would not have been the Democratic candidate in 2008 and would not be President now.*
> 
> Conservative talk radio informs but it does not persuade.  It is successful because it gives tens of millions of Americans a voice that resonates with their views that they can't get anywhere else.
Click to expand...

It's the moronic "logic" highlighted above that GOP hate radio counts on from its audience!!!!

Those things you ticked off do not mean the DittoTards are not brainwashed, they simply show that the number of brainwashed DittoTards is quite a bit LESS than they would have people believe!!!! CON$ are just a LOUD obnoxious MINORITY.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to learn slurs and hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.
Click to expand...


I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never listened to it. Is ignorance really blissful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
Click to expand...


Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
Click to expand...


 I didn't say I've never in my life listened to or watched these kinds of programs.  I don't have a TV and I only see these programs when I travel.   I've watched Ann Coulter.  She's big on insults too.  Too bad these conservatives can't present their ideas without being insulting.  It would be great to have a conversation about issues free of insults.

I'd be willing to change my views if I thought there was basic good heartedness going on.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I've never in my life listened to or watched these kinds of programs.  I don't have a TV and I only see these programs when I travel.   I've watched Ann Coulter.  She's big on insults too.  Too bad these conservatives can't present their ideas without being insulting.  It would be great to have a conversation about issues free of insults.
> 
> I'd be willing to change my views if I thought there was basic good heartedness going on.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  And maybe when those on the left can discuss folks on the right without  being insulting that will happen.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows.  It could happen.  Anything is possible.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't *accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.*
Click to expand...

Anyone who listens to Stuttering LimpTard, even you, knows he is a pathological liar. Interestingly, I have posted quotes of his to back up my claims, but you have done nothing but pontificate. 

And your MessiahRushie couldn't get through a single show without an insult. In fact, he couldn't go a single hour without an insult. And no one on the Left has ever been insulting to America's Hemorrhoid, Stuttering LimpTard. He claims to be a Christian and the Left is simply showing sincere RESPECT for the Golden Rule of his professed religion. If you think they are insults then you are admitting he is LYING about being a Christian.

September 20, 2007
RUSH:    Now, I'm focusing on Christianity because I am one


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I've never in my life listened to or watched these kinds of programs.  I don't have a TV and I only see these programs when I travel.   I've watched Ann Coulter.  She's big on insults too.  Too bad these conservatives can't present their ideas without being insulting.  It would be great to have a conversation about issues free of insults.
> 
> I'd be willing to change my views if I thought there was basic good heartedness going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And maybe when those on the left can discuss folks on the right without  being insulting that will happen.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows.  It could happen.  Anything is possible.
Click to expand...


Reallly?  Tell me about Ann Coulter's good heartedness.  I'm serious.  I've missed it.  She is mean.

I talk to you because I think you have some basic good heartedness.   I hope you feel the same way about me.   I can't say that for Ann Coulter.  Ms Coulter, author of How to Talk to a Liberal, (if you have to).


----------



## Foxfyre

Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist who deals in biting satire not unlike many leftists who also deal in biting satire.  If you're going to judge conservatives by her then you have to judge liberals by Maureen Dowd and Camile Pagnlia who also deal in biting satire but take jabs at the right.

Ann Coulter is one of the best researched writers out there, however, and she's funny as hell if you like biting satire.  If you don't you simply don't have to read her.

She has neither a radio program nor a television program.

Next?


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist who deals in biting satire not unlike many leftists who also deal in biting satire.  If you're going to judge conservatives by her then you have to judge liberals by Maureen Dowd and Camile Pagnlia who also deal in biting satire but take jabs at the right.
> 
> Ann Coulter is one of the best researched writers out there, however, and she's funny as hell if you like biting satire.  If you don't you simply don't have to read her.
> 
> She has neither a radio program nor a television program.
> 
> Next?



She's mean, you like her.  Go figure.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I've never in my life listened to or watched these kinds of programs.  I don't have a TV and I only see these programs when I travel.   I've watched Ann Coulter.  She's big on insults too.  Too bad these conservatives can't present their ideas without being insulting.  It would be great to have a conversation about issues free of insults.
> 
> I'd be willing to change my views if I thought there was basic good heartedness going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And maybe when those on the left can discuss folks on the right without  being insulting that will happen.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows.  It could happen.  Anything is possible.
Click to expand...

And there you go pretending that the Right were always respectful until the evil Left started the insulting first. But long before Stuttering LimpTard came up with "FemiNazi" you had Morton Downey Jr and his "Pablum Puking Liberals" and long before Downey you had Spiro T Agnew and his alliterated insults.

In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.
 Spiro T. Agnew

A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.
 Spiro T. Agnew


----------



## Sky Dancer

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I've never in my life listened to or watched these kinds of programs.  I don't have a TV and I only see these programs when I travel.   I've watched Ann Coulter.  She's big on insults too.  Too bad these conservatives can't present their ideas without being insulting.  It would be great to have a conversation about issues free of insults.
> 
> I'd be willing to change my views if I thought there was basic good heartedness going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And maybe when those on the left can discuss folks on the right without  being insulting that will happen.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows.  It could happen.  Anything is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go pretending that the Right were always respectful until the evil Left started the insulting first. But long before Stuttering LimpTard came up with "FemiNazi" you had Morton Downey Jr and his "Pablum Puking Liberals" and long before Downey you had Spiro T Agnew and his alliterated insults.
> 
> In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.
> Spiro T. Agnew
> 
> A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.
> Spiro T. Agnew
Click to expand...


Hey Ed,

Who are your favorite conservative posters at USMB?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Ann Coulter is one of the best researched writers out there



In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?'  He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it.
Source: Slander


----------



## Sky Dancer

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulter is one of the best researched writers out there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?'  He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it.
> Source: Slander
Click to expand...


Alot of Coulter's 'research' has been debunked.


----------



## edthecynic

Sky Dancer said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulter is one of the best researched writers out there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?'  He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it.
> Source: Slander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alot of Coulter's 'research' has been debunked.
Click to expand...

I know, in the quote above Gore named the bust of Franklin himself without any help from the curator, the bust of Washington was not among the group of busts Gore pointed to. It was in another part of the room to the extreme right of the busts on the wall sconces Gore pointed to. And Gore was not surrounded by reporters and cameras, there was one camera which was a government feed to all the media. 

But other than that it was well researched, AND FOOTNOTED, by Coulter.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to some I think ignorance really is blissful.  And there are a lot of folks who fall into that category.  It's amazing though how those who say they don't listen to conservative talk radio have such firm opinions about what it is.  So they're obviously listening to somebody that is telling them what must be just what they want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
Click to expand...


The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum. 

What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
Click to expand...

Again, the DittoTards cry "out of context" but can never give an example or the correct context. It is Stuttering LimpTard who quotes everyone not only out of context, but the pathological liar also changes their words to create the context he wants.

