FNC’s Kirsten Powers: ‘Here’s the Deal With Liberal Talk Radio – It Sucks!’

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

Most Fox News watchers are familiar with Kirsten Powers, the outspoken Democrat strategist and political analyst that is often a guest of Bill O’Reilly’s.

On Friday, Powers sat in for Brian Kilmeade on Fox Radio’s “Brian and the Judge.” At issue was the just-released report from the Center for American Progress regarding conservative domination of AM radio.

To say the least, Powers' take on this subject wouldn’t ingratiate her with folks like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer (audio available here, h/t Allah at Hot Air):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Here’s the deal with liberal talk radio – it sucks! I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to it…I’m talking like the liberal talk radio, like on Air America which is not free market. It’s a bunch of donors getting together and starting, you know, a business. It’s not a business…I don’t know what it is, I don’t know if the listeners are more naturally conservative, and liberals are already listening to NPR, and they’re not looking for something new. All I know is that I’ve tried to listen to it, and I’m not talking about Alan [Colmes], I'm talking about an Air America, and I just don’t find it compelling. And obviously other people don’t find it compelling, cause it’s not successful.

Incredible, wouldn’t you agree? The Air America folks can’t even get their own constituents to listen to them, and people like Ed Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Center for American Progress want the citizens to believe the reason there aren’t more liberal shows on AM radio is because the corporations that own radio stations are all run by conservatives.

Makes you wonder if these people all believe in the Easter bunny, too.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

content is king

It just goes to show you that content is king. Air America, if they had fact-based content and made compelling arguments, would garner a following. But exercising hate for the sake of hate is not going to cut it in the free market. Even a democrat wants to think they are not giving away their political identities to an empty cause.

This is an indication that the leftists, more aligned with Socialism and Stalinist views, have left the true democrats stranded. They have eroded their majority base, and replaced it with a minority of hard-left wing moonbats.

Hate, and a total lack of hum

Hate, and a total lack of humor. Leftests have no idea how to blend humor, intertainment, facts, and opinion. And, they don't know how to get their audiences to think. All they know how to do is to play to the basest (a word?) emotions, and they believe this is all they need.

Let's face it.....it wouldn't

Let's face it.....it wouldn't matter what the content of Airhead America was. It would still fail 24/7/365.

If liberals paid attention to issues, they wouldn't be liberals.

Liberal talk radio has no choice but to be a self fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Noel,I wonder, Air America as

Noel,

I wonder, Air America aside for the moment, how much of this argument being brought by the left is rooted more in pure embarrassment over the fact that "progressive" talk radio just doesn't sell in the free market?

I mean, if liberalism was, in fact, that cat's ass in political philosophy, as many on the left have deluded themselves into believeing, then liberal radio programming should, at the very least, be on par, or nearly so, with Limbaugh and Hannity, should it not?

Now, I know there are (aside from the obvious one) other factors involved, a big one being libs fundamental lack of understanding of how a free market works, another being the lack of civility by many of their "chosen" personalities (as well as the liberals need for pictures) but there has to be at least a little envy behind all this, don't you think?

Dave,IMO ... Head-of-nail, Si

Dave,

IMO ... Head-of-nail, Sir.

Look, what this all boils d

Look, what this all boils down to is that there is nothing concrete for liberals to base their oponions on. They have no moral foundation or fiscal foundation on which to base their oponions on. They fuel their idealogy on emotion and an air of superiorty. Even people who tend to vote democrat don't want to listen to an bunch of baseless garbage. They would rather listen to music,horrid as it is these days, and my favorite music is metal, than listen to baseless whining, even if it comes from their heroes.

Here’s one argument, and ho

Here’s one argument, and how to respond to it.

The argument is that liberals dominate TV and conservatives dominate radio. So, the argument goes, it can’t be the content. If it was merely content, either liberals would dominate both, or conservatives would dominate both, but not one or the other. Therefore, it must be some other factor (liberals blame ownership). But the Rosetta stone against this argument is Fox News. When liberals attempt radio, they rarely succeed. But Fox News has the largest cable TV audience. The audience isn’t reciprocal, and so perhaps it’s the content after all. When conservatives broadcast in either genre, they succeed. The only question left is why liberals dominate TV. Maybe it’s … ownership?

