Why I listen to Conservative Talk Radio

[Wry Catcher]

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

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.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

Now you've done it, the coward DC will have an hysterical fit - be prepared for an onslaught of profanity and personal attacks.

what a pussy you must be in real life

 

[edthecynic]

Several pages back, I posted this question to you:

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.

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

what a pussy you must be in real life

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]

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.

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 you got us all, Phyllis. Go back to the MSNBC messageboard and tell them you got us good. Your pathetic.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

Wow. My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary. I wonder what you used to confirm yours?

ed is such a moron he thinks conservatives control the media

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Wow. My definitions are pretty well confirmed by the Merriam Webster Dictionary. I wonder what you used to confirm yours?

Economics 101.

 

[JimH52]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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'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]

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?

Economics 101.

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]

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]

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?

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