August 7, 2009
RUSH: You know, the Democrat Party... Nancy Pelosi yesterday or maybe the night before, said that people were showing up at the town hall meetings* wearing* swastikas. Nancy Pelosi was calling people showing up to preserve their freedom Nazis.*

PELOSI:* I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of* carrying *swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care. *

RUSH: Folks, yesterday on this program I had a pointed and very factual reaction to Nancy Pelosi accusing those of you showing up at tea parties of* wearing *swastikas.* Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House said that you are Nazis.

RUSH:* *I have not made any of it up.** You know, I could easily say I'm illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but *I'm not being absurd.** Nancy Pelosi called us "Nazis,"


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the DittoTards cry "out of context" but can never give an example or the correct context. It is Stuttering LimpTard who quotes everyone not only out of context, but the pathological liar also changes their words to create the context he wants.
> 
> August 7, 2009
> RUSH: You know, the Democrat Party... Nancy Pelosi yesterday or maybe the night before, said that people were showing up at the town hall meetings* wearing* swastikas. Nancy Pelosi was calling people showing up to preserve their freedom Nazis.*
> 
> PELOSI:* I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of* carrying *swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care. *
> 
> RUSH: Folks, yesterday on this program I had a pointed and very factual reaction to Nancy Pelosi accusing those of you showing up at tea parties of* wearing *swastikas.* Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House said that you are Nazis.
> 
> RUSH:* *I have not made any of it up.** You know, I could easily say I'm illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but *I'm not being absurd.** Nancy Pelosi called us "Nazis,"
Click to expand...


Semantics. pfft.


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the DittoTards cry "out of context" but can never give an example or the correct context. It is Stuttering LimpTard who quotes everyone not only out of context, but the pathological liar also changes their words to create the context he wants.
> 
> August 7, 2009
> RUSH: You know, the Democrat Party... Nancy Pelosi yesterday or maybe the night before, said that people were showing up at the town hall meetings* wearing* swastikas. Nancy Pelosi was calling people showing up to preserve their freedom Nazis.*
> 
> PELOSI:* I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of* carrying *swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care. *
> 
> RUSH: Folks, yesterday on this program I had a pointed and very factual reaction to Nancy Pelosi accusing those of you showing up at tea parties of* wearing *swastikas.* Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House said that you are Nazis.
> 
> RUSH:* *I have not made any of it up.** You know, I could easily say I'm illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but *I'm not being absurd.** Nancy Pelosi called us "Nazis,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics. pfft.
Click to expand...

Not hardly! If wearing and carrying were the same, then the pathological liar would not have had to change them, now would he?

The Teabaggers were CARRYING signs with Nazi symbols calling health care reform supporters Nazis. Carrying signs calling other people Nazis, as Pelosi correctly reported, is quite different from WEARING Nazi symbols as Stuttering LimpTard "reported."


----------



## Foxfyre

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've listened to Rush Limbaugh before. He's big into insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
Click to expand...


I'll admit I have cringed when Rush wanders over the line into poor taste, and some of his attempts at humor fall flat with me.  I certainly don't agree with him on all his conclusions.  I can appreciate how his personality and delivery methods and style would not be everybody's cup of tea.

But there is nobody in the business better researched than he is with the possible exception of Glenn Beck.   And though he has slipped in the ratings in recent years as he has had more and more really good competition, he has firmly held that #1 ratings spot for well over 20 years now, so he definitely has something going for him.

Taking words and phrases out of context is what most liberals mostly do in order to criticize or trash those on the right.   But what I find amusing is that those complaining that conservative talk radio hosts or commentators are 'mean' or 'insulting' or 'liars' or 'hateful' can be really mean, insulting, hateful, and dishonest in describing them.  And they don't seem to mind at all when others who think as they do use the most ugly, crass, and disgusting terms to describe them.   The double standard is alive and well.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Funny how you just can't deal with what the conservatives say on their programs without doing a liberal bash, Fox.

That's my problem with you.  You can't seem to concede a true point.  Conservative talk radio is largely about insulting the other side rather than promoting their own ideas.

If it were more. facts, just the facts, maam I would listen to it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the DittoTards cry "out of context" but can never give an example or the correct context. It is Stuttering LimpTard who quotes everyone not only out of context, but the pathological liar also changes their words to create the context he wants.
> 
> August 7, 2009
> RUSH: You know, the Democrat Party... Nancy Pelosi yesterday or maybe the night before, said that people were showing up at the town hall meetings* wearing* swastikas. Nancy Pelosi was calling people showing up to preserve their freedom Nazis.*
> 
> PELOSI:* I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of* carrying *swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care. *
> 
> RUSH: Folks, yesterday on this program I had a pointed and very factual reaction to Nancy Pelosi accusing those of you showing up at tea parties of* wearing *swastikas.* Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House said that you are Nazis.
> 
> RUSH:* *I have not made any of it up.** You know, I could easily say I'm illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but *I'm not being absurd.** Nancy Pelosi called us "Nazis,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics. pfft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not hardly! If wearing and carrying were the same, then the pathological liar would not have had to change them, now would he?
> 
> The Teabaggers were CARRYING signs with Nazi symbols calling health care reform supporters Nazis. Carrying signs calling other people Nazis, as Pelosi correctly reported, is quite different from WEARING Nazi symbols as Stuttering LimpTard "reported."
Click to expand...


Wearing or carrying doesn't take away the fact that Pelosi was trying to paint the Tea Partiers as Nazi's. Damn you are one stupid fuck. Get your head out of Rush's ass and take a break.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll admit I have cringed when Rush wanders over the line into poor taste, and some of his attempts at humor fall flat with me.  I certainly don't agree with him on all his conclusions.  I can appreciate how his personality and delivery methods and style would not be everybody's cup of tea.
> 
> But there is nobody in the business better researched than he is with the possible exception of Glenn Beck.   And though he has slipped in the ratings in recent years as he has had more and more really good competition, he has firmly held that #1 ratings spot for well over 20 years now, so he definitely has something going for him.
> 
> Taking words and phrases out of context is what most liberals mostly do in order to criticize or trash those on the right.   But what I find amusing is that those complaining that conservative talk radio hosts or commentators are 'mean' or 'insulting' or 'liars' or 'hateful' can be really mean, insulting, hateful, and dishonest in describing them.  And they don't seem to mind at all when others who think as they do use the most ugly, crass, and disgusting terms to describe them.   The double standard is alive and well.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Funny how you just can't deal with what the conservatives say on their programs without doing a liberal bash, Fox.
> 
> That's my problem with you.  You can't seem to concede a true point.  Conservative talk radio is largely about insulting the other side rather than promoting their own ideas.
> 
> If it were more. facts, just the facts, maam I would listen to it.