The urge to “address” talk radio is not surprising. It makes sense to a liberal. Liberals are adversarial about their media and government. That is, liberals believe that government is a corrective force. Left to our own devices, the public would tolerate and even encourage oppression of minorities, individual rights, and so on. Therefore, government must counterbalance those traits of the general public. The public must be enlightened. They see talk radio as reinforcing the public’s ignorance by feeding them what they want to hear, instead of the “Truth.” It depends on how you look at it. Conservatives think it's a virtue to satisy the audience, but liberals think that it's just pandering to the "group think" herd mentality. Conservatives treat the airwaves as a business where you cater to a market. Liberals see the airwaves as a public service (read: indoctrinate the zombies), and should be unsullied by crass commercialism.

For a liberal, to satisfy the "deeper" public interest, the public must be exposed to other points of view. For our own good. That’s why the one-sided-ness of talk radio is so threatening to them. That’s why liberals think they “speak truth to power.” When was the last time you heard a conservative say that? We wouldn’t think of it, because we think that power should reflect the will of the people, and not oppose it.  

Another way to respond to t

Another way to respond to the argument might be this. It's not content, but it does have something to do with the mediums and the different ways humans interact or react to them. For radio to "work," whether it's a conservative talk show host or Howard Stern, it needs to be reasonably (but not too!) intellectual, and move along at a good pace, because it involves interactive imagination. TV, being a much more visual medium, needn't be as intellectual or as dependent on imagination to work -- given good enough images people are going to watch even really-stupid stuff they'd probably never listen-to without a video screen involved. As for explaining the success of Fox News amid a sea of leftism, I have 2 words: "Hot chicks."
JMR

Hot chicks?! Neil Calvetu? Br

Hot chicks?! Neil Calvetu? Brit Humes? That Gibson guy? The Judge? Hannity & Colmes? Geraldo? Greta? Bill O'Reily??? Hot chicks???

Laurie Dhue. Juliette Huddy

Laurie Dhue. Juliette Huddy (sort of). That yummy new weatherbimbette named "Dominica" (absolutely!). Various others (hell, CNN needed to swipe Kiran Chetry) whose names escape me...Fox News does tend to have the hottest chicks, and it's definitely part of what attracts viewers. And in fact, of those you mentioned, O'Reilly and Cavuto are well-known for segments involving...Hot chicks from places like Victoria's Secret.
JMR

}}----> More Hot Chicks

Katie Couric???

How did you miss the "Eye Candy" on the CBS Evening News.

Two words: Julie Banderas!

Two words: Julie Banderas!

}}----> Yeah

HOT HOT HOT

Oh, those hot chicks. Am reco

Oh, those hot chicks. Am recovering from earlier fainting spell. Vision is clearing.

Let's not forget Clarissa Ward!

Let's not forget Clarissa Ward!

Last night, before I went to

Last night, before I went to bed, I posted the comment that started this thread. I woke up this morning, hoping to find some thoughtful and/or provocative responses about my brilliant dissertation on the liberal view of government.

Instead, it's all about "hot chicks."

<smiling>   I have to go to church now...   </smiling>

KCIf you do it right to begin

KC

If you do it right to begin with, there is no need for further comments 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Hey, I'm not complaining. It'

Hey, I'm not complaining. Thinking about the "hot chicks" will help me through the homily ...

}}----> Homily

Isn't homily those big corn kernels you add to tripe to make Menudo?  Or do you add Ricky Martin to tripe to make Menudo?

Anyway, I don't think hot chicks are homily. 

Confucius say: Before you go

Confucius say: Before you go to bed, make sure you learn/say all you need to about hot chicks.

Actually, when I think of hot

Actually, when I think of hot chicks ... speaking isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Oh and by the way, I'm back from church. It was a great homily. Something about blondes, I think.

