It's a universally acknowledged phenomenon that conservatives and libertarians dominate talk radio while liberals love television and print. The reasons why each side does so well at each particular medium are many.
I do find myself agreeing with Neal Boortz's recent thought experiment (h/t Small Dead Animals) of why liberals aren't good at talk radio: they just can't argue very well. He does the experiment by trying to extrapolate two left-wing editorials from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution into a talk radio context. It doesn't work out so well because the subjects, "income inequality" and firearm-phobia just aren't very rational ideas, Boortz argues.
Those of you who are liberal and reading this surely will disagree. If so, how do you account for the fact that not a single liberal talk radio show has ever been popular?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Matthew-To argue is to debate
April 12, 2007 - 07:24 ET by ghotifunMatthew-
To argue is to debate. I find that liberals can't debate well for a number of reasons.
Debaters must be prepared with facts. Liberals historically misquote facts or are wrong in their contextual assurtions.
Debaters must limit their emotions while debating. Liberals cannot do that on a consistent basis.
Along with fact usage and emotional interruptions, liberals "editorialize" too frequently-they inject their opinion when fact-based comments are more appropriate.
Debaters usually narrow the topic of debate to single issues. Liberals tend to lump ideas together.
Debaters must stay on topic. Debating liberals wander. We've seen it here many times, i.e. "Imus shouldn't have said those things, but what about Ann Coulter and her comments on the 'Jersey Girls'?".
Perhaps the biggest reason lib radio doesn't last is that libs can't get out of the rant mode. That to me is just plain boring.
ghotifun
April 12, 2007 - 07:39 ET by gfrrmanHey ghotifun, go here and check out the second topic. Boortz lays it out for you. I've been listening to him for about 35 years here in Atlanta,GA. He's good.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
'Jersey Girls'
April 12, 2007 - 07:41 ET by gfrrmanBtw, what did Ann Coulter say about the 'Jersey Girls' that wasn't true?
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
gfrrman- My quote re: Imus
April 12, 2007 - 11:32 ET by ghotifungfrrman-
My quote re: Imus and Ann Coulter was an example of how libs try to deflect the topic when they are losing an argument. I agree with Ann and her synopsis on H&C last night. The Jersey Girls entered the public arena by their comments regarding W's response/responsibility for 9/11. They are, therefore, fair game.
'Jersey Girls' that wasn't true?
April 13, 2007 - 18:50 ET by misterbillThat's easy--they are not "girls". Actually -nothing untrue. They were, in a sense , cashing in on their husbands' deaths. They were using their celebrity to participate in partisan issues. IMHO Ann merely made that observation. A bit more caustic than I just did, but I am not as astute a political being as Ann is.
"Imus shouldn't have s
April 12, 2007 - 07:49 ET by Jack BauerAs a matter of fact Ann addressed that very issue on Hannity & Colmes last night.
She said that the "Jersy Girls" were fair game because they were political figures with a political message.
Whereas the Rutgers BB team was not "fair game," as all they did was excel at a sporting event and they did not deserve to be insuted or attacked for that by Imus.
Even Alan Colmes eventually accepted this without too much of his usual hysteria over anything Ms. Coulter says, though he did try to turn the segment into Annie's greatest hits.
Note she did not call for the lib***l Imus to be fired.
Jack- My quote re: Imus an
April 12, 2007 - 11:40 ET by ghotifunJack-
My quote re: Imus and Ann Coulter was an example of how libs try to deflect the topic when they are losing an argument.
The Jersey Girls irresponsible comments regarding 9/11 did indeed leave them open for the types of remarks Ann delivered to them. I agree with what Ann said last night on H&C. She was great!
Its all brain waves...
April 12, 2007 - 16:04 ET by PahlavanWatching television is substantially a passive activity - your brain is on idle while you absorb the fleeting, ever-changing images.
Radio is more like life - when someone is speaking to you, you hear it, analyze it, and prepare your reply - that is - your brain is not just absorbing; rather, your brain in engaged in, let's say it, critical thinking.
Now, if the voice from the radio purports to be engaging in rational thinking but is instead nothing more than emotional pablum, then your brain turns it off and you might as well be watching Geraldo.
Thus, liberals are in control of the mind-numbing visual medium and thinkers, i.e., conservatives, gravitate towards radio.
I know exactly why liberals d
April 12, 2007 - 07:39 ET by Full MonteI know exactly why liberals do well in TV while conservatives do well on the radio. It is often easy to go to work and do a job while listening to the radio. This is not the case with Television. Therefore, you won't find many conservatives sitting around watching TV all day. Daytime TV is specifically targeted at those who are home during the day - liberals.
Most conservatives are hard-working people who don't have time to sit around and watch the tube. Most liberals just like to complain about the rich instead of attempting to do something about it (like get a real job).
It goes back to the to the same reason we see so many more mass protests for liberal causes. Conservatives are too busy making a living to waste time marching in the streets waving goofy signs around.
Monte, You are so right abo
April 12, 2007 - 08:04 ET by John in CAMonte, You are so right about TV vs. radio. I can listen to radio while I work, while I read, while I surf and read blogs. I can listen to radio while working outside, while tinkering in the garage, whatever. As I go about my daily business, I'm getting constantly fed with issues, ideas and debate.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John:I always had the theory
April 12, 2007 - 10:50 ET by BDJohn:
I always had the theory that conservatives have jobs, therefore they are forced to listen to the radio while they are productively working.
Liberals have no jobs, they are therefore on the couch and capable of watching liberal daytime TV shows such as The View, Jerry Springer, and Oprah.
THis truism can be shown in that liberals fail at Talk radio, and there is no daytime TV conservative show.