I have done several posts re conservative content without even mentioning liberals or liberalism in any form.  You counter with how mean and insulting they are.  You seem hell bent on trashing conservativism and conservatives, most especailly conservative talk show hosts or those who defend them and don't see how insulting your own comments sometimes are.  And you have never once criticzed Ed or others who use the most hateful terms to describe anybody they don't agree with.

As I said, the double standard is alive and well.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you just can't deal with what the conservatives say on their programs without doing a liberal bash, Fox.
> 
> That's my problem with you.  You can't seem to concede a true point.  Conservative talk radio is largely about insulting the other side rather than promoting their own ideas.
> 
> If it were more. facts, just the facts, maam I would listen to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done several posts re conservative content without even mentioning liberals or liberalism in any form.  You, however, seem hell bent on trashing conservativism and conservatives, most especailly conservative talk show hosts or those who defend them and don't see how insulting your own comments sometimes are.
> 
> As I said, the double standard is alive and well.
Click to expand...


I've thanked you for the posts you've made that were informatiive and not bashing.

I think conservatives sometimes have good ideas.  I concede points when they're right. 

I've been specific as to which conservative pundits I don't like to listen to and why.  Ann Coulter for example, writes a book with the title, HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU HAVE TO).

Pretty insulting, and you defend her.  Go figure.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you just can't deal with what the conservatives say on their programs without doing a liberal bash, Fox.
> 
> That's my problem with you.  You can't seem to concede a true point.  Conservative talk radio is largely about insulting the other side rather than promoting their own ideas.
> 
> If it were more. facts, just the facts, maam I would listen to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done several posts re conservative content without even mentioning liberals or liberalism in any form.  You, however, seem hell bent on trashing conservativism and conservatives, most especailly conservative talk show hosts or those who defend them and don't see how insulting your own comments sometimes are.
> 
> As I said, the double standard is alive and well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked you for the posts you've made that were informatiive and not bashing.
> 
> I think conservatives sometimes have good ideas.  I concede points when they're right.
> 
> I've been specific as to which conservative pundits I don't like to listen to and why.  Ann Coulter for example, writes a book with the title, HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU HAVE TO).
> 
> Pretty insulting, and you defend her.  Go figure.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the thanks.  When you can actually discuss something controversial without being insulting to the persons you are discussing or who you are discussing something with, then a cordial discussion of concepts becomes possible.  You so far have not shown that you can do that.

The fact that you didn't find the video funny though makes it pretty unlikely that you and I will ever have any common ground on this subject.  People who are able to be rationale and who don't have huge chips on their shoulder are most likely going to understand demonstrating absurdity with absurdity and will enjoy it.  There are always exceptions of course.

And now as I told Ravi, I knew I was going to regret getting into this.  Unless somebody wants to discuss something other than just bashing Dr. Laura, I don't think I'll have anything else to contribute.  Ya'll do have a good day.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done several posts re conservative content without even mentioning liberals or liberalism in any form.  You, however, seem hell bent on trashing conservativism and conservatives, most especailly conservative talk show hosts or those who defend them and don't see how insulting your own comments sometimes are.
> 
> As I said, the double standard is alive and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked you for the posts you've made that were informatiive and not bashing.
> 
> I think conservatives sometimes have good ideas.  I concede points when they're right.
> 
> I've been specific as to which conservative pundits I don't like to listen to and why.  Ann Coulter for example, writes a book with the title, HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU HAVE TO).
> 
> Pretty insulting, and you defend her.  Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the thanks.  When you can actually discuss something controversial without being insulting to the persons you are discussing or who you are discussing something with, then a cordial discussion of concepts becomes possible.  You so far have not shown that you can do that.
> 
> The fact that you didn't find the video funny though makes it pretty unlikely that you and I will ever have any common ground on this subject.  People who are able to be rationale and who don't have huge chips on their shoulder are most likely going to understand demonstrating absurdity with absurdity and will enjoy it.
Click to expand...


Start from now.  I just paid you a compliment.

I don't find the clip you provided funny.  So what?  Is that some kind of personal insult to you?  How so?

I haven't insulted you, but you have just told me I have a huge chip on my shoulder.  what are you talking about?

I used to find this kind of humor you provided funny thirty years ago but my sense of humor has changed.  So what?  How am I harming you in any way because I didn't laugh at the clip you provided.

You still don't address my comments about Ms Coulter.  Do you consider Coulter's style a helpful way to build communication between liberals and conservatives?

We do find common ground.  I have repped you a number of times for informative posts free of prejudice.  We haven't found the same things funny yet.   It's not a deal breaker for me, but I'm only 50% of this connection between us.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been dishonest in the past when you said you didn't listen to any of the shows like him.  But he's certainly not any more insulting than some of you on the Left are being about him.  At least he expresses ideas and concepts without having to insult somebody.  If Lonestar thinks he's an ass that's certainly reflective of his taste.  But at least he isn't accusing Rush of things that those of us who DO listen to him now and then know are not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I think Limbaugh is an ass is not becasue of anything he says but rather the way he says it. If that makes any sense. I probably agree with 99 percent of what he says and anyone with half a brain can distinguish between satire, fecetiousness and hyperbole all of which Rush engages in and not unlike many on the left side of the spectrum.
> 
> What I find amusing about those that despise Rush is they use his quotes out of context to try to paint him as... a) a liar or b) a right wing loon. You have to look no further than edtheidiot for proof of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll admit I have cringed when Rush wanders over the line into poor taste, and some of his attempts at humor fall flat with me.  I certainly don't agree with him on all his conclusions.  I can appreciate how his personality and delivery methods and style would not be everybody's cup of tea.
> 
> *But there is nobody in the business better researched than he is *with the possible exception of Glenn Beck.   And though he has slipped in the ratings in recent years as he has had more and more really good competition, he has firmly held that #1 ratings spot for well over 20 years now, so he definitely has something going for him.
> 
> Taking words and phrases out of context is what most liberals mostly do in order to criticize or trash those on the right.   But what I find amusing is that those complaining that conservative talk radio hosts or commentators are 'mean' or 'insulting' or 'liars' or 'hateful' can be really mean, insulting, hateful, and dishonest in describing them.  And they don't seem to mind at all when others who think as they do use the most ugly, crass, and disgusting terms to describe them.   The double standard is alive and well.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again! pontificating without the slightest anything to back it up.

He is no better researched than Coulter!!!! No CON$ervative pundit does any research, they merely parrot the GOP scripts handed to them. The "research" is done by GOP think tanks. It's piss easy to tell that they are reading a script rather than doing independent research. When there is an error in their script they all parrot the same error. They ALL could not have INDEPENDENTLY made the same error in their "RESEARCH."

Please explain how this short "Who's Who" of CON$ervatism all have the same common error if they all weren't parroting the same erroneous script as their own independent research???? I know you are too gutless to answer because you would have to admit you were so easily duped, but I have to at least ask.


1. RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin."

2. Who are these guys? On CNN (1/19/93)
Gore, asking a Monticello tour guide to identify the busts of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Marquis de Lafayette. 
Source: AmeriPAC

3. Why is this veep never caught holding the hot 'potatoe'?  
  The American Spectator 
August, 1998 Byron York 
It was a scene that would become a favorite among aficionados of Al Gore's frequent but often under-reported verbal bloopers. On Sunday, January 17, 1993, just days before the 
Clinton/Gore inauguration, the vice president- elect was touring Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home outside Charlottesville, Virginia. The visit was an important photo-op; Gore and Bill Clinton were about to start their showy retracing of the trip Jefferson took to Washington for his own inaugural in 1801. 
Guided by Daniel Jordan, executive director of Monticello, Gore came upon a row of white marble busts. "Who are these people?" he asked. A little taken aback, Jordan hesitated and quietly answered. That's George Washington on the right, he said. And that's Benjamin Franklin. And Jefferson, too. 
Gore had asked an almost breathtakingly stupid question, the kind that when uttered in public can result in a barrage of mocking reports in the press. But the soon-to-be vice president's comments didn't attract much coverage.

4. He ( Quayle ) became a political punch line after correcting a youth at a spelling bee by asking him to add an "e" to the correct spellingof "potato." ... While Quayle was routinely roasted in the media, current VicePresident Al Gore seems to have largely gotten a free pass from the media for bizarre gaffes that surpass Quayle's. ...  In 1993, in a tour of Thomas Jefferson's Virginia estate of Monticello, Gore asked about a row of busts: "Who are these people?" The New York Times explained the curator "helpfully identified the unfamiliar faces: `This is George Washington on the extreme right,' with Benjamin Franklin close behind." TV coverage? Zero.
Source: The Florida Times-Union

5. Which vice president is the king of gaffes?
Human Events,  by Graham, Tim
The TV media have had a field day with Dan Quayle, but Al Gore has a history of silly flubs and boasts, and the networks have a history of ignoring them:
* Jan. 17, 1993: In a tour of Monticello, Gore asked about a row of busts: "Who are these people?" The New York Times explained the curator "helpfully identified the unfamiliar faces: `This is George Washington on the extreme right,' with Benjamin Franklin close behind." TV coverage? Zero.

6. U.S. History in the Balance - Brief Article
Insight on the News,  Dec 13, 1999  by John Elvin
Insight reader Hazel Edwards is somewhat incensed that Vice President Al Gore "is making a big to-do over George W. Bush not knowing the names of some of the world leaders in a recent interview, saying it raised serious questions about his ability to lead the nation." Edwards thinks Gore ought to tend to his own pot before attacking Bush's kettle.
Edwards notes that while on a tour of Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello, a few years back, Gore pointed out two statues and asked the curator whom they represented. "Well," Edwards quotes the curator as responding, "that one's Ben Franklin and that one's George Washington."

7. January 17, 1993: During a tour of Monticello, [Vice President Al] Gore inquired about a row of marble busts: "Who are these people?" One was George Washington; another, Ben Franklin.
-- Intellectual Ammunition, July/August 1999 

8. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS: IS AL GORE AN ALIEN?
by Jonah Goldberg
"While touring Monticello, Gore asked a guide, Who are these people? while pointing at statues of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin."

9. Which Vice President is the King of Gaffes?
Watch our video collection of Gore Gaffes
     On ABC's This Week March 14, Bill Kristol noted Al Gore's gotten a free pass on gaffes. George Stephanopoulos protested: "It's hard to say he's gotten a pass. Every time he opens his mouth he gets popped." Not true on TV morning and evening newscasts: 
     January 17, 1993: In a tour of Monticello, Gore asked about a row of busts: "Who are these people?" The New York Times explained the curator "helpfully identified the unfamiliar faces: 'This is George Washington on the extreme right and Franklin on the left...
L. Brent Bozell III, Publisher; Brent Baker, Tim Graham, Editors; Jessica Anderson, Brian Boyd, Geoffrey Dickens, Mark Drake, Paul Smith, Media Analysts; Kristina Sewell, Research Associate.  For the latest liberal media bias, read the CyberAlert at www.mrc.org.

10. In a highly publicized stop at Monticello during Clinton's 1993 inaugural festivities, Gore pointed to carvings of Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator: 'Who are these guys?'  He was surrounded by reporters and TV cameras when he said it.
Source: Slander

11. While visiting Monticello in January 1993, Mr. Gore asked whom the busts of
George Washington and Benjamin Franklin depicted, since he did not recognize them.
Source: The Washington Times

12. WHILE ON A TOUR of Monticello as vice president, Al Gore examined busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator, "Who are these people?" A single newspaper reported Gore's embarrassing ignorance. Meanwhile when presidential candidate George W. Bush was unable to name the leaders of four nations in a reporter's pop quiz, it was a topic of media concern for weeks.
Ann Coulter's latest book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," is rich with delightfully revealing comparisons like this one, compiled to expose the liberal media's double standard when it comes to matters of left and right. ...
Source: The Weekly Standard

13. Gored by his own ox
Joel Miller
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com 
Dan Quayle caught a lot of flack for being a moron, which is not a nice thing to do to a guy -- harmful to the self-esteem and all. Well, the media must have been convicted that endlessly pointing out the mental vacuity of veeps is morally wrong, because, when it came time for Al Gore to become the most important substitute player in professional sports, the pundits, journalists, and anonymous sources all stayed home any time Gore used his wingtips to wipe the drool from his mouth. 
While Gore may be capable of spelling potato without a hitch, considering the many moronic mutterings he's made since donning the mantle of vice president, he definitely needs the "Be a dolt for free" pass the media decided to grant him so many years ago. 
Remember the incident in which the VP was strolling through the halls of Monticello, ogling at the busts of the Founding Fathers? "Who are these people?" Gore asked the tour guide. Without a chuckle, the gracious man was kind enough inform the vice president that he was staring at the figures of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin -- folks who he had hopefully heard about, I should think.


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics. pfft.
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly! If wearing and carrying were the same, then the pathological liar would not have had to change them, now would he?
> 
> The Teabaggers were CARRYING signs with Nazi symbols calling health care reform supporters Nazis. Carrying signs calling other people Nazis, as Pelosi correctly reported, is quite different from WEARING Nazi symbols as Stuttering LimpTard "reported."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wearing or carrying doesn't take away the fact that Pelosi was trying to paint the Tea Partiers as Nazi's. Damn you are one stupid fuck. Get your head out of Rush's ass and take a break.
Click to expand...

Of course "wearing" and "carrying" makes a big difference or your MessiahRushie would not have changed the words!!!

