Political leanings on the USMB Board

[boedicca]

YOU say it doesn't matter where the money comes from.

That is the problem with many liberals who try to run businesses.

And now - have the last work. My dinner guests are due to arrive soon.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It must suck going through life making an idiot of yourself.

Looks to me like you've learned how to cope with your condition. Good for you!

Yeah, I've learned to cope with idiots like you. Pointing and laughing usually works pretty well for me.

 

[RadiomanATL]

YOU say it doesn't matter where the money comes from.

That is the problem with many liberals who try to run businesses.

That doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion.

Me: It doesn't matter where the money comes from (advertisers or donations), as long as there is enough of it to continue operating the station to cover overhead.,

You: Thats the problem with liberals who try and run a business.


WTF? Functional illiteracy striking again?


I'll bet you'll be back. You can't resist.

 

[rdean]

The Walker Report: The GOP Demographics Problem: Whiter Than Maine

For the Republican party, the numbers are damning. Congressional Republican membership is 96.33% non-Hispanic white. That is very white. To give you an idea of how white that is, if the congressional Republicans were a state, they would be the whitest state in the union. In contrast, Maine, the whitest state in the country, is only 95.5% non-Hispanic white.

Don't get mad at me for telling the truth. Besides, for a political party that is more than 90% white, I would think you would be proud that you managed to keep your party so "clean". I bet a lot of your members feel that way.

I'm a registered Democrat, but vote as an independent. The only reason I am so registered is because CA does not have open primaries.

But thanks for playing the Race Card - it's an indicator of your true nature.

Pointing out that the Republcian Party is more than 90% white is playing the race card?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Walker Report: The GOP Demographics Problem: Whiter Than Maine

For the Republican party, the numbers are damning. Congressional Republican membership is 96.33% non-Hispanic white. That is very white. To give you an idea of how white that is, if the congressional Republicans were a state, they would be the whitest state in the union. In contrast, Maine, the whitest state in the country, is only 95.5% non-Hispanic white.

Don't get mad at me for telling the truth. Besides, for a political party that is more than 90% white, I would think you would be proud that you managed to keep your party so "clean". I bet a lot of your members feel that way.

I'm a registered Democrat, but vote as an independent. The only reason I am so registered is because CA does not have open primaries.

But thanks for playing the Race Card - it's an indicator of your true nature.

Pointing out that the Republcian Party is more than 90% white is playing the race card?

It is when it is intended to be a condemnation of the Republican Party.

 

[rdean]

It's in its infancy because, prior to the success of conservative radio, they pretty much just billed themselves as talk show hosts talking about the topics of the day. Pure vanilla. They had a liberal slant, but no push was made to promote exclusively the liberal point of view. Their shows were not entertaining, and didn't really get controversial. This is partly because AM was pretty much a wasteland and no one wanted to really invest in it. Then conservative radio came on the scene and did bill themselves as promoting conservatism AND they were entertaining AND controversial. Bringing the AM dial back to life.




I think you got it flipped there. Air America, at least on their leading show (Franken), tried to be too intellectual. Dissecting and attempting to be too logical and laying out 5 point arguments and such. That is what was boring. As much as everyone wants to bash on it, there's a reason why Rush, Hannity and others are successful. Quick, in and & out soundbites that are entertaining and sometimes controversial. Meaning, they promote that conservatives are smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more civil....just generally better people....than liberals (to steal your phrase). But they also do it quickly, using 10 words instead of the 10,000 that Franken used.

So you are saying that Republicans speak more "simply". To be interesting, it has to be "simple". Could you say they are "simpletons"? Because it sounds like you are putting down Republicans. Calling them "simple".

I'm saying that conservative radio is more entertaining. Air America was not. Therefore, conservative radio is flourishing, and Air America failed.

BUT liberals can be just as entertaining on the radio, they just are lagging behind.




Or, in rdean speak, liberals have been too stupid to keep it simple to succeed.

Or, could it be that because liberals are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc, that it's very difficult to put together a radio station that caters to all those different types of people. Conservatives on the other hand, one giant block of white people who think alike and march in lockstep.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So you are saying that Republicans speak more "simply". To be interesting, it has to be "simple". Could you say they are "simpletons"? Because it sounds like you are putting down Republicans. Calling them "simple".

I'm saying that conservative radio is more entertaining. Air America was not. Therefore, conservative radio is flourishing, and Air America failed.

BUT liberals can be just as entertaining on the radio, they just are lagging behind.




Or, in rdean speak, liberals have been too stupid to keep it simple to succeed.

Or, could it be that because liberals are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc, that it's very difficult to put together a radio station that caters to all those different types of people. Conservatives on the other hand, one giant block of white people who think alike and march in lockstep.

yeah...no.

If liberals are all those, then they have a common theme, and a radio station catering to that common theme can be successful.

Try again.

