koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,136
- 14,068
- 2,190
No shit! [MENTION=19535]L.K.Eder[/MENTION]
Fox News and talk radio brainwashed my dad
- Thread starter BDBoop
- Start date
No shit! [MENTION=19535]L.K.Eder[/MENTION]
whitehall
Diamond Member
It's getting very psychotic out there in la la leftie land. What are they going to do next, arrest family members for "crimes against the state" when they listen to talk radio? Are they on the verge of throwing out the Constitution? Just when you think it's safe to turn on the radio the left gets scarier and scarier.
OldUSAFSniper
Conservative
I do enjoy speaking with someone who can 'intelligently' debate the issues. Being a conservative I have NO TIME and NO PATIENCE for those who immediately jump to name calling, ad hominem attacks, or accusing someone of some horrible mental issue, simply because they support a conservative issue. I support ONLY marriage between a man and a woman. I am not homophobic and those that accuse someone of that simply for that stance are mental midgets and do not deserve the time of day. I have debated several on that issue and those that resort to name calling are out of arguements. Checkmate.
There are a few of those on the left on this forum however, who have INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT. Rightwinger, Sallow and several others are able to put thoughts into words and beliefs into statements of position that I believe do have integrity and deserve consideration simply because of the merit of their arguements. I like debating them and I have to admit that occassionally, they have swayed my beliefs slightly in arguing their stances. I give weight to their opinions and I hope that they do not out right dismiss mine, simply because I am a conservative.
It is not the sole perview of the right to be detrimental to a civil discourse. If you want examples, then look at Ed Schultz on MSNBC, Kieth Olbermann, formerly of MSNBC, Black Label, Franco, rdean and several others on this forum. They do not want an intelligent debate, they want to berate because of a person's political beliefs. The right, specifically Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and others have learned to be just as good a bomb thrower as those on the left and some have exceeded them. Don't cry because someone has learned a tactic and become better at it than the originators.
When a person is raised believing something is right or wrong, it is an assuault on their very intelligence and their heritage to tell them that all along 'they were wrong' and therefore must embrace your new way. If they do not, they are homophobic, racist, or something else. As former police officer, if you ask someone to do something, it is taken much better than to TELL THEM to do it. We are not being asked by this administration, WE ARE BEING TOLD. And we don't like it.
As we grow older, we become less flexible in our beliefs. I DO believe that Christians and the very notion of Christmas is under assault and I congradulate and patronize those that use "Merry Christmas" instead of Happy Holidays. I left a over flowing shopping cart at a check out at a Targets because the clerk refused to say Merry Christmas. I would do it again.
The concerns of the woman in BDBoops original OP is ludicrous in my humble opinion. As I look at the downside of 60+ I find my patience wearing thin as well. Now, stop whining, cowboy up and let's move on...
There are a few of those on the left on this forum however, who have INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT. Rightwinger, Sallow and several others are able to put thoughts into words and beliefs into statements of position that I believe do have integrity and deserve consideration simply because of the merit of their arguements. I like debating them and I have to admit that occassionally, they have swayed my beliefs slightly in arguing their stances. I give weight to their opinions and I hope that they do not out right dismiss mine, simply because I am a conservative.
It is not the sole perview of the right to be detrimental to a civil discourse. If you want examples, then look at Ed Schultz on MSNBC, Kieth Olbermann, formerly of MSNBC, Black Label, Franco, rdean and several others on this forum. They do not want an intelligent debate, they want to berate because of a person's political beliefs. The right, specifically Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and others have learned to be just as good a bomb thrower as those on the left and some have exceeded them. Don't cry because someone has learned a tactic and become better at it than the originators.
When a person is raised believing something is right or wrong, it is an assuault on their very intelligence and their heritage to tell them that all along 'they were wrong' and therefore must embrace your new way. If they do not, they are homophobic, racist, or something else. As former police officer, if you ask someone to do something, it is taken much better than to TELL THEM to do it. We are not being asked by this administration, WE ARE BEING TOLD. And we don't like it.
As we grow older, we become less flexible in our beliefs. I DO believe that Christians and the very notion of Christmas is under assault and I congradulate and patronize those that use "Merry Christmas" instead of Happy Holidays. I left a over flowing shopping cart at a check out at a Targets because the clerk refused to say Merry Christmas. I would do it again.
The concerns of the woman in BDBoops original OP is ludicrous in my humble opinion. As I look at the downside of 60+ I find my patience wearing thin as well. Now, stop whining, cowboy up and let's move on...
Last edited:
Bravo, well said. So far.