The Teabaggers were the ones calling Americans with the signs they carried. LimpTard changed what Pelosi said in order to portray the name calling Teabaggers as innocent VICTIMS of name calling. Nothing Pelosi actually said even remotely called the Teabaggers Nazis, that's why the pathological liar had to change her words. Wearing Nazi symbols implies support for Nazism, whereas carrying signs calling Americans Nazis for supporting Health Care Reform doesn't.

You, of course, know this, but lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervatism.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sky Dancer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've thanked you for the posts you've made that were informatiive and not bashing.
> 
> I think conservatives sometimes have good ideas.  I concede points when they're right.
> 
> I've been specific as to which conservative pundits I don't like to listen to and why.  Ann Coulter for example, writes a book with the title, HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU HAVE TO).
> 
> Pretty insulting, and you defend her.  Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the thanks.  When you can actually discuss something controversial without being insulting to the persons you are discussing or who you are discussing something with, then a cordial discussion of concepts becomes possible.  You so far have not shown that you can do that.
> 
> The fact that you didn't find the video funny though makes it pretty unlikely that you and I will ever have any common ground on this subject.  People who are able to be rationale and who don't have huge chips on their shoulder are most likely going to understand demonstrating absurdity with absurdity and will enjoy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start from now.  I just paid you a compliment.
> 
> I don't find the clip you provided funny.  So what?  Is that some kind of personal insult to you?  How so?
> 
> I haven't insulted you, but you have just told me I have a huge chip on my shoulder.  what are you talking about?
> 
> First clue.  When you say something like THIS:  "Pretty insulting, and you defend her.  Go figure", THAT is an insult.  You might want to think about that a little bit before you go patting yourself on the back that you haven't been insulting.
Click to expand...




> I used to find this kind of humor you provided funny thirty years ago but my sense of humor has changed.  So what?  How am I harming you in any way because I didn't laugh at the clip you provided.



You don't harm me when you say you don't laugh at the clip.  I certainly have not suggested that you have harmed me in any way about anything.  I have not given you any power to harm me.  And it is quite presumptious of you if you think you have any such power or I implied in any way that you did.



> You still don't address my comments about Ms Coulter.  Do you consider Coulter's style a helpful way to build communication between liberals and conservatives?



I have addressed your comments about Ann Coulter and you ignored it.  Ann Coulter is not in the business of building communications between liberals and conservatives and it is highly presumptious of you to dictate to her in how she should be helpful.  Ann Coulter is a satirist who has been very successful in what she does.  Nobody requires you to listen to her, read her, buy her books, or pay her any attention whatsoever.  And she has no power to hurt anybody and doesn't hurt anybody other than in what power they hand to her.  My favorite column of hers wasn't bashing liberals at all.  It was taking on George Bush and his immigration policy.  And it was funny as hell.  I suspect even he found it funny because he's pretty grown up.

I don't expect you to understand that or how carrying a big chip on one's shoulder or wearing prejudices on ones sleeve is not conducive to building communications.  



> We do find common ground.  I have repped you a number of times for informative posts free of prejudice.  We haven't found the same things funny yet.   It's not a deal breaker for me, but I'm only 50% of this connection between us.



Hon as long as you insist on being judge and jury re what is and is not 'free of prejudice' I doubt we'll find a whole lot of common ground.  The video clip was funny to people who can understand demonstrating absurdity with absurdity.  I suppose for those who can't understand that, it isn't funny.  But it's pretty hard to find anybody that you don't agree with about something.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you just can't deal with what the conservatives say on their programs without doing a liberal bash, Fox.
> 
> That's my problem with you.  You can't seem to concede a true point.  Conservative talk radio is largely about insulting the other side rather than promoting their own ideas.
> 
> If it were more. facts, just the facts, maam I would listen to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done several posts re conservative content without even mentioning liberals or liberalism in any form.  You counter with how mean and insulting they are.  You seem hell bent on trashing conservativism and conservatives, most especailly conservative talk show hosts or those who defend them and don't see how insulting your own comments sometimes are. * And you have never once criticzed Ed or others who use the most hateful terms to describe anybody they don't agree with.*
> 
> As I said, the double standard is alive and well.
Click to expand...

It is not a double standard, as I have already explained to you and you have chosen to ignore. All the "hateful terms" I use have already been used by professing Christian Stuttering LimpTard and approved by CON$ as acceptable terms of satire and humor when he uses him. The Golden Rule is a bitch, isn't it? It's meant to be!!!

Your MessiahRushie attacked Obama for stuttering and ahhhs, and he stutters and ahhhs habitually. He calls Carter "the National Hemorrhoid" so I call Limptard "America's Hemorrhoid" a take off on his "America's Anchorman." His "Tardifying" Libs was approved by Celebutard Palin as satire, and she has anointed herself as the spokesperson for all retards. The pathological liar claimed, and Celebutard Palin concurred, that LimpTard never used the "Tard" reference until after Rahm Emanuel, so it was acceptable satire because Rahm used it first, but Limptard was calling Obama and Libs who supported him like Oprah "Celebutards" a full year BEFORE Rahm and in support of her election as VP, and he had a promo for his 1990s TV show that called the residents of DC "retards" because no TV channel carried his TV program there.

And if you don't like the Golden Rule rationalization, then you are using a double standard yourself because it is a better rationalization then the ones he uses to say "thug" is a "Term of Endearment" or insulting one person's name and another's speech pattern is an "Act of Compassion."

April 24, 2008
RUSH:    Mayor Daley's cops, his thugs went out there and were attacking Democrats, and the SDS was there and all the anti-war crowd -- the Jerry Reubens and the Tom Haydens -- they were starting fires and so forth, and the Democrats sent Mayor Daley's thugs out there to beat 'em upside the head!  

April 24, 2008
CALLER:  However,* I'm one of those so-called thugs that you referred to*. A Chicago policeman from '68 that was one of Daley so-called henchmen -- which we weren't, by the way, Rush. 

RUSH:  Wait, wait, wait just a second.  You know, I understand why you called.  You don't understand. *I was proud of the cops. It was a term -- Daley's goons, Daley's thugs* -- the point to me was that Daley had sent you guys out to beat up on his own people.

CALLER:    A lot of us were very, very conservative. 