 

[Liability]

I'm saying that conservative radio is more entertaining. Air America was not. Therefore, conservative radio is flourishing, and Air America failed.

BUT liberals can be just as entertaining on the radio, they just are lagging behind.




Or, in rdean speak, liberals have been too stupid to keep it simple to succeed.

Or, could it be that because liberals are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc, that it's very difficult to put together a radio station that caters to all those different types of people. Conservatives on the other hand, one giant block of white people who think alike and march in lockstep.

yeah...no.

If liberals are all those, then they have a common theme, and a radio station catering to that common theme can be successful.

Try again.

Caution: depriving a libtard, like rdean, of his mindless stereotypes is like depriving a person of oxygen.

 

[rikules]

It would seem that of late, the population of this board has taken a rather pronounced turn to the right.

New members have typically been right-wing oriented, and the posts have taken a decidedly right-wing talking point direction, including much in the way of repetitive spam.

It seems that many of my fellow posters on the left-hand side of things, have found this unpalatable and are posting less and less..

It would be unfortunate to see USMB turn into a right-wing echo chamber, ala Townhall.com.

Perhaps folks on both sides might want to talk about this issue and express their political leanings to see if my assertion has any validity whatsoever.

I, myself, am a leftie.

because people like boedicca infest the right wing and the conservatives I find myself deploring them.

filled with extreme and unjustified anger and hatred

full of false claims and misrepresentations of the truth and reality

refusing to accept ANY responsibility for themselves or the mess they made of America

CONSTANTLY blaming liberals and democrats for EVERYTHING they think is wrong with America

cleaning their rifles and awaiting the signal to start "doing something about the liberal problem"

so
even though I support many of the same things they do;

pro-gun rights
pro-strong military
pro-MINIMALLY fettered capitalism
anti-lifetime welfare (but pro-SHORT TERM welfare)
anti-government involvement in healthcare
pro-death penalty
pro-RESPONSIBLE government spending
pro-SMALLER taxes (if that is possible)

I find I just can't stand them.

They are the worst Americans ever.

On the other hand
I'm not a big fan of the left wing, either
They are ALMOST as bad as the right wing

moderate liberals and moderate conservatives who do NOT endorse or support a "culture war" against everyone who isn't lockstep in line with their beliefs are more my cup of tea

Nationally I tend to vote democratic
In my home state I vote for the best candidate, be she/he R or D or I

I like to vote for candidates who;

1. are not overly religious, do not give me the creeps by talking about "god swill" (what ever "god swill" is....?) and "gods plan"

2. are favorable towards the rights of minorities, including atheists and gays

3. are pro-pot legalization

4. believe in gun rights but do not oppose gun safety and registration

5. pro-strong military

6. pro-individual rights and freedoms

7. get tough on crimes

8. pro-BETTER public education

9. pro-SMALL BUSINESS encouragement

10. have appeared on stephen colbert

 

[Vast LWC]

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't

I find Rush to be as un-entertaining as I found Air America. All he does is expound on talking points all day, and repeat what a certain segment of the population wants to hear again and again.

His revisionist history can sometimes be astounding in its brashness, and his claims that his "predictions are almost always right" are only remotely true because he re-writes history.

But we do agree that Randi Rhodes was not entertaining. I found Air America to be just as distasteful as I find Rush Limbaugh.

Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

But you see, I was saying that liberals listen to more intellectual radio (or view more intellectual media sources in general) to give the appearance that they are somehow more rational than their conservative counterparts. And I believe that to be true. I was not making a blanket statement that somehow Liberals are more naturally "more intellectual" than other folks.

I was not saying Liberals "don't listen to what other people tell them to think". I think you can find just as many Liberals who fall into the trap of "group think" as you can among conservatives.

Have you listened to NPR? That station puts me to sleep in about 10 minutes of listening, but it certainly creates the air of intellectualism.

 

[Vast LWC]

Looking at the "Politics" section of the USMB today.

About 80% right-wing talking point attack threads.

Really sad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Looking at the "Politics" section of the USMB today.

About 80% right-wing talking point attack threads.

Really sad.

And yet in the evenings on 'new posts' I have at times found almost the entire first page to be filled with leftwing attack threads.

Do you think that is equally sad?

 

[Vast LWC]

Looking at the "Politics" section of the USMB today.

About 80% right-wing talking point attack threads.

Really sad.

And yet in the evenings on 'new posts' I have at times found almost the entire first page to be filled with leftwing attack threads.

Do you think that is equally sad?

Yes, yes I do.

 

[boedicca]

Typically, a lefty expects fairness to be a static statistical distribution at all times.

 

[Vast LWC]

Typically, a lefty expects fairness to be a static statistical distribution at all times.

I wasn't talking about the political leaning of the 80% of the posts, I was speaking about their content.

Perhaps you missed that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Typically, a lefty expects fairness to be a static statistical distribution at all times.