On radio
April 12, 2007 - 20:38 ET by UnsaneIsn't it amazing how this ancient medium (radio) is showing itself to be superior to television in so many ways? You are so right; I always catch myself listening to AM radio for all sorts of reasons. There is much interesting going on there if one has the courage to listen...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
When talking about who watc
April 12, 2007 - 08:13 ET by motherbeltWhen talking about who watches daytime TV, you have to wonder what explains the prevalence of shows like Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, et al. I know I wonder about the IQ level of people who not only enjoy those shows, but willingly humiliate themselves to be on them.
monte
April 12, 2007 - 10:19 ET by misterbillGood thought-- I am nasty enough to include low reasoning power too. As I read your post, it struck home with me--why do all those "ladies" cheer for the stupid things Rosie says when I watch a referenced piece on YouTube?
Then I wonder--what are they doing there instead of at work. I guess after working until 73 years of age, I had a hard time understanding where the libs came form for all the lib shows. Even now, in retirement, I find that often I am too busy to attend a town meeting.
I just recently mentioned to a friend that many Americans are so darned busy with the day-to-day chores (drop off at school, go to work, pick up after school, to the baseball (or other) park, home, dinner for the kids), it is a giant ratrace for most Americans, Then they flip on the TV--they do not know, most of the time that they are being fed extremely biased reports. You must be VERY awrae to catch some of the liberal bias on even the entertainment shows. Posters in the bcakgorund, humorous, but insulting comments about the President, etc.
In summary---The Media AKA playground of America's liberal spokesmen.
Boortz hits the nail on the
April 12, 2007 - 08:08 ET by motherbeltBoortz hits the nail on the head. Liberals are good at lecturing, not discussing. When they write a column, they have the floor without interruption and without questions. It's not like a discussion where someone may demand that they clarify or justify what they have just said. If they get disagreement, it's later, in an email from a reader, and they dont' have to refute it; it's already too late.
They are very good at the "give" part of give-and-take.
"It is simple, really. E
April 12, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Dad Gummit"It is simple, really. Even a liberal should be able to understand why. There are no pictures. There is no BUMP-BUMP bass rhythyms, and there are no MTV gyrations with cleavage. Since liberals generally beleive what they wish was true, regardless of facts, they will not tune in to a talk show. Not even one on Airhead America. Talk shows require an attention span, and some logical thinking ability. If liberals had either, they would become conservative.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"...there are no MTV gyr
April 12, 2007 - 16:43 ET by j. frank wilson"...there are no MTV gyrations with cleavage." You must have been watching Neil Cavuto's "business" show on Faux - aka "Women Going Wild Without Much On."
J. frank wilson:Last week on
April 12, 2007 - 17:38 ET by BDJ. frank wilson:
Last week on the 5th of April we had a rather good therapy session going for you in which we explored the unique pathology your hatred of the US and by extension for yourself that you endure. Then you quit the therapy session just as a breakthrough was occuring.
To assist you, I will repost the element that made you flee.
Therapy session COMMENCED.
So, the clinical session can now begin... Bring in the patient.
1.) Casualties in Afghanistan have been virtually non-existant. Public elections have occurred and continue. Representative government in the populated areas is on ongoing. Our enemies are forced to occupy mountainous terrain that marginalizes their contact with the civil populace and makes any form of effective resupply operations difficult to the extreme. Large numbers of them cannot mass for effective operations, and when it is attempted they die in huge bloody heaps that rot on top of mountains...
Early predictions by the american hating left said in the first week that we had followed the Russian example and were now bogged down in Afghnistan and we were all gonna die just like in the quagmire of Vietnam. Then three SF ODA effectively took Kabul.
Then the American hating left said that we would never get to Kandahar since that is the Taliban stronghold and we were all gonna die. Then two ODA took Kandahar.
The Talis and AQ then began withdrawal operations to Waziristan. They have not really effectively returned yet.
The American Hating left said that we were all gonna die during occupation duties, usually quoting from Rudyard Kipling. Then the Civil Military affairs teams began landing.
So J Frank will say.... The few Taliban who have sneaked in are incapable of staging effective operations against US forces so they cut the throats of those who teach women and the US is evil because of it? What is your pathology?
Opium is being grown now more than it was under the Tali's so the US is evil because of it? What is your pathology?
2.) Numbers versus countries. In Northwest Europe in WWII we had effectively three contries fighting, UK, Canada and the US. On a percentage basis we now have similar amounts in country right now. Remember, the US had approximately 43 divisions in place at that time compared to the Brits 8 and the Canadian half dozen. Sorry.
But because we cannot get the French to commit a single soldier to come to Iraq, the US is an evil country. What is your pathology?
3.) Prior to the war, Iraq had lower POL production than it has today, mostly because what Iraq had in place was old, poorly maintained, and inefficiently used. Since the invasion US engineers and Civil Affair units have spearheaded efforts to bring in civilian efforts to update these facilities. (Bless Halliburton, they do good work.)
What will you say? Because Iraq had a dictatorship that caused them to have antiquated facilities the US is inherently evil? What is your pathology?
Water production? Very little in the way of sanitation services was available in Iraq prior to the war. That which was avialable was clustered in Bagdahd in the areas the Baathists were known to use. Same-same water purification. Most villages used drive up wells. We now have drilled wells in the rural areas and water facilities have begun and are in some cases finishing in new areas.
What will you say? Because an oocasional bad guy wishes to stop improvements he will blow up a water plant and the US is inherently evil because we cannot stop everything? What is your pathology?
Electricity? Production is way up. Surprisingly consumption is up even higher as people in outlying towns begin purchasing air conditioning, computers etc. Stuff Saddam did not bother to import for his people.
Capitalism is thriving to the point that enterpreneurs with US assistance are buying generators to put in neighborhoods off the grid to power them so cell phones etc can be used.
What will you say? We are evil because we are contributing to global warming by allowing them to modernize? What is your pathology?
Plan for victory? Hell we seized the country in record time.
What DID you say? We are evil because of Looting? Hell Looting ALWAYS occurs after an army moves in. See Band Of Brothers for good detail. What is your pathology?