RUSH:  No, no, no. * It was a term of endearment.  *

April 1, 2008
RUSH: New York governor Mario* Cooomo *who was on -- where was this? -- The Situation Room. *For those of you new to the program, "Rush, it's Cuo-mo."  I know that.*  But a long time ago, I heard the *Reverend Jackson pronounce his name "Cooomo."*  You know,* it's not stylish and it's not classy to correct somebody's pronunciation of things*, especially when the mistake is made by a man of the cloth and a respected, revered Rev.  So if he thinks* it's Cooomo, then on this program, it's Cooomo, and that is an act of compassion.*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly! If wearing and carrying were the same, then the pathological liar would not have had to change them, now would he?
> 
> The Teabaggers were CARRYING signs with Nazi symbols calling health care reform supporters Nazis. Carrying signs calling other people Nazis, as Pelosi correctly reported, is quite different from WEARING Nazi symbols as Stuttering LimpTard "reported."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing or carrying doesn't take away the fact that Pelosi was trying to paint the Tea Partiers as Nazi's. Damn you are one stupid fuck. Get your head out of Rush's ass and take a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course "wearing" and "carrying" makes a big difference or your MessiahRushie would not have changed the words!!!
> 
> The Teabaggers were the ones calling Americans with the signs they carried. LimpTard changed what Pelosi said in order to portray the name calling Teabaggers as innocent VICTIMS of name calling. Nothing Pelosi actually said even remotely called the Teabaggers Nazis, that's why the pathological liar had to change her words. Wearing Nazi symbols implies support for Nazism, whereas carrying signs calling Americans Nazis for supporting Health Care Reform doesn't.
> 
> You, of course, know this, but lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervatism.
Click to expand...


That's all you have is semantics. pfft..

Go away little boy.


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing or carrying doesn't take away the fact that Pelosi was trying to paint the Tea Partiers as Nazi's. Damn you are one stupid fuck. Get your head out of Rush's ass and take a break.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "wearing" and "carrying" makes a big difference or your MessiahRushie would not have changed the words!!!
> 
> The Teabaggers were the ones calling Americans with the signs they carried. LimpTard changed what Pelosi said in order to portray the name calling Teabaggers as innocent VICTIMS of name calling. Nothing Pelosi actually said even remotely called the Teabaggers Nazis, that's why the pathological liar had to change her words. Wearing Nazi symbols implies support for Nazism, whereas carrying signs calling Americans Nazis for supporting Health Care Reform doesn't.
> 
> You, of course, know this, but lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all you have is semantics. pfft..
> 
> Go away little boy.
Click to expand...

If it was only semantics, you America haters would not have changed the words in the first place. pfft

Go away little girl.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "wearing" and "carrying" makes a big difference or your MessiahRushie would not have changed the words!!!
> 
> The Teabaggers were the ones calling Americans with the signs they carried. LimpTard changed what Pelosi said in order to portray the name calling Teabaggers as innocent VICTIMS of name calling. Nothing Pelosi actually said even remotely called the Teabaggers Nazis, that's why the pathological liar had to change her words. Wearing Nazi symbols implies support for Nazism, whereas carrying signs calling Americans Nazis for supporting Health Care Reform doesn't.
> 
> You, of course, know this, but lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all you have is semantics. pfft..
> 
> Go away little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was only semantics, you America haters would not have changed the words in the first place. pfft
> 
> Go away little girl.
Click to expand...


American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all you have is semantics. pfft..
> 
> Go away little boy.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only semantics, you America haters would not have changed the words in the first place. pfft
> 
> Go away little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
Click to expand...

Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only semantics, you America haters would not have changed the words in the first place. pfft
> 
> Go away little girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
Click to expand...

there is no "conservative" dumb act
but you are too fucking dumb to understand it


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no "conservative" dumb act
> but you are too fucking dumb to understand it
Click to expand...

So you are saying CON$ are really as dumb as they pretend.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no "conservative" dumb act
> but you are too fucking dumb to understand it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying CON$ are really as dumb as they pretend.
Click to expand...

no, i'm saying YOU are the dumb one

see, i told you you were too fucking dumb to understand


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no "conservative" dumb act
> but you are too fucking dumb to understand it
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying CON$ are really as dumb as they pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i'm saying YOU are the dumb one
> 
> see, i told you you were too fucking dumb to understand
Click to expand...

Oh I understand alright. 

CON$ have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not liars, hence the perpetual dumb act. That's why they only follow CON$ervative hate media. They know they will never be exposed to the truth there so their dumb act can be very convincing. 

The only problem is CON$ also claim to be the most informed people on the face of the Earth thanks to the disinformation they get from GOP hate media that the Corporate MSM does not "report."


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying CON$ are really as dumb as they pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> no, i'm saying YOU are the dumb one
> 
> see, i told you you were too fucking dumb to understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I understand alright.
> 
> CON$ have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not liars, hence the perpetual dumb act. That's why they only follow CON$ervative hate media. They know they will never be exposed to the truth there so their dumb act can be very convincing.
> 
> The only problem is CON$ also claim to be the most informed people on the face of the Earth thanks to the disinformation they get from GOP hate media that the Corporate MSM does not "report."
Click to expand...

WRONG

but you proved me correct again


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no "conservative" dumb act
> but you are too fucking dumb to understand it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying CON$ are really as dumb as they pretend.
Click to expand...


No....Dive is saying that you are too fucking dumb.  He just proved it, because you were too fucking dumb to understand what he was saying.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only semantics, you America haters would not have changed the words in the first place. pfft
> 
> Go away little girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
Click to expand...


No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up. 


This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!


----------



## DiveCon

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!
Click to expand...

he's had no credibility since the day he joined
hes a fucking moron


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> American hater? Where do you get that ridiculous shit from? And tell me what words have I changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!
Click to expand...

Don't you think you are milking the Dumb Act just a little bit too much????

You've defended the change from "carrying" to "wearing" for God knows how many posts and now you pretend not to know what words were changed. 

And DumbCon says there is no such thing as the patented CON$ervative Dumb Act.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you think you are milking the Dumb Act just a little bit too much????
> 
> You've defended the change from "carrying" to "wearing" for God knows how many posts and now you pretend not to know what words were changed.
> 
> And DumbCon says there is no such thing as the patented CON$ervative Dumb Act.
Click to expand...

dipshit, you remain a fucking moronic LIAR
fuck off asshole


----------



## MarcATL

LOL @ "DumbCon"


----------



## uscitizen

LOL this thread has pretty much devolved into a conservative talk show.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

edthecynic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the patented CON$ervative dumb act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you think you are milking the Dumb Act just a little bit too much????
> 
> You've defended the change from "carrying" to "wearing" for God knows how many posts and now you pretend not to know what words were changed.
> 
> And DumbCon says there is no such thing as the patented CON$ervative Dumb Act.
Click to expand...


Your childish jabs aside, whether Pelosi said wearing or carrying her implication was clear. Only an idiot such as yourself would argue over semantics.  But I suppose that's the only argument you have. 

Grow the fuck up!


----------



## edthecynic

Lonestar_logic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's an outright challenge of your lying. You dub me an American hater and say that I change words. Now either show proof of your claims or stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> This is rich, you call Rush a liar and you, yourself are the liar. From now on your credibility is worth shit!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you are milking the Dumb Act just a little bit too much????
> 
> You've defended the change from "carrying" to "wearing" for God knows how many posts and now you pretend not to know what words were changed.
> 
> And DumbCon says there is no such thing as the patented CON$ervative Dumb Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your childish jabs aside, whether Pelosi said wearing or carrying her implication was clear. Only an idiot such as yourself would argue over semantics.  But I suppose that's the only argument you have.
> 
> Grow the fuck up!
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with semantics, and you know it. If "carrying" meant the same as "wearing" then Limptard would not have changed the word.