Very true that it's not limited to the right, examples of Schultz and Olbermann well taken. But lest we try to wag the dog, let's be clear where it started; it started (about) 25 years ago with Limblob. It was he who set the tone. Olbermann, Schultz, and the idea of Air America were all in reaction to that dynamic. None of them existed as political voices in 1990. So to pretend the right is lily-white innocent victims just starting to play defense is blatant revisionist history. Both the Air America / MSNBC model, as well as even Fox News Channel and the other "right-wing" talkers (Boortz, Beck, et al), are rhetorical hucksters trying to copycat what Limblob got rich on. Limblob IS the originator; the rest followed him down the hole.
As long as you accept the concept of linear time you can't put that particular cart before that particular horse and expect anybody to buy it. I mean -- poster, please. We're not sixteen years old here. To pretend that these vipers "learned" by anticipating what their counterparts on the other side would be doing in the future requires entering into a time machine lease agreement with H. G. Wells.
And it's not "the right" and "the left" anyway -- it's snake-oil-selling hucksters out to get rich on the snake oil of rhetorical sensationalism, truth be damned. Because none of them are out to put out the truth; they're out for ratings. Because ratings mean money. And veracity has nothing to do with ratings, while hyperpartisan hair-on-fire hype has everything to do with it. As a wise media man once said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
Last edited:
OldUSAFSniper
Conservative
Very true that it's not limited to the right, examples of Schultz and Olbermann well taken. But lest we try to wag the dog, let's be clear where it started; it started (about) 25 years ago with Limblob. It was he who set the tone. Olbermann, Schultz, and the idea of Air America were all in reaction to that dynamic. None of them existed as political voices in 1990. So to pretend the right is lily-white innocent victims just starting to play defense is blatant revisionist history. Both the Air America / MSNBC model, as well as even Fox News Channel and the other "right-wing" talkers (Boortz, Beck, et al), are rhetorical hucksters trying to copycat what Limblob got rich on. Limblob IS the originator; the rest followed him down the hole.
As long as you accept the concept of linear time you can't put that particular cart before that particular horse and expect anybody to buy it. I mean -- poster, please. We're not sixteen years old here. To pretend that these vipers "learned" by anticipating what their counterparts on the other side would be doing in the future requires entering into a time machine lease agreement with H. G. Wells.
And it's not "the right" and "the left" anyway -- it's snake-oil-selling hucksters out to get rich on the snake oil of rhetorical sensationalism, truth be damned. Because none of them are out to put out the truth; they're out for ratings. Because ratings mean money. And veracity has nothing to do with ratings, while hyperpartisan hair-on-fire hype has everything to do with it. As a wise media man once said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
It is painfully apparent that your distaste for Rush Limbaugh is indeed great. And you have a right to that viewpoint. However, to believe that it "started with him" is a willful disregard of a time worn, but utterly TRUE conservative complaint. BEFORE Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, there was no conservative voice, PERIOD. In the 80's, ABC, CBS, NBC and a fledgling CNN were the nightly feed for those wishing to get the 'news.' It was at this time that the legacy of Walter Cronkite (a huge progressive by the way - who knew?), Chet Huntley and David Brinkley died. Those who would report the news without filtering it through their own ideological viewpoint was gone. It was then that we were assailed by the arrival of the likes of Dan Rather, a man who would propogate an outright lie and report it as 'news'. Since the mid 80's the number of negative reports for Republican candidates and politicians GREATLY outweigh the same type of reports for Democratic candidates and politicians. Every verifiable independent study shows this to be a fact.
Therefore, IF the news is to be reported with an ideological bent, I, along with millions of other conservatives will seek out those to report it who most closely matches our values. When Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves, there were no other obviously conservative commentators. He was the first on radio. As he has said many times, his arrival on the airwaves was in DIRECT RESPONSE to those who had already bastardized the industry. And conservatives, under direct attack from our nightly news, responded. Limbaugh became and much to the extreme displeasure of the left, remains the most listened to man on talk radio. Air America and other liberal talkers have tried, but fail to maintain even a semblance of a national audience. In a free market society, you make it ONLY if you can maintain an audience. That is the way it should be.
That is why I say that Limbaugh, Hannity, and others are simply in response to what was already occuring. Ann Coulter and the things that she says is no more outrageous than what some of the things that Jeanine Garaffalo (SP?) says. And despite the extreme displeasure of the left, Limbaugh and other conservatives on talk radio and Fox News will continue to receive a great portion of the audience. Bill O'Reilly continues to have the most watched 'news' show on cable television for 11 years running. He has been voted the 'most trusted man in news' for a number of years. And it just absolutely KILLS the left.