You speak of plans on a shelf. Please produce one for me now. Full, hard copy. You see, I had access to plans and they were good ones that WERE used. We occuppied our sectors as the plans directed and began to do reconnaissance to determine what was needed.
What will you say? We were evil because we did not know that Samarra did not have effective sewer systems for the Taos Pueblo style mudhuts before we occuppied 3rd and main street? What is your pathology?
State Department? Oh, thats right, you ideolize the Foggy Bottoms, they are NEVER inherently evil, they do the lords work in all its might. What is your pathology?
Were people taking out past grudges before the dome got blown up? You bet. Retail level only and it was usually personal in nature. But because we were not able to stop individual murders we were evil? What is your pathology?
We still control the place and strides forward are occuring, but you are blind to it, only able to see your own self hatered for ourselves. Finally, What is your pathology?
I really should charge for this counselling session....
Your advice is worth what you
April 12, 2007 - 18:36 ET by j. frank wilsonYour advice is worth what you're being paid for it.
When I count allies I would prefer nations that actually have a military (unlike Costa Rica) or nations that can fight overseas (unlike Japan). And, by the way, from that wonderful coalition of the willing - how many nations remain? And during its hayday, precisely how many troops did those - 18? 19? - willing allies contribute? Was the total number equal to the Illinois National Guard contingent?
Just for the record - although I know it won't make any difference. You claim Iraqi oil production today exceeds pre-war levels.
Average Iraq oil production (TB/day):
2000: 2,571
2001: 2,390
2002: 2,023
2003: 1,308
2004: 2,011
2005: 1,878
2006: 1,996
And just for fun - a source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41b.xls
I'm sure the Iraq capital is heaven on earth. In no time at all the tourists will be swarming in behind Sen. McCain. Hope they too have a couple of gunships flying overhead.
Your personal attacks are meaningless. You don't know what you are talking about.
I don't worship the State Department. I certainly believe the "Future of Iraq Project" would have been a much better "victory" plan. Hell, any plan would have been better. As Mr. Feith has now admitted, the US didn't have a post-invasion plan. And it showed. Folks today are screaming for an exit strategy. I think a fully conceived entrance strategy would have been a good bet.
If you consider Afghanistan a roaring success, more power to you.
I believe the ICRC just came out with a report on Iraq. I'm sure their conclusions agree with yours.
And - has the White House found a "war czar" yet? What - no retired 4-star wants that job? What a surprise. Of course, I thought that was the job of our President. Goes to show how little I know about it. (TWP - 04/11/2007)
Excellent , the patient, J Fr
April 13, 2007 - 12:04 ET by BDExcellent , the patient, J Frank WIlson has arrived.
1.) Regarding your assessment of the capabilities of our allies and their militaries. I assume you are referring to the liberals best freind - France as a country that has a significant military in comparison to "Costa Rica."
One of the dirty little secrets is that France chose not to go to Iraq simply because it cold not deploy its troops. TO get skeleton forces into Afghanistan it requires the US TRANSCOM to perform the mission coordination. Otherwise, you would likely see the Frogs in Darfur. France ruined their economy, and was living hand to mouth on Iraqi smuggled oil from Oil For food and could not afford it capability.
Several years ago, France and Germany decided to form a Combined Task Force at Brigade level to perform just such a function. Neither can afford the mission anymore due to the underperforming socialist economies.
Regarding troop levels, the UK provided significant troops, Poland, Ukraine, and the Dutch have performed admirably. In fact, the Dutch have a significant portion of their combat power deployed overseas right now. During the Cold War Holland actually had a corps sized combat capability, it has atrophied to less than Division level today, yet they are in play.
So, why do you hate our country because other countries have effectively disbanded their military? That is an interesting pathology????
2.) I dispute your numbers regarding oil production. We had our own numbers while I was in Iraq and production rose both years i was there. The infrastructure of the oil production facilities is significantly better than when I arrived in 2003. But, the real question is "Why do you hate your country because another country's oil production capabilities requires improvement? Interesting pathology.
3.) So, you hate your country because we have air support aloft able to support combat operations? Why? WHat is your pathology?
4.) So, I did not have an occupation strategy presented to me upon our arrival in 2003? Interesting, I had aan assignement. However, I did not see any of our liberal friends from USAID or FOGGY BOTTOM there to help us teach democracy to the Iraqi's. That fell to our Nco's who did a damn good job of it. Probably much better than the state department crones who would have mucked it up. I personally am not seeking an early exit strategy, nor do any of my friends still in country. Who do you see screaming for an exit strategy?
Regardless, the plan we had was put into effect, and to good effect. (Current democracy, electricity improving daily, freedom rings, etc) But you hate your country for some reason, most likely that Bagdhad did not immediately become Manhatten. Why is that? Strange pathology....
5.) I consider Afghanistan a success, thank you. But why does it eat on you and cause you to hate your country?
6.) I do not care if the ICRC agrees with my conclusions. Nor do I care if a bipartisan panel agrees with me, or any university study. I know what I know based on two tours in Iraq, and based on the likelihood I will be going back to Iraq or Afghanistan soon enough. Does the ICRC cause you to hate your country?
7.) War Czar? I believe the JCS/ CSA/ CENTCOM Commander hold those jobs. The President has acted admirably. Do I want a retired Senator to muck that up? Why would this make you hate your country?
I don't understand your obses
April 13, 2007 - 15:58 ET by j. frank wilsonI don't understand your obsession with France - but that's for you and your doctor to deal with, isn't it?
I made no comment about the performance of any troops. You made a silly claim about the number of countries that participated in the "coalition of the willing." I pointed out that number of troops is more important than number of countries. And - one more time - given your fascination with the number of nations - how many are left?
Those aren't my oil production numbers - unlike you, I provided a publically available cite (site). Your secret numbers can be whatever you claim for them, can't they? You certainly make a powerful arguement there.
