next target of the left will be talk radio

[Gadawg73]

Tea Party started as Tax Policy ONLY.
THEN it took off with talk radio.
But the core beliefs that government taxes too much, spends too much $$$ and does a terrible job managing it has been around long before radio ever existed.

I agree

The TeaParty was manipulated by the rightwing media. They evolved from a no tax movement to a modern day extension of the John Birch Society

The "right wing media"? You poor stupid fool...

LImbaugh, Hannity, et al would be right wing media.
And I do not have a problem with it.
But that is exactly what they are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not so, podjo. He was not a rapist, and to write it is libel. You have no defense in truth.

Goddamn but you're a fucknut retard.

{As far as I know, Bill Clinton, unlike U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin, has never misspoken on the subject of rape. In fact, he is somewhat of an authority on the subject.

Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back, “You better get some ice on that.”

Broaddrick was not alone in being sexually abused by Clinton. Indeed, in the Ken Starr investigation, Broaddrick emerged as “Jane Doe No. 5.”

Broaddrick was likely not unique in being raped by Clinton either. In his book, “Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story,” Michael Isikoff relates how Clinton, then Arkansas governor, had sex with former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

“It was rough sex,” Isikoff writes, “Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual.”

Isikoff missed the lip-biting connection. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen’s friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.

“Do you believe Clinton raped her?” investigator Rick Lambert asked her. “Absolutely,” Stokes replied. “He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?”}

Bill Clinton has the real ?rape? problem

 

[JakeStarkey]

You fools slay me.......


OK. Lets take a look at it, shall we? You can add I assume?

LIBERALS: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Al-Jezerra, BBC America, NY TIMES, LA
------------
TIMES (Hell nearly every newspaper in America) NewsWeek, Time, (Hell, nearly every magazine in America)

CONSERVATIVES: FOX NEWS
----------------------

Yeah, I guess I can see where you might be going crazy with worry.....However, it IS worth noting that at most times of the day or night, FOX usually DESTROYS it's competition in nearly EVERY demographic. Admittedly, it's a little odd that the majority of Americans follow FOX for their news yet voted for that fool that you love so much. THAT part is, indeed, puzzling..........

The Fox is strong in this one.....

Buying into conservative dogma that all media outside of Fox is LIBERAL!

Also believing that Fox outdraws CBS, NBC or ABC

Believe what you want. I understand that the idea Of FOX literally drives you clowns up the wall. I honestly get a chuckle from that. I'm not here to argue with you. You're not worth the time. I WILL however point out from time to time, that clowns like you have entirely too much time on your hands.

Brother Flagg, you love to quarrel. You won't be going anywhere else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LImbaugh, Hannity, et al would be right wing media.
And I do not have a problem with it.
But that is exactly what they are.

Which is why Pogo and the other leftists want to silence talk radio.

That they are 1% of the information stream, compared to the 99% democrat party controlled media, is beside the point - ANY dissent will be attacked by our leftist compadres.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored is an undisciplined, confused quarreler, too.

 

[Vast LWC]

Goddamn but you're a fucknut retard.

{As far as I know, Bill Clinton, unlike U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin, has never misspoken on the subject of rape. In fact, he is somewhat of an authority on the subject.

Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back, “You better get some ice on that.”

Broaddrick was not alone in being sexually abused by Clinton. Indeed, in the Ken Starr investigation, Broaddrick emerged as “Jane Doe No. 5.”

Broaddrick was likely not unique in being raped by Clinton either. In his book, “Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story,” Michael Isikoff relates how Clinton, then Arkansas governor, had sex with former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

“It was rough sex,” Isikoff writes, “Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual.”

Isikoff missed the lip-biting connection. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen’s friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.

“Do you believe Clinton raped her?” investigator Rick Lambert asked her. “Absolutely,” Stokes replied. “He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?”}

Bill Clinton has the real ?rape? problem

Well I guess she was lying when she said this then:

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ....

- 1997 sworn statement by Juanita Broaddrick

 

[Pogo]

The "right wing media"? You poor stupid fool...

If you take down your rabbit ears and pay for something called "Cable TV" there is a network called FoxNews...check them out sometime

You will get a laugh

You fools slay me.......


OK. Lets take a look at it, shall we? You can add I assume?