I wasn't talking about the political leaning of the 80% of the posts, I was speaking about their content.

Perhaps you missed that.

Sometimes I don't bother looking into a thread because I only have so much time and the topic isn't of particular interest to me. There are some members who usually do start interesting threads I do at least peek in even if the thread title is mildly offensive and/or not particularly interesting. There are a very few members who are such consistent 'numbnuts' that I have to be really bored to check out a thread they start. But every once in a blue moon even they surprise me with a decent topic.

I guess all this is to say that none of us are going to be served our preferred cup of tea at any given time, but the Board does a pretty good job of providing something for everybody. And what I might label an 'attack thread' might not be seen that way by you or vice versa. It is unrealistic to expect a political discussion board to not have a lot of content critical of whomever is in power, and right now it would be your side that is in power. And it isn't common that your side would be initiating thread critical of our your own side.

If the balance of power should shift in 2010 and 2012, don't you think you'll likely be joining in criticism that will be mostly originating from your side the aisle?

 

[Vast LWC]

Typically, a lefty expects fairness to be a static statistical distribution at all times.

I wasn't talking about the political leaning of the 80% of the posts, I was speaking about their content.

Perhaps you missed that.

Sometimes I don't bother looking into a thread because I only have so much time and the topic isn't of particular interest to me. There are some members who usually do start interesting threads I do at least peek in even if the thread title is mildly offensive and/or not particularly interesting. There are a very few members who are such consistent 'numbnuts' that I have to be really bored to check out a thread they start. But every once in a blue moon even they surprise me with a decent topic.

I guess all this is to say that none of us are going to be served our preferred cup of tea at any given time, but the Board does a pretty good job of providing something for everybody. And what I might label an 'attack thread' might not be seen that way by you or vice versa. It is unrealistic to expect a political discussion board to not have a lot of content critical of whomever is in power, and right now it would be your side that is in power. And it isn't common that your side would be initiating thread critical of our your own side.

If the balance of power should shift in 2010 and 2012, don't you think you'll likely be joining in criticism that will be mostly originating from your side the aisle?

Well, I guess that is all true for the most part.

I'll just have to grin and bear it. I wouldn't let a bunch of spam-trolls force me off an otherwise excellent message board.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't talking about the political leaning of the 80% of the posts, I was speaking about their content.

Perhaps you missed that.

Sometimes I don't bother looking into a thread because I only have so much time and the topic isn't of particular interest to me. There are some members who usually do start interesting threads I do at least peek in even if the thread title is mildly offensive and/or not particularly interesting. There are a very few members who are such consistent 'numbnuts' that I have to be really bored to check out a thread they start. But every once in a blue moon even they surprise me with a decent topic.

I guess all this is to say that none of us are going to be served our preferred cup of tea at any given time, but the Board does a pretty good job of providing something for everybody. And what I might label an 'attack thread' might not be seen that way by you or vice versa. It is unrealistic to expect a political discussion board to not have a lot of content critical of whomever is in power, and right now it would be your side that is in power. And it isn't common that your side would be initiating thread critical of our your own side.

If the balance of power should shift in 2010 and 2012, don't you think you'll likely be joining in criticism that will be mostly originating from your side the aisle?

Well, I guess that is all true for the most part.

I'll just have to grin and bear it. I wouldn't let a bunch of spam-trolls force me off an otherwise excellent message board.

Good for you. I suspect a lot of us have to recite that last sentence probably several times a week.

 

[Toro]

To the right, easily.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't

I find Rush to be as un-entertaining as I found Air America. All he does is expound on talking points all day, and repeat what a certain segment of the population wants to hear again and again.

His revisionist history can sometimes be astounding in its brashness, and his claims that his "predictions are almost always right" are only remotely true because he re-writes history.

But we do agree that Randi Rhodes was not entertaining. I found Air America to be just as distasteful as I find Rush Limbaugh.

Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

But you see, I was saying that liberals listen to more intellectual radio (or view more intellectual media sources in general) to give the appearance that they are somehow more rational than their conservative counterparts. And I believe that to be true. I was not making a blanket statement that somehow Liberals are more naturally "more intellectual" than other folks.

I was not saying Liberals "don't listen to what other people tell them to think". I think you can find just as many Liberals who fall into the trap of "group think" as you can among conservatives.

Have you listened to NPR? That station puts me to sleep in about 10 minutes of listening, but it certainly creates the air of intellectualism.

I hear what you are saying, but just because you don't find Rush entertaining doesn't mean that no one else does. In this case, fall back to the numbers. And the numbers say that Rush is either entertaining or provocative enough to attract a consistently large audience.

And when it comes to liberals wanting to appear to have the guise of intellectualism, so thats why they didn't listen to AA, I disagree with as well. Most talk-radio listeners are by themselves when listening, or with like-minded people.

AA just failed cause their business model sucked. Not because there isn't a potential audience for liberal talk radio.