The State Department wasn't permitted to go it Iraq - Rummie made sure of that. The Future of Iraq Project never had a chance to go. You didn't see them thanks to the great work of the SoD.
You can continue to tell us how wonderful everything is in Iraq. One out of 8 citizens has been forced to move - doubtless because they read in the New York Times or an Associated Press article that it would be a good idea to do so. The events of yesterday - even if you choose to ignore the tremendous body of evidence concerning the current state of that nation - make it clear how great things are going.
I provided a cite (site) for the War Czar post. But you can't be expected to grasp any new information if you refuse to even consider it. The President has been breattakingly incompetent in this entire affair. If you consider all this mess to be a success, more power to you. You can call cat piss champagne, but you won't make it taste any better.
Actually, my interest with F
April 13, 2007 - 16:38 ET by BDActually, my interest with France comes from Liberals absolute demand that we get permission from the Frogs to do anything. When the coaltion was being formed in 2003, most liberals claimed it would not be effective because it did not have "Key Countries" in it. When pressed, the key country always seemed to be France. Occasionally Germany fitted in, but never the UK or Austrailia for some reason.
So you tell me, what is the liberal fixation with the Frogs?
How many countreis are still in the fight in Iraq? Well, I have had great contact with the Poles, Ukranians, UK, Australians, South Koreans, Japanese, and especially the Dutch. As I was leaving, the KEY ally was comin gon line. The Iraqi's themselves held a force that was about our size and was improving in size and quality. Last time I checked, all told we have about 40% of the available troops in country.
Since you seem to have a fixation with troop levels on a man-to man basis, then I would assume you would also hold FDR in contmpt for only having one ally in WWII European theater and that ally was only able to field approxiamately 1/6 of the force we were able to. SORTA SUCKS TO HATE FDR HUH? What is your pathology?
Regarding the POL production capabilities. When I arrived, what POL Facilities the Iraqi's had was being held together by spit and bailing wire. Jury rigged to the nth degree. We were forced to disassemble a great deal of it, and begin working on improving and making it safe. Still, production exceeds what was occuring when i arrived and is better than pre-war levels.
So, we have improved their POL capability. Why do you hate them for that? What is your pathology?
State department not allowed by Rumsfeld in theater? Huh? Hell, the UN fled following 1 attack and the Foggy Bottoms followed. "When Danger Reared its Ugly head, the Foggy's turned their tail and fled" (Apologies to Roger the Shrbber).
Still, why do you hate us because the liberal state department fled?
So, you hate us because a war has created refugees? You must have really detested us for the Boat people, the Somalis', the East Germans who fled westward etc. What is your pathology?
Breathtaking incompetance? I would say that freeing two countries, almost effortlessly destroying a Terrorist group in a thrid, and establishing solid CT programs in an entire region of East Africa is hardly "Breathtaking Incompetance". Please prove any previous CIC would have done any better.
But still, you hate us for these efforts. I stll must know, what is your pathology?
So - we're agreed your "
April 13, 2007 - 18:38 ET by j. frank wilsonSo - we're agreed your "French Problem" is all yours and not mine.
I should be happy for whatever progress is made - precious little though it is.
I certainly have no arguement that the military forces in Iraq have done an outstanding job. Clearly we never had enough of them - the new "surge" strategy is proof enough of that. But those who were and still are there have done an outstanding job.
I don't understand your fascination with number of nations rather than number of troops. The Poles? Less than 1,000 remaining on duty? From a high of - 2,500? You mention the Ukranians in the past tense. Because they all left at the end of 2005? All 1,650 of them. We know the UK forces did an outstanding job - even if their participation ended Tony Blair's career with a wimper rather than a bang. From some 45,000 to 7,000? The Aussies? 650 remaining from a high of 2,000? I would never suggest South Korea is an independent state. Rather like Israel, completely dependent upon the US. They sent 3,600 and 2,300 remain? The Japanese...their constitution forbids a military force but they did send a handful of folks. Gone the middle of last year, weren't they? And the Dutch. Several times you've mentioned the Dutch. How many are left in Iraq? 15? About the staff of a small restaurant? From a high of less than 1,500 they went home mid 2005?
I can certainly see why you don't want to talk about numbers.
And I certainly do not hate FDR. He won. He had a plan. He did have a rather tough time getting the US into WWII - those conservative Republicans didn't think it was our fight. Well it was and we did it.
I guess the refugees don't matter to you. While the reasons for the Iraq debacle continue to shift, I certainly thought one was to help those folks...
Bait and Switch
April 12, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Cool ArrowHere's why Liberals can't succed in talk media:
Get a Liberal into an argument on topic (A), and the s/he immediately redirects to grievance (B).
As long as you can bring in an outlying anecdote or refocus the issue on someone's victim status, you don't have to address issues.
Great minds discuss issues.
Riled One, You pegged that.
April 12, 2007 - 08:35 ET by John in CARiled One, You pegged that. I've tried discussing something with a liberal in the past. As soon as I really start homing in, poof!, the liberal has switched subjects.
One particular time, was arguing with a liberal acquaintance on IM. In five minutes she had gone from subject one, to subject two, to subject three. Then suddenly she had to leave. It was dizzying. I got the impression she was testing me, trying to find an issue I knew little about so she could score her point. The fact of the matter was, she knew very little about her favorite issues, but she had a lot of feelings.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Slogans
April 12, 2007 - 08:46 ET by Cool ArrowThat's why "Bush lied, people died" is so popular. There's a rhyme to it and it's as easy to remember as "Happy birthday to you"
That's why minutemen are attacked on stage before being allowed to speak. (at an institution of higher learning). Debate requires a grasp of subject matter rather than:
"Carville said it, I believe it, that settles it".
So let it be said. So let it be done.