By carrying signs with Nazi symbols the Teabaggers were able to call those who support health care reform Nazis. Carrying signs that call health care reform supporters Nazis does not make the people carrying the signs Nazis. By carrying signs that call others Nazis, the sign carriers are clearly identifying THEMSELVES as something OTHER than Nazis and identifying the people named in their signs as the Nazis.

Now if the Teabaggers were WEARING Nazi symbols then that would clearly mean the Teabaggers identify themselves with Nazis, thus LimpTard's absolute NEED to change the words in order to make the name-calling Teabaggers the innocent VICTIMS of name-calling.

Again, what LimpTard did is SOP for CON$, they always pretend to be the VICTIMS of the people they attack.  CON$ervatism is PERPETUAL VICTIMHOOD.

CON$ habitually portray themselves as victims of:
The liberal news/media
The liberal schools
The liberal courts
The liberal press
The liberal movies
The liberal trial lawyers
The liberal environmentalists
The liberal scientists
The liberal professors
The liberal Hollywood
The liberal judges
The list is endless
Everyone unfairly picks on the poor little innocent CON$.


----------



## Foxfyre

uscitizen said:


> LOL this thread has pretty much devolved into a conservative talk show.



Naw, conservatives don't usually sit around calling people names on talk show.  That's pretty much a liberal thing.  But on television when you have a group, conservatives are sure as bad as anybody else when it comes to interrupting people and everybody talking at once so it's just noise.   I can't take it.  I change the channel or go do something else.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Actually Rush and Coulter name call.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL this thread has pretty much devolved into a conservative talk show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Naw, conservatives don't usually sit around calling people names on talk show.*  That's pretty much a liberal thing.  But on television when you have a group, conservatives are sure as bad as anybody else when it comes to interrupting people and everybody talking at once so it's just noise.   I can't take it.  I change the channel or go do something else.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much ALL CON$ do on GOP hate radio!!! Just listen to the three most popular, LimpTard, HanNITWITy and Levin. It's a nonstop barrage of name-calling.

What planet are on????


----------



## Mozilla

I listen to talk radio to get opinions of various hosts, news I didn't know about, and information as well as caller reactions. I try to round the bases and listen to people who don't all agree on everything. Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Leslie Marshall, Dana Loesch. Mark Levin, Dr. Rev. James David Manning, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Rick Adams, Steve Malzberg, Bill Cunningham, Wayne Masden, Coast to Coast AM,  Rusty Humphries, Neal Boortz, Alan Colmes, Dr. Michael Savage and so on are some of the ones I have heard over the years. I mostly listen to libertarians and conservatives and stuff deemed to the right and that is the topic of this thread. So I hear these people because they are interesting to listen to. And check into to see what they have to say. I don't always agree with everything they say and they don't always agree with each other. I do support a lot of the anti-Obama guys, though. I sometimes download podcasts or if I can't get a radio feed listen on-line. Of late, I went to a new level, listening to blog talk radio which is home made online radio. Then I found a freedomain guy who just posts mp3 podcasts of his random thoughts on topics. Then I've also jumped to video with Glenn Becks tv show, which will be online only soon, And Alex Jones which is also streaming video of the radio show, but soon he will do a online show himself. And Rush's video feed. As well as clips off news channels. Only Leslie Marshall and Alan Colmes are leftists I bother to hear. I know what all the rest say by reading newsbusters or whatever. Don't like them so why waste my time.


----------



## Zona

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.

Nicely said sir.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.
> 
> Nicely said sir.
Click to expand...


Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.


----------



## newpolitics

Sinatra said:


> Liberals are for the most part, an unhappy bunch.
> 
> I imagine conservative radio would only remind them of that unhappiness...



Yeah, that's it...


----------



## newpolitics

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdking647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.
> 
> Nicely said sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.
Click to expand...


For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?


----------



## whitehall

rdking647 said:


> i thought people listened to conservative talk radio beacuse they were incapable of independent thought and felt it easier to have their opinions given to them



How long has conservative radio been around? 20 years? Liberals have been incapable of independent thought since they elected FDR in 1932.


----------



## Foxfyre

newpolitics said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.
> 
> Nicely said sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?
Click to expand...


And who are you to think conservatives are not capable of independent thought?

Study after study after study has demonstrated that most Americans are right of center on most issues.  Fox News and conservative talk radio are the ONLY major media sources available to all those people.

But if Fox News and conservative talk radio had the power to dictate to those people or direct their thoughts, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice.  George W. Bush would not have been able to push through a social agenda to which most of us objected.  John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008 and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be President now.

Nevertheless, it boggles the mind that so many on the left can be so afraid of and intolerant of any difference of opinion or any ideas contrary to the leftist mantra and playbook.  So who are the brainwashed ones and those who are most likely told what to think?  I can't see that it is the conservatives.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who are you to think conservatives are not capable of independent thought?
> 
> *Study after study after study has demonstrated that most Americans are right of center on most issues.*  Fox News and conservative talk radio are the ONLY major media sources available to all those people.
> 
> But if Fox News and conservative talk radio had the power to dictate to those people or direct their thoughts, *Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice.  George W. Bush would not have been able to push through a social agenda to which most of us objected.  John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008 and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be President now.*
> 
> Nevertheless, it boggles the mind that so many on the left can be so afraid of and intolerant of any difference of opinion or any ideas contrary to the leftist mantra and playbook.  *So who are the brainwashed ones* and those who are most likely told what to think?  I can't see that it is the conservatives.
Click to expand...

Obviously, by your own statement, those "studies" must be flawed and were merely used to brainwash you into believing your CON$ervative minority was a majority.


----------



## CountofTuscany

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to think conservatives are not capable of independent thought?
> 
> *Study after study after study has demonstrated that most Americans are right of center on most issues.*  Fox News and conservative talk radio are the ONLY major media sources available to all those people.
> 
> But if Fox News and conservative talk radio had the power to dictate to those people or direct their thoughts, *Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice.  George W. Bush would not have been able to push through a social agenda to which most of us objected.  John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008 and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be President now.*
> 
> Nevertheless, it boggles the mind that so many on the left can be so afraid of and intolerant of any difference of opinion or any ideas contrary to the leftist mantra and playbook.  *So who are the brainwashed ones* and those who are most likely told what to think?  I can't see that it is the conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, by your own statement, those "studies" must be flawed and were merely used to brainwash you into believing your CON$ervative minority was a majority.
Click to expand...


what is your fact base for claiming there is a liberal majority?  That's news to me.