I'm kidding. It was about John the Baptist. Of course, one wonders whether John was from Philly. Philly is notorious for giving odd names. David Brenner tells the story of a kid in his neighborhood with a neck disorder that caused his head to tilt to one side ... so in Philly, his nickname was "quarter to six."

There was a serious topic in this thread ... way back ... but I think we chose the more entertaining path, don't you?.

We can be serious at any time

We can be serious at any time. Entertainment is something we usually have to purchase, so yeah -- I'd go for free entertainment any time over serious.

Seriously.

KCI think that you rarely pos

KC

I think that you rarely post on such things but you may be interested in reading this.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

I just read the article, than

I just read the article, thanks for the link. The Jesuits have a few websites, and most are readable. I do check them regularly, but I only post on rare occasions, I'll have to read more of the interviewee, Beckwith. He seems to be reasonable. Frankly, his discontent with the kumbaya Catholicism is something I definitely shared, although I didn't leave. I just avoided that crap as much as possible. Theology belongs to the conscious mind, but worship is all about the subconscious. When they tried to "update" the liturgy in the Sixties, they were trying to approach it with their head. But worship isn't about thinking. Liturgy is something you do, not soomething you think. The power is sub-conscious. 

Worship is like sex. If you think too much, you ruin it.  

}}----> Mulville's back

See, there you go KC.  The sermon in a Catholic Church is about a Baptist.  Just had to lash out at other religions didn't you?

LOL. Of course, the great thi

LOL. Of course, the great thing is that we're spending so much of our lives talking about two Jewish cousins. There's a lesson there somewhere.

Kirsten is definitely one D

Kirsten is definitely one Democrat pundit I enjoy listening to.

Not because I agree with most things she says, I don't. But because she makes a good attempt at being objective in her analysis and you can respect where she's coming from, even if you don't agree with her conclusion.

I put her on a par with Britt Hulme, although he is clearly from the conservative school, he, again, tries to be objective.

Unlike Juan Williams who has to be one of the bizarro commentators I have ever heard. He is certifiably nuts.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Between Kristen and Susan E

Between Kristen and Susan Estrich, it's somewhat ironic IMO that the Democrat-boycotted Fox News has hired the most intelligent Democrat-strategists. Yeah, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes may not be all that great at times for their party, but it's hard to argue that Fox deliberately goes for dumb Dems with these ladies. Hmmm. Maybe dumb male Dems....
JMR

Democrats

The Democrats don't want the networks to hire "intelligent" Democrat strategists, they want them to hire the kool-aid drinkers, or in the case of Begala, the kool-aid servers. Now, with Brit Hume, Fox not only has a Conservative thinker, but also one that had his phone tapped by the CIA. 

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So, when are the Dims going t

So, when are the Dims going to go with their hot chicks and heavy hitters? Maybe starting here? Ugh!

}}----> ThisnThat is a sick basta

I just threw up on the keyboard, you sick puppy.  The Supreme Court is right.  I know obscenity when I see it.

D*mn!  I figured you were go

D*mn!  I figured you were going to do that, but I just had to look anyway.  It's a good thing I already ate, because that will definitely put someone off their feed.  You are one sick puppy, TnT.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

What about those crazy chicks

What about those crazy chicks... Jane Flemming  and Julie Roginsky(Dem strategist). Everytime I see them on I want to puke. It makes me wonder if  all Liberal  women are as bitchy and crazy as those two. Not to mention rude and obnoxious!

And did you notice...?

Hey, Jack,

She is also one of the few women liberals who is very easy on the eyes.

golden -- yes, I noted the

golden -- yes, I noted the babelicious quotient is way above those of normal lib***l hag persuasion.

But I was trying to rise above such thoughts

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

The Reason Lib Radio Blows

Here's what makes conservative radio work:

Their talk show hosts say things like, "....and thats the way it is. If you disagree then I would like to hear from you...."