April 12, 2007 - 09:59 ET by heldmywOr "there is scientific consensus on Global Warming. No more debate is allowed".
Kinda reminds me of the more repressive religions... (Not to name any names, but "ROP" springs to mind".
feel good
April 12, 2007 - 09:59 ET by PunditFighti would definitely not count out the 'Feel Good' factor. I've always felt Rush had a Dr Phil quality, as he spends time helping and guiding listeners into how they should feel or react to certain issues. The more popular conservative talkers like Rush and Hannity also tend to have less liberal or contrarian callers (either they don't call or are not put on the show). This helps in not unsettling the audience too much and makes for smoother listening. Thats why i prefer shows like Medved and Hugh Hewitt who are more combative and debate with their audience. I doubt that type of format will ever reach the heights of Rush/Sean.
Sean isnt' afraid to take on
April 12, 2007 - 10:26 ET by pbanks7Sean isnt' afraid to take on anybody. It's often when he gets some mindless idiot on the air, I have to turn it off because it's too annoying. At other times, it seems that just when "Mr. Liberal" seems to be making a cogent point, Sean cuts them off.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
It's been tested. Ed Schult
April 12, 2007 - 13:46 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's been tested. Ed Schultz's show is the easiest for anyone to get on - because he doesn't screen his calls. When "liberal" callers get through to Sheer Insanity's screener, they are usually told to call his "Hate Hannity Hotline."
Sheer loves the callers who suck up to him and tell him how great he is. Osama Been Forgotten would be called a "Great American" if he got through.
Once in a long time they will let a complete idiot through to make fun of. If the screener screws up and actually lets someone with a brain argue with the host - Insanity cuts their sound off immediately.
Same with ole BlunderRush. They aren't interested in having a conversation, let alone a discussion, with a caller who doesn't agree with them.
For lying jfw
April 12, 2007 - 20:45 ET by UnsaneThank you for proving to one and all that you simply cannot tolerate differing viewpoints. Not to mention your complete lack of integrity.
Rush puts the Leftist callers right up front. Indeed, most of his listeners will tell you they like to hear from the Leftists, because they are more entertaining to listen to.
Tell you what, frank. Instead of lying about people you don't listen to, and whining about how much you fear a news channel whose greatest crime is to present the Right's arguments as legitimate ones (because as all your posts indicate, you simply cannot tolerate hearing/reading/seeing ANYTHING that doesn't tell you how rotten and evil America is and how the ONLY way is Leftism/Socialism; and how you want the Right SHUT UP at ANY cost!), why not try calling Rush next week and see what happens to you? I bet if you put together a solid argument, you will have NO problems getting on the air.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You read so much that isn't t
April 12, 2007 - 21:40 ET by j. frank wilsonYou read so much that isn't there into other posts, why even bother with them? Obviously you can argue both sides of the case - poorly, of course. I have no trouble with others having differing points of view. Nothing I've written could lead a logical person to conclude that. And what "news" channel do I fear? Surely not Faux - although it really isn't news. After all, it calls itself real journalism and fair and balanced. If that were true, why do you claim its greatest crime is to present the Right's arguments as legitimate ones? How can it take a position if it is fair and balanced? Oops - your point collapses from a total lack of internal logic. No surprise there. I don't want the right to shut up at any cost (your shouting it quite rude, you know). Wipe the froth from your bitter lips. I would appreciate intelligent points of view - but that's asking a bit much, isn't it? Ole BlunderRush has told you so many times what a smart fellow he is that you've started to believe it...Remember when he said it was the first time US military forces had been commanded by a foreign general? About 200 years after the first time, of course, but why let the pesky facts get in the way? Or that there were more forests today than when Columbus landed? Or that paper isn't recycable but stryofoam is? Or...well, the list just goes on and on and on and on. Rather like you do.
You're Just As Ignorant As Your Comments
April 13, 2007 - 12:38 ET by emjem24j. frank wilson...
It appears to most of us on here why you like Newsbusters so much...
1. You're just as ignorant as your comments. Like most liberal democrats, you congratulate yourself on how morally superior you are and judge conservatives (or the President, America, and the Military) from upon high. You don't have a clue about the military but spouting quotes/statistics that you can easily cherry pick is so very easy. Please try to convince this military spouse how Pelosi and Reid and YOU mean so well.
2. You get every opportunity (I've seen your track record and have been a member on this site longer than you) to put down conservatives like me. It's a hobby. You love it. It's what you do best.
3. You want "honest, intelligent" debate. Where is the "honest, intelligent" debate on your side? Oh, that's right, liberals don't have to be either as long as you can malign conservatives.
4. You love to hate. That's what you're about. Just like the other trolls on here. You're a card-carrying troll.
5. Proof and evidence. You seem to love to quote and give websites that turn out to be cherry picked. I think you were the same person who responded to my post regarding the Time Army hit piece who didn't actually address the bias...you blamed it on how pork was a regular thing in the appropriation bills. When you actually cite evidence and proof of your assertions...perhaps you won't be the biased hypocrite you truly are.
You have the same old tired liberal talking points. "Faux" News? So yesterday. Have you ever actually watched it to know? Or just assume from your liberal heroes? Please address these questions. They're not rhetorical.
Others won't say it but I will...you're a troll. Your worth is that of a chew toy. Anybody can cite statistics and info..you're good at it, just not so good at disguising your spite, hate, and loathing for the military, the Bush administration (which I've seen first hand in your posts), and America in general.
Deny it all you want. You're judged on your character and your character is revealed in your words. Please try being a real contributor and exposing bias on both sides...not the bias you think only exists on the right. Or you're just another poser.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
My, I hope you feel better af
April 13, 2007 - 16:04 ET by j. frank wilsonMy, I hope you feel better after all that! No facts, of course. But that's the Faux way. You don't like the facts I cite but have none of your own?
You do confuse me with another poster, but I guess that's my fault, too.