----------



## edthecynic

CountofTuscany said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to think conservatives are not capable of independent thought?
> 
> *Study after study after study has demonstrated that most Americans are right of center on most issues.*  Fox News and conservative talk radio are the ONLY major media sources available to all those people.
> 
> But if Fox News and conservative talk radio had the power to dictate to those people or direct their thoughts, *Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice.  George W. Bush would not have been able to push through a social agenda to which most of us objected.  John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008 and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be President now.*
> 
> Nevertheless, it boggles the mind that so many on the left can be so afraid of and intolerant of any difference of opinion or any ideas contrary to the leftist mantra and playbook.  *So who are the brainwashed ones* and those who are most likely told what to think?  I can't see that it is the conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, by your own statement, those "studies" must be flawed and were merely used to brainwash you into believing your CON$ervative minority was a majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is your fact base for claiming there is a liberal majority?  That's news to me.
Click to expand...

Where exactly did I make any such claim? Libs are a minority just like CON$.


----------



## Avatar4321

newpolitics said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.
> 
> Nicely said sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?
Click to expand...


Why would I bother explaining something i never claimed to begin with?


----------



## CountofTuscany

newpolitics said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> This totally explains the ratings at fox.  It really does.  Everytime they brag about the ratings, I say to my self exactly what you wrote.
> 
> Nicely said sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking that you applaud the response you agree with then taking the time to actually ask why people listen to different points of view. I understand why you don't though. You don't want to admit that people other than you might have a legitimate point of view. Then you might be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the last time, explain to me how popular opinion at all translates into legitimacy? If you have a population of idiots, does who they support mean anything? No. Idiots will support idiots. That is what conservatives and fox do. How can it be legitimate when it is not their own opinion? When it is opinions only of the talking heads and corrupt politicians who only want what is best for a small portion of the population?
Click to expand...


And that's what we did when we voted for Obama. We followed the lying idiot. I was in idiot in 2008, I won't be one in 2012


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, by your own statement, those "studies" must be flawed and were merely used to brainwash you into believing your CON$ervative minority was a majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your fact base for claiming there is a liberal majority?  That's news to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly did I make any such claim? Libs are a minority just like CON$.
Click to expand...


To be more precise please, those who IDENTIFY themselves as liberals qand those who IDENTIFY themselves as conservatives are both in minorities with conservatives being the larger of the two groups.

I did not identify anybody as liberal or conservative but rather said the studies indicate that most Americans are right of center on more issues than they are left of center.

And those people have only Fox News and conservative talk radio as major media outlets where they can hear their opinions and views confirmed.  They don't form those opinions from the media.  They look for media that affirms their opinions.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is your fact base for claiming there is a liberal majority?  That's news to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly did I make any such claim? Libs are a minority just like CON$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be more precise please, those who IDENTIFY themselves as liberals qand those who IDENTIFY themselves as conservatives are both in minorities with conservatives being the larger of the two groups.
> 
> I did not identify anybody as liberal or conservative but rather said the studies indicate that *most* Americans are right of center on more issues than they are left of center.
> 
> And those people have only Fox News and conservative talk radio as major media outlets where they can hear their opinions and views confirmed.  They don't form those opinions from the media.  They look for media that affirms their opinions.
Click to expand...

"More" is not "most!"
If you weren't brainwashed you would have heard the CON$ who cite those "studies" say that MOST Americans are center right, which means they combined the center with the Right. By the same token MOST Americans are center Left also!

Now according to CON$ the center are actually Libs, so it makes more sense to combine the left with the center than the Right.

May 12, 2008
RUSH:  I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats.  Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly did I make any such claim? Libs are a minority just like CON$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be more precise please, those who IDENTIFY themselves as liberals qand those who IDENTIFY themselves as conservatives are both in minorities with conservatives being the larger of the two groups.
> 
> I did not identify anybody as liberal or conservative but rather said the studies indicate that *most* Americans are right of center on more issues than they are left of center.
> 
> And those people have only Fox News and conservative talk radio as major media outlets where they can hear their opinions and views confirmed.  They don't form those opinions from the media.  They look for media that affirms their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "More" is not "most!"
> If you weren't brainwashed you would have heard the CON$ who cite those "studies" say that MOST Americans are center right, which means they combined the center with the Right. By the same token MOST Americans are center Left also!
> 
> Now according to CON$ the center are actually Libs, so it makes more sense to combine the left with the center than the Right.
> 
> May 12, 2008
> RUSH:  I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats.  Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal
Click to expand...


Yes dear.  When you have two groups, the larger can accurately be defined as most.

Most voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008 which is why he is now President even though those voting for him were not that many more than those who didn't vote for him.

Most cats given a choice prefer Brand X of catfood even if those preferring Brand X are 51% of all cats who try it.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be more precise please, those who IDENTIFY themselves as liberals qand those who IDENTIFY themselves as conservatives are both in minorities with conservatives being the larger of the two groups.
> 
> I did not identify anybody as liberal or conservative but rather said the studies indicate that *most* Americans are right of center on more issues than they are left of center.
> 
> And those people have only Fox News and conservative talk radio as major media outlets where they can hear their opinions and views confirmed.  They don't form those opinions from the media.  They look for media that affirms their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> "More" is not "most!"
> If you weren't brainwashed you would have heard the CON$ who cite those "studies" say that MOST Americans are center right, which means they combined the center with the Right. By the same token MOST Americans are center Left also!
> 
> Now according to CON$ the center are actually Libs, so it makes more sense to combine the left with the center than the Right.
> 
> May 12, 2008
> RUSH:  I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats.  Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes dear. * When you have two groups,* the larger can accurately be defined as most.
> 
> Most voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008 which is why he is now President even though those voting for him were not that many more than those who didn't vote for him.
> 
> Most cats given a choice prefer Brand X of catfood even if those preferring Brand X are 51% of all cats who try it.
Click to expand...

But in politics you have more than 2 groups, unless you define moderates and independents as your MessiahRushie does. Then MOST Americans are Left of center.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "More" is not "most!"
> If you weren't brainwashed you would have heard the CON$ who cite those "studies" say that MOST Americans are center right, which means they combined the center with the Right. By the same token MOST Americans are center Left also!
> 
> Now according to CON$ the center are actually Libs, so it makes more sense to combine the left with the center than the Right.
> 
> May 12, 2008
> RUSH:  I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats.  Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes dear. * When you have two groups,* the larger can accurately be defined as most.
> 
> Most voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008 which is why he is now President even though those voting for him were not that many more than those who didn't vote for him.
> 
> Most cats given a choice prefer Brand X of catfood even if those preferring Brand X are 51% of all cats who try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in politics you have more than 2 groups, unless you define moderates and independents as your MessiahRushie does. Then MOST Americans are Left of center.
Click to expand...


And again I didn't base my observation on any group or groups but rather on the fact that more Americans will be right of center on more issues than they will be left of center.  That is a very different thing than separating people into groups.


----------