LIBERALS: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Al-Jezerra, BBC America, NY TIMES, LA
------------
TIMES (Hell nearly every newspaper in America) NewsWeek, Time, (Hell, nearly every magazine in America)

CONSERVATIVES: FOX NEWS
----------------------

Yeah, I guess I can see where you might be going crazy with worry.....However, it IS worth noting that at most times of the day or night, FOX usually DESTROYS it's competition in nearly EVERY demographic. Admittedly, it's a little odd that the majority of Americans follow FOX for their news yet voted for that fool that you love so much. THAT part is, indeed, puzzling..........

Hoo boy, somebody's way late to this party. Go back to post 36 (here, let's make it easy) to see why your point isn't one. Also here in a related thread << this is even more on your point.

Then come back and tell me all about these "ratings". They don't mean what you think they mean. In fact you may want to keep them quiet.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If you take down your rabbit ears and pay for something called "Cable TV" there is a network called FoxNews...check them out sometime

You will get a laugh

You fools slay me.......


OK. Lets take a look at it, shall we? You can add I assume?

LIBERALS: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Al-Jezerra, BBC America, NY TIMES, LA
------------
TIMES (Hell nearly every newspaper in America) NewsWeek, Time, (Hell, nearly every magazine in America)

CONSERVATIVES: FOX NEWS
----------------------

Yeah, I guess I can see where you might be going crazy with worry.....However, it IS worth noting that at most times of the day or night, FOX usually DESTROYS it's competition in nearly EVERY demographic. Admittedly, it's a little odd that the majority of Americans follow FOX for their news yet voted for that fool that you love so much. THAT part is, indeed, puzzling..........

Hoo boy, somebody's way late to this party. Go back to post 36 (here, let's make it easy) to see why your point isn't one. Also here in a related thread << this is even more on your point.

Then come back and tell me all about these "ratings". They don't mean what you think they mean. In fact you may want to keep them quiet.

Ahhh, you disagree. Now THERE is some breaking news.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You fools slay me.......


OK. Lets take a look at it, shall we? You can add I assume?

LIBERALS: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Al-Jezerra, BBC America, NY TIMES, LA
------------
TIMES (Hell nearly every newspaper in America) NewsWeek, Time, (Hell, nearly every magazine in America)

CONSERVATIVES: FOX NEWS
----------------------

Yeah, I guess I can see where you might be going crazy with worry.....However, it IS worth noting that at most times of the day or night, FOX usually DESTROYS it's competition in nearly EVERY demographic. Admittedly, it's a little odd that the majority of Americans follow FOX for their news yet voted for that fool that you love so much. THAT part is, indeed, puzzling..........

Hoo boy, somebody's way late to this party. Go back to post 36 (here, let's make it easy) to see why your point isn't one. Also here in a related thread << this is even more on your point.

Then come back and tell me all about these "ratings". They don't mean what you think they mean. In fact you may want to keep them quiet.

Ahhh, you disagree. Now THERE is some breaking news.

. . . because you got it wrong, RandallFlagg.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Hoo boy, somebody's way late to this party. Go back to post 36 (here, let's make it easy) to see why your point isn't one. Also here in a related thread << this is even more on your point.

Then come back and tell me all about these "ratings". They don't mean what you think they mean. In fact you may want to keep them quiet.

Ahhh, you disagree. Now THERE is some breaking news.

. . . because you got it wrong, RandallFlagg.

OK...Please help an old man here (and I'm being serious - here is your chance to help an old guy that barely has a BA in communication) and explain where this "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" is coming from when the vast amount of media is left wing - by their own admission.

Or, is it you assertion that the networks and the cable media (of course, with the exception of the evil FOX network) and the print media are, in fact, unbiased and fully support open dialogue between parties? I know, I know, you can pull out your "studies" by Doctor this and that, who graduated from Vassar or Columbia

But I want to hear from YOU - not some graphs and charts that purportedly show this and that - heck I can throw charts up here all day as well, to support MY case. I want to actually hear from YOU guys, you know you committed "liberals". I remember my stats class quite well, they can be tested to say ANYTHING the researcher wants.

So come on you guys! School this 68 year old man about media bias. I'm really interested in hearing your opinions ; not from the Huffington Post or Rachel Maddows blog, or from the tingling leg of Chris Matthews, or the "knowedgeable" Tom Brokaw, or any of the comedy of John Stewart, or from Time. Just you. Surely you "high-minded", well educated liberals are capable of critical thought, are you not?

Can you help me out??