Pork in Defense appropriations? Read "Mr. Smith Is Dead" and then tell me where the author is wrong.
LIke so many other posters here, you manage to read so much into what others have written I wonder why you bother to read it in the first place. You have your pre-conceived notions that you air them without added thought or fact. I don't "hate" - well, but you do, and that's enough, isn't it?
Your motto, by the way, was first coined by the SeaBees...before there was an Air Force.
Tecnhically, Frankie, you are
April 13, 2007 - 16:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberTecnhically, Frankie, you are incorrect. Even though the USAF wasn't created until 1947, and the Seabees in 1941, there has been an air branch of the US Army since 1914, changing names multiple times until after WW2. The expression in question was also used by other branches of the US armed forces, including the US Army Air Force. Now, the link I sent to you mentions the Seabees using the quote on the Seabee Memorial in DC, but that wasn't built until 1974.
I would not have brought this up, but since you are trying to be a snot-nosed ass, I felt compelled to correct your error.
Thanks for the history lesson
April 13, 2007 - 16:48 ET by j. frank wilsonThanks for the history lesson, Pops. Why don't you now explain to us how a pencil works?
Roger the Shrubber:What J Fra
April 13, 2007 - 17:00 ET by BDRoger the Shrubber:
What J Frank is trying to tell you that you "SHACKED" him.
Target destroyed.....
This coming from the man who
April 13, 2007 - 17:33 ET by BDI guess, since I know how to
April 15, 2007 - 07:27 ET by Roger the ShrubberI guess, since I know how to use the internet effectively in combination with a little knowledge of history, I am an old man, eh, BD?
Hahah!
You had to look that up on th
April 16, 2007 - 12:33 ET by j. frank wilsonYou had to look that up on the Internets? And then you brag about it?
Subtle never was your strong point.
The United States Air Force wasn't formed until after WWII. Fact. There were military folks flying planes. Of course there were. The great uncle for whom I'm named was an observer in WW I - and one of the first private pilots in the US after the war. Black Jack Pershing had military pilots when he chased Villa south of the Rio Grande (he had a junior office named Patton, as I recall) before WWI.
What a maroon.
You're welcome, junior.Pointi
April 15, 2007 - 07:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou're welcome, junior.
Pointing out stupid comments like yours is always a pleasure.
Perhaps this little lesson will make you think next time before making yourself look like a douchebag.
Nah, probably won't. You cannot help yourself.
Actually, frank, with all of
April 14, 2007 - 21:15 ET by UnsaneActually, frank, with all of your tar-black vomit, you prove my point. I don't think you can handle watching Fox News for five minutes, because as I said, they present the conservative arguments and treat it as legitimate. You cannot handle that, as you indicate above; your dream is of an America where every single American is exactly like you: a Socialist who cannot wait to turn over 100% of their political and economic freedoms to the government...and then look for MORE freedom to sacrifice to the altar of the Nanny State.
You cannot stand anyone who has even a slightly different point than you, and since you cannot come up with sound, reasoned arguments to counter the political and economic principles that guide me...you want to SHUT me and others like me THE HELL UP by any means necessary.
I have exposed you as a liar and one who cannot tolerate any other view than Socialism. Deal with it.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
My - forget to take your meds
April 16, 2007 - 12:35 ET by j. frank wilsonMy - forget to take your meds again? Still shilling for a one-sided network that lies to its audience by calling itself "fair and balanced" and "real journalism?" You certainly don't set your hurdle very high.
Keep ranting and raving - perhaps if you wave your arms enough the dimmer folks out there won't notice that you have nothing to say...
Who the H3LL
April 12, 2007 - 21:03 ET by gfrrmanWho the H3LL is Ed Schultz?
gf...A big-mouthed leftist no
April 13, 2007 - 16:58 ET by bigtimergf...
A big-mouthed leftist nobody as far as I am concerned, they sure have been having them on television a lot since this happened to Imus...I can't help but wonder if this is who they may think of putting in as a replacement if they are going to try the same format as Imus's was.
He's been everywhere lately.
Oh well, time will tell, whatever they replace the show with it will be the same leftist agenda...unfortunately...for them that is, ratings will pick up briefly, but soon be the usual msnbc trough.
OLD JOKE:How can you drive an
April 12, 2007 - 10:51 ET by pocomocoOLD JOKE:
How can you drive an Italian crazy?
By asking him to describe a spiral staircase without using his hands.
NEW JOKE:
How can you drive a liberal crazy?
By asking him to debate the facts.
NEW JOKE:How can you drive
April 12, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Jack Bauer....Using only his brain
Remember, liberals don't th
April 12, 2007 - 12:10 ET by pocomocoRemember, liberals don't think, they feel.
Most people cannot debate co
April 12, 2007 - 12:15 ET by iveseenitallMost people cannot debate coherently and without emotion. Thomas Sewell pointed this out recently in his critcism about modern T.V. He said he couldn't watch it because it usually breaks down to a shouting match. There are rules for debating which used to be practiced. Logic, also an acdemic endeavor, used to be practiced. For example, questioning the validity of a premise even before the debate begins. Now it's a free-for-all. And with liberals, that means let your emotions fly and say anything you want to say, regardless of "rules" of behavior and too often regardless of the facts ( e.g. Rosie). The masses get it with the liberals. They are not the "asses" liberals think they are.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
:applause:YES!!! EXACTLY! Thi
April 14, 2007 - 21:27 ET by tracheostomy:applause:
YES!!! EXACTLY!
This is why we should not stoop to their level. If libs can't play by the rules, don't even engage them.
-PJ
I am John Doe!
an old joke
April 16, 2007 - 12:46 ET by tumbler_2007How can you drive a liberal crazy?
By asking him to debate the facts....?
Nah; that isn't a drive, it's a short putt.
ahh but their set of facts is
April 12, 2007 - 12:09 ET by PKahh but their set of facts is generally very much at odds with what actually happened.
if you point this out then you are personally attacked.