Good points and I understand them. I do not agree as I think you fail to take into account the entire timeline of events. I would leave you with this thought. Rightwinger once asked, if Obamacare is so bad, why don't you conservatives just leave it alone to implode under its own weight? I would ask you the same about Limbaugh and the others, including Fox. I would think you would do everything you could to ignore them. Your outrage only helps to fuel the fire...
As long as you accept the concept of linear time you can't put that particular cart before that particular horse and expect anybody to buy it. I mean -- poster, please. We're not sixteen years old here. To pretend that these vipers "learned" by anticipating what their counterparts on the other side would be doing in the future requires entering into a time machine lease agreement with H. G. Wells.
And it's not "the right" and "the left" anyway -- it's snake-oil-selling hucksters out to get rich on the snake oil of rhetorical sensationalism, truth be damned. Because none of them are out to put out the truth; they're out for ratings. Because ratings mean money. And veracity has nothing to do with ratings, while hyperpartisan hair-on-fire hype has everything to do with it. As a wise media man once said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
It is painfully apparent that your distaste for Rush Limbaugh is indeed great. And you have a right to that viewpoint. However, to believe that it "started with him" is a willful disregard of a time worn, but utterly TRUE conservative complaint. BEFORE Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, there was no conservative voice, PERIOD. In the 80's, ABC, CBS, NBC and a fledgling CNN were the nightly feed for those wishing to get the 'news.' It was at this time that the legacy of Walter Cronkite (a huge progressive by the way - who knew?), Chet Huntley and David Brinkley died. Those who would report the news without filtering it through their own ideological viewpoint was gone. It was then that we were assailed by the arrival of the likes of Dan Rather, a man who would propogate an outright lie and report it as 'news'. Since the mid 80's the number of negative reports for Republican candidates and politicians GREATLY outweigh the same type of reports for Democratic candidates and politicians. Every verifiable independent study shows this to be a fact.
Therefore, IF the news is to be reported with an ideological bent, I, along with millions of other conservatives will seek out those to report it who most closely matches our values. When Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves, there were no other obviously conservative commentators. He was the first on radio. As he has said many times, his arrival on the airwaves was in DIRECT RESPONSE to those who had already bastardized the industry. And conservatives, under direct attack from our nightly news, responded. Limbaugh became and much to the extreme displeasure of the left, remains the most listened to man on talk radio. Air America and other liberal talkers have tried, but fail to maintain even a semblance of a national audience. In a free market society, you make it ONLY if you can maintain an audience. That is the way it should be.
That is why I say that Limbaugh, Hannity, and others are simply in response to what was already occuring. Ann Coulter and the things that she says is no more outrageous than what some of the things that Jeanine Garaffalo (SP?) says. And despite the extreme displeasure of the left, Limbaugh and other conservatives on talk radio and Fox News will continue to receive a great portion of the audience. Bill O'Reilly continues to have the most watched 'news' show on cable television for 11 years running. He has been voted the 'most trusted man in news' for a number of years. And it just absolutely KILLS the left.
Good points and I understand them. I do not agree as I think you fail to take into account the entire timeline of events. I would leave you with this thought. Rightwinger once asked, if Obamacare is so bad, why don't you conservatives just leave it alone to implode under its own weight? I would ask you the same about Limbaugh and the others, including Fox. I would think you would do everything you could to ignore them. Your outrage only helps to fuel the fire...
Rebelitarian
Member
- Sep 11, 2013
- 359
- 16
- 16
Prison Planet.com
All the information he and you will need !!!!!!!!!
Left wing and right wing radio is all Globalist scripted and controlled !!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh, as far as any "outrage", I wasn't confronting Limbaugh or what he does; I was addressing you and your putting the effect before the cause. Correcting revisionist history if you will. But you didn't address that point at all -- instead you went to a comparison of what you see as editorial "slant". Whether that exists or not, and which way this or that outlet slants, it's got nothing to do with ad hominem, which is the point we were on. That's called moving the goalposts.
Anyway, I already pointed out that these journalistic hucksters aren't there to foment truth; they're there to serve themselves with ratings. If convincing a sizeable number of viewers/listeners that the lamestream media is all corrupt and my show here is the only place you'll hear the real deal, then that's the line they'll go with. Fear and paranoia are great sales tools. Limbaugh himself describes his goal as "to make you mad" so he can "charge confiscatory ad rates". His words. He understands that emotion manipulation sells.
But that's another story. What I was correcting was your history. You cannot "respond" to something while you're inventing it.
Last edited:
whitehall
Diamond Member
This kind of propaganda is reminiscent of Nazis claiming that Jews and Gypsies cast spells on German babies. The radical left must be desperate to try this stuff.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
If she watched all the lies in "An Inconvenient Truth" and doesn't think Al Gore is an asshole her dad is not the one with the problem.