 

[JakeStarkey]

The first cluse you are wrong in your assertions is that you think a right of center guy is "liberal." That means you are automatically committed to crazy far radical reactionary in your thinking.

But to your questions and points. The left wing media does well for itself. That's a fact.

But the right wing media does just as well or better. That's a fact as well. Listening to Rush, to Sean, to Glenn, to Michael, to Ann is listening to an alternate weird universe. Almost everything of which they accuse their enemies is nothing more than a mirror description of what they do themselves.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The first cluse you are wrong in your assertions is that you think a right of center guy is "liberal." That means you are automatically committed to crazy far radical reactionary in your thinking.

But to your questions and points. The left wing media does well for itself. That's a fact.

But the right wing media does just as well or better. That's a fact as well. Listening to Rush, to Sean, to Glenn, to Michael, to Ann is listening to an alternate weird universe. Almost everything of which they accuse their enemies is nothing more than a mirror description of what they do themselves.

OK..who is it that I'm referring to as a "liberal" that is actually "center-right" by YOUR definitions?

I am neither "committed to crazy far radical reactionary" thinking, nor do I subscribe to such. Rather "biased" of you to assume that, don't you think?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bias is yours, RandallFlagg. You simply think noncritically your world view is correct. Since this is your argument, define "liberal", define "right of center", define yourself.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most media is owned by big business which, by definition is, right wing.

And yet, Obama was re-elected by a majority of the vote.

THAT is how powerful the right wing radio nutters really are.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The bias is yours, RandallFlagg. You simply think noncritically your world view is correct. Since this is your argument, define "liberal", define "right of center", define yourself.

Oh, I see. Thanks for participating. Carry on - Ther's nothing to see here folks. Another "empty suit" liberal.

 

[Londoner]

What the Fairness Doctrine did from 1949 to 1987 was require that controversy on the radio be a dialogue (multiple voices). Once it was abolished by the Reaganites was exactly when we got the Lush Rimjob monologue style, where you could just blurt out anything and never have to put up with a challenge to it. The timing of that is significant; our discourse has been hyperpolarized ever since.

It's interesting to see who's afraid of their views being unchallenged. It would be like one of us putting a controversial post up here, and then locking the thread so nobody could comment.

During the postwar years there was a great compression of incomes. The polarized world of the 1920s gave way to a middle class society.

But there was a problem. This middle class society was supported by a large government infrastructure of policies and programs.

That infrastructure was not free. It was paid for by progressive taxation, the burden of which fell upon our wealthiest dynasties, families and individuals.

So what do you think the wealthy did?

They poured money into one of our two political parties until, with Reagan, they captured Washington. Then, they slowly repealed the policies that supported the postwar middle class in hopes of redirecting wealth upward.

And guess what? It worked. Starting in 1980 the U.S. saw massive income growth on top coupled with massive debt on the bottom. This is partly because middle class manufacturing jobs were shipped to Communist China, a place where America's wealthy could get their products made with ultra-cheap labor. As American workers lost solid jobs, they had to borrow more and more to keep pace. Additionally, the Reagan and post Reagan fed changed its focus from full employment (stimulus during downturns) to inflation prevention (austerity).

Listen carefully: As the wealthy consolidated their power over the GOP, a problem arose. How could they win elections if their policies only benefited the few? Answer: ideology. They built a massive ideological machine out of think tanks, publishing groups, television stations, magazines, websites and Talk Radio. Rather than the traditional anti-corporate populism of Teddy Roosevelt, this ideological bullhorn used religion, patriotism and fear to appeal to the poor and the under-educated.

Indeed, they convinced red state America that their beloved country was under siege by liberals, terrorists, gays, illegals, bra burners, hippies, drug addicts, communists, socialists, fascists, grandma killers, 2nd Amendment haters, secularists, atheists, relativists, multiculturalists, etc., etc., muslims, mexicans, gangs, etc., Al Gore, Global Warming, the Clintons, the Clintons, the Clintons.

Indeed, the rightwing voter goes into the voting booth to protect the unborn but comes out with an unregulated derivative market, insurance monopolies and bailouts for offshore corporations.

Now, Pogo . . . I've tried to explain this stuff to folks on the Right, but it doesn't work. Why? Because they have been completely captured by things like Talk Radio. They can't escape it. Limbaugh fits Plato's definition of rhetorician. He appeals to well-meaning people who don't have the intellectual resources or historical literacy to question him.