The first issue is economics.
April 12, 2007 - 13:55 ET by j. frank wilsonThe first issue is economics. Well-funded shows such as Sheer Insanity's purchase local radio airtime. The show comes with commercials and slots for the local station to sell more commercials. This approach makes it easy to add stations but the show must be well funded at the start. "Liberal" shows have tried to do it on a shoestring and not buy blocks of time. That hasn't worked so well. There is also the issue of support from the mega-owners such as Clear Channel. In Ohio, Clear Channel let the "liberal" talk die from lack of cash, turned to sports and other safe shows and poured in the resources. Another point is that liberals tend to listen to a wide variety of media. Conservatives cluster around their self-reinforcing echo chambers. My personal opinion is that right wingers need the constant support from folks like the Silly Savage, ole BlunderRush and Sheer Insanity because that pesky reality keeps contradicting their deeply held beliefs. It's much easier to hold onto myths such as intelligent design, no such thing as global climate change, Vince Foster was murdered, Terry Shavio was just resting, the war in Iraq is going just fine, we won in Afghanistan, there's no racism in America, there's no need for a minimum wage or environmental protection, the Kelo Decision wasn't about states' rights - pick 'em as you wish - when for several hours a day somebody's running their mouth telling you it's the truth.
Actually, Air America didn't
April 12, 2007 - 16:42 ET by Del DolemonteActually, Air America didn't try to do it "on a shoestring". In fact, they started with plenty of money.
On what can excite jfr
April 12, 2007 - 20:50 ET by UnsaneSounds to me that you have a serious problem with capitalism (no surprise there). I guess your solution is to nationalize Clear Channel then, and eliminate all of their shareholders?
It will break your perpetually hemmorhaging heart, but the reason economics favors those shows is the shocking fact that they get ratings because people actually want to listen to them.
Tell me something, frank...if you find yourself standing on the throat of a Right-wing radio host, as the last vestiges of his/her life escape him/her...just how intense will your orgasm be?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
jfw
April 12, 2007 - 21:24 ET by gfrrmanjfw, your delusions show no bounds. You have no idea how radio works. It's just the opposite of what you tried to pull out of your rear end. Radio is a long commercial with interruptions of talk, sports and what-not in between. That's why it's called commercial radio. The shows support the commercials. In the case of (all)AirAmerica, THEY HAD TO PAY radio stations to run their shows. That's why there was all that big money that was thrown at AA in the beginning from all the big LIB Soros-like contributors. No one wanted to run a show that would NOT SELL a product. They had to pay radio stations up front to run AA for crying out loud!!! Actually that's called 'payola'. It's all about selling the products that advertisers pay to have on radio. The shows are just filler in beween. If the show doesn't hold an audience, products aren't sold. Does your elementary mind comprehend that? AA died because they ran out $$ TO PAY RADIO STATIONS to carry them. NOBODY listened, therefore no products sold. Liberal radio inherently does not sell. People don't want to hear it because it belies reality and fact. Your silly talking points at the end of your post just proves the factual bankrupty of thought that proves my point about liberalism and truth and fact and radio.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Could you be any more clueles
April 13, 2007 - 16:07 ET by j. frank wilsonCould you be any more clueless? The sheer number of your errors - let alone the complete lack of internal logic - make it difficult to respond.
Leave it at this - you have no idea what you are talking about. Buying airtime is "payola?" Huh? Isn't that what advertisers do? Infomercials? Buying blocks of time on local radio stations for talk shows is business as usual. Does this really come as a surprise to you?
jfw
April 13, 2007 - 19:10 ET by gfrrmanjfw, your little comment on the "sheer number of errors" is typical. Please do point out the errors. You don't anything about radio!!! And payola? Maybe you need to look up the history of payola. When AA HAS TO PAY stations to get them on radio, THAT is payola. Just because it's not unstandable to you doesn't mean it's not true. Typical liberal. You are an uneducated idiot!!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Payola: since you don't und
April 16, 2007 - 12:39 ET by j. frank wilsonPayola: since you don't understand the concept, perhaps this will help?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4713569.html
Are you one of Mel-UM-nie Morgan's listeners on Hate Talk 560? Ever notice how that same lawyer (who offers to get deadbeats out of paying their income taxes) always calls the show at the same time every morning? But it's never labeled a "commercial?"
You can learn a lot about a radio station listening to its advertisers. Get rich quick programs, ads offering help to deadbeat tax payers, and patent nostrums for men who can't whip it up - that's Hate Talk 560 for you...
you can learn a lot about l
April 16, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Dee Bunkyou can learn a lot about liberals from their ignorance of how business works. Those people advertise on radio because it's cheaper than television. What's your opinion on internet ads Mr. Smarty pants? Those all made for liberals??????
Of course they do...the quest
April 16, 2007 - 14:42 ET by j. frank wilsonOf course they do...the question is, who are the advertisers trying to reach? Makes sense to fish in a well-stocked pond. And apparently if one wishes to find people who don't pay their taxes, people who want to get rich quick, and men who can't whip it up - advertise on Hate Talk 560!
Internet advertising is so cheap and scattered that any demographic information on eyeballs would be worthless. Radio station demos, however, are sliced and diced to perfection.
Hey little frankie
April 16, 2007 - 14:57 ET by RJHey little frankie. Someone who blows and blusters with all the hate and venom you display must be compensating for a shortfall somewhere.....and someone who feels the need to repeatly spray charges of sexual insufficiency is probably covering for his own inadequacies. He's probably projecting in his posts 'cause he's incapable of projecting in other places....well, either that, or he's stuck forever in his sophomoric mindset..... ;^>
Hi RJ - I'm so glad you res
April 16, 2007 - 15:08 ET by Dee BunkHi RJ - I'm so glad you responded to Frank J. Smarty Pants because I didn't remember what post this was on and I never would have known he responded because I was gone when he did.
Let's see if Mr. Smarty Pants can answer this - Just what is the demographic exactly? How does it compare to daytime T.V. ?
I'm sure that Frank didn't hear about that study where talk radio listeners knew the most about world events.
This isn't the first time B
April 12, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Howard_BealeThis isn't the first time Boortz has explained why liberals can't make it on the radio.
The first time was when he explained on CNN how he invited Al Franken to guest-host his show, and how Franken refused because he wouldn't be able to control the phone lines.
Only thing is, Boortz never made the offer to Franken.
After the network launched, Boortz appeared on Franken's show and
Franken asked him about the comment. Boortz said "if you're reading
from a transcript, that's wrong." When Franken pointed out "in context
it doesn't make sense as anything else," Boortz responded "Hey, Al,
don't get fixated on that, it's an error in the transcript or
something. I've never asked you to host the show."
Franken later dug up the actual clip from the show, so he
invited Boortz back and played that, along with Boortz's previous
comments. The clip showed the transcript was accurate, so Boortz
responded "Why are you so fixated on this, Al?" Al explained that he
takes it seriously when someone lies, especially when they lie about
him, and then lie again to cover it up. "Al, get over it," Boortz
retorted.
HowardB
April 12, 2007 - 20:48 ET by gfrrmanSo let me get this straight. Are you claiming that Boortz never invited Franken to host his show or not?
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
So let me get this straight
April 12, 2007 - 21:29 ET by Howard_BealeSo let me get this straight. Are you claiming that Boortz never invited Franken to host his show or not?
Boortz never invited Al Franken to guest host his show, and admitted as much after repeated questioning from Franken.
But Boortz had previously gone on CNN, however and not only claimed to have invited Franken to guest-host his show, but said that Franken turned him down because he wouldn't be able to screen calls. This was his example of why liberals would not be able to make it in the big bad world of talk radio.
The whole anecdote was bull, and even when caught redhanded, Boortz never admitted to to it.
HowardB
April 12, 2007 - 21:41 ET by gfrrmanHoward I'm gonna call BULL S#IT on you over this. I live in Atlanta( for over 40 years) and I read the link you provided. I do know what happened. I listen to Boortz daily(for about 25 years) and he DID invite Franken to host his show. I heard the damn show fella. Franken did have conditions that he would require his own staff to run the controls.(This way he could immediately cut off calls when he knew he would factually get hammered!!), Boortz said no way because it was still his show and he wouldn't have it. Now you can try this crap you point out as fact but I know damn well that you are a LIAR!!! Try that crap somewhere else like DU, DKos or HuffPo...it ain't flying here pal!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Let me get this straight...
April 12, 2007 - 21:49 ET by Howard_BealeLet me get this straight...you heard Boortz and Franken discussing this on the air? Or was it just Boortz?
Because I heard Boortz on the Franken show. They played the CNN audio of him claiming he invited Franken to host. Then Boortz said that he never asked Franken to host the show.
I heard Boortz
April 12, 2007 - 21:56 ET by gfrrmanI heard Boortz invite Franken to host on 750 WSB radio in Boortzs' time slot. Franken had conditions that he wanted all his people to run the call-in board, his own producers, etc. He wanted total control of the show. Boortz told him that he would have to accept calls just like happens everday. Franken wanted no part of that. Boortz then said, sorry Charlie not on my show.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
You still don't say if you
April 12, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Howard_BealeYou still don't say if you hear Franken on the air with Neal or whether you hear Neal alone.
In any case, Neal's recollection of his own words seem to be less sure than yours. (This from Neal's own website):
"Franken seems to be obsessed over whether or not I did or did
not invite him to host my show at some time in the past. I do remember
asking those clowns from Democratic
Talk Radio to host the show once, but they demanded full control of all
production aspects and the phone calls, and we said no. All that Mad Al
could talk about yesterday was whether or not I had specifically invited him!
You know what? Frankly, I can't really remember."
Boortz
April 12, 2007 - 22:20 ET by gfrrmanI heard Boortz offer an open invitation for Al Franken to host his show BEFORE he talked to him. I then heard him talk about Franken wanting complete control of the show. What's your point? I heard what I heard. Franken wouldn't even come On THE AIR to discuss the propect of hosting the show!! Franken couldn't get his way so the offer was rescinded.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
I heard Boortz offer an ope
April 13, 2007 - 07:12 ET by Howard_BealeI heard Boortz offer an open invitation for Al Franken to host his show BEFORE he talked to him.
Maybe you should tell Boortz that. He says he doesn't remember.
I then heard him talk about Franken wanting complete control of the show. What's your point?
My point is maybe you shouldn't take Boortz's word on what Franken says.
My bigger pint is that Boortz made a completely false claim about Franken just to illustrate a point. When Franken confronted him with it, he could have just admitted he was wrong (Boortz came awfully close on Franken's radio show and his own website to admitting that the story he told about Franken was actually about someone else), but he did nothing but evade Franken's questions and then hanged up in a huff.
I think if conservatives are naturally superior to liberals in the field of radio, then it might not be necessary to make stuff up and then lie about it.
I heard what I heard. Franken wouldn't even come On THE AIR to discuss the propect of hosting the show!!
You heard Boortz. Boortz has changed his story. Franken never talked to Boortz at all about it.
Franken couldn't get his way so the offer was rescinded.
Another point on which you and Boortz disagree. In fact, after Franken grilled Boortz about the supposed offer, "I went ahead and invited Franken to host the show while I was on the air with him yesterday. His answer? 'No.'" I heard him make the new offer on the air. Franken turned it down because he already had his own radio show.
"boortz" - isn't th
April 12, 2007 - 21:43 ET by j. frank wilson"boortz" - isn't the sound a fart makes in a bathtub?