(The game is over. People don't get it. We had a good run. They won.)

 

[LowIQ]

Oh, boy. Another Obama/leftist/liberal/progressive/commie/socialist/fascist conspiracy theory. God knows we don't have enough of them already.

This ought to be the new theme song of the looney right.

You are definitely the enemy - no doubt about it.

And no, there are not enough threads about how Obama is tearing this country apart and leading us down a path to some serious, dangerously serious, social strife.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am sure Clinton can prove his libel case, that he lost substantial amounts of $$$ in damages as a result of being called a rapist and he will earn less than the 10 million he makes this year because someone called him a rapist.
Even if one wins a libel, or any tort, suit they then have to prove damages.

Clinton could be awarded a dollar in damages, then make millions off the verdict.

"make millions off the verdict"
How so?

 

[Gadawg73]

Most media is owned by big business which, by definition is, right wing.

And yet, Obama was re-elected by a majority of the vote.

THAT is how powerful the right wing radio nutters really are.

Big business by definition right wing?

How stupid are you?
George Soros right wing?
Most media right wing?
You are a fool.

Big businesses have employees and customers from ALL walks of life.

Most big business because of the competition for sales amongst ALL consumers are not left wing or right wing.
They are neutral as they have to be to attract customers from anywhere and everywhere.

Amazing how ignorant of the basics or economics and business most Americans are these days.

 

[Gadawg73]

What the Fairness Doctrine did from 1949 to 1987 was require that controversy on the radio be a dialogue (multiple voices). Once it was abolished by the Reaganites was exactly when we got the Lush Rimjob monologue style, where you could just blurt out anything and never have to put up with a challenge to it. The timing of that is significant; our discourse has been hyperpolarized ever since.

It's interesting to see who's afraid of their views being unchallenged. It would be like one of us putting a controversial post up here, and then locking the thread so nobody could comment.

During the postwar years there was a great compression of incomes. The polarized world of the 1920s gave way to a middle class society.

But there was a problem. This middle class society was supported by a large government infrastructure of policies and programs.

That infrastructure was not free. It was paid for by progressive taxation, the burden of which fell upon our wealthiest dynasties, families and individuals.

So what do you think the wealthy did?

They poured money into one of our two political parties until, with Reagan, they captured Washington. Then, they slowly repealed the policies that supported the postwar middle class in hopes of redirecting wealth upward.

And guess what? It worked. Starting in 1980 the U.S. saw massive income growth on top coupled with massive debt on the bottom. This is partly because middle class manufacturing jobs were shipped to Communist China, a place where America's wealthy could get their products made with ultra-cheap labor. As American workers lost solid jobs, they had to borrow more and more to keep pace. Additionally, the Reagan and post Reagan fed changed its focus from full employment (stimulus during downturns) to inflation prevention (austerity).

Listen carefully: As the wealthy consolidated their power over the GOP, a problem arose. How could they win elections if their policies only benefited the few? Answer: ideology. They built a massive ideological machine out of think tanks, publishing groups, television stations, magazines, websites and Talk Radio. Rather than the traditional anti-corporate populism of Teddy Roosevelt, this ideological bullhorn used religion, patriotism and fear to appeal to the poor and the under-educated.

Indeed, they convinced red state America that their beloved country was under siege by liberals, terrorists, gays, illegals, bra burners, hippies, drug addicts, communists, socialists, fascists, grandma killers, 2nd Amendment haters, secularists, atheists, relativists, multiculturalists, etc., etc., muslims, mexicans, gangs, etc., Al Gore, Global Warming, the Clintons, the Clintons, the Clintons.

Indeed, the rightwing voter goes into the voting booth to protect the unborn but comes out with an unregulated derivative market, insurance monopolies and bailouts for offshore corporations.

Now, Pogo . . . I've tried to explain this stuff to folks on the Right, but it doesn't work. Why? Because they have been completely captured by things like Talk Radio. They can't escape it. Limbaugh fits Plato's definition of rhetorician. He appeals to well-meaning people who don't have the intellectual resources or historical literacy to question him.

(The game is over. People don't get it. We had a good run. They won.)

Reagan was elected with middle class Americans fed up with tax and spend Democrats.
Look at the states he won that were traditional Democratic states and the demographics of those voters.

I do not listen to talk radio. Too busy running 3 businesses.

Democratic voters are the ones lacking in intelligence.