Ever listen to Air America? Ever TRY TO CALL Air America? They WILL NOT put on a conservative that has a viewpoint counter to theirs. Conservative hosts thrive on liberals calling in and entertaining us with their nonsense and their subsequent dismantling by the host.

Liberal radio is boring because its nothing but liberals whining without an opposing viewpoint.

And they don't want one.

Upon further review...

Kevroy,

Kirsten used the very words I stated in another blog here on NB before her appearance on FNC about this issue. We had one local FM station in our area that carried Air Anti-America that went belly-up because of poor ratings and eventually changed formats. 

They also had some real jackass (no pun intended) local announcers who helped to drive the final nail into their talk show coffin with their negativism and constantly bashing America.   

The hilarious thing about it is that their slogan was "Talk Radio - for the rest of us"!  Hmmm - must not have been too many "rest of us" listening!

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

&quot;Liberal radio is boring

"Liberal radio is boring because its nothig but liberals whining without opposing viewpoint.  And they don't want one."

Exactly!  And liberals have a big problem with the truth anyway.  Apparently Barbara Boxer and Hitlary have a big problem with how successful conservatives have been on talk radio that they want a "legislative fix" to make things right once and for all:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

Now the above link opens with FULL-FACED photos of both Boxer and Hitlary so I warn you ahead of time that it may cause gastric distress.  Keep your Tums handy; you'll need them. 

 What they say sucks too, and it just shows what we're in for if Hitlary is elected as Fuhrerin.

Kevroy -- exactly. But it g

Kevroy -- exactly. But it goes further than that.

Conservatives understand that socieites work best when mature married people, with families and life responsibilities act in their own best interests within the defined norms of society.

(Note: that does not mean an anarchic every man for himself free for all.)

Collectivists (like your typical lib***l or socialist Democrats) believe in making indivudiuals act in the government's best interest because they believe that the governement is best placed to make the decisions on behalf of everybody.

Once you accept that mindset, you become philosophically incapable of allowing any dissenting viewpoint. And to enable that type of thinking to prevail, it becomes necessary to break down the very existence of those institutions and norms by which enlightened Western societies have traditionally sought to regulate themselves.

So the left has a big downer on accepting personal responsibility -- no one is to be blamed for their own behavior, it's always someone else's fault.

Naturally the traditional family structure (one man, one woman, and their children) has to be weakened to breaking point: illegitimacy, so-called homosexual marriage, rampant sexual promiscuity (usually to the detriment of women, because us guys have always been potential dogs.)

Societal glues such as Christianity and other structured religions (Judaism) which have long accepted the Western democratic model, are to be systematically attacked, from within and without.

While fascistic religions like Islam are oddly pandered to -- but they do share the same totalitarian goals, so maybe it's not so surprising.

Non-legislative, non-term limited appointed functionaries (like judges) are used to further weaken the democratic process.

And so on.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Kevroy :  Liberal radio is b

Kevroy :  Liberal radio is boring because its nothing but liberals whining without an opposing viewpoint.

You bring up a great distinction, kevroy.  I tried listening to Air America (the First), and it sounded like an indoctrination.  Granted, I find Al Franken and Jeanine Garofalo rather insufferable anyway, but their shows might've held my attention a bit had they featured guests with opposing views.  Instead, they resorted to regurgitating myths like "conservatives hate minorities" and endless anti-Bush harangues, which I'm sure few would find engaging.  It's no accident that the market place killed and buried the first iteration of Air America. 

Kevroy:  And they don't want one.

It could be that they realize that Air America and its fellow travellers will never win over conservatives, but that some liberals might be swayed by the logic of conservatives guest to at least explore other sources of information enough to abandon The Cause.

It highlights a common trait amongst most --- not all, but most --- prominent liberals:  they are loathe to debate the opposition face to face.  Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, et al are guilty of this.

Liberal Radio

I'm conservative. I listen/watch mostly to Fox News, but I do tune in to Hardball once in a while just to hear the opposing views on things. However, Fox does a better job hands down, day after day of having opposing views on their show. When I listen to liberal radio, the host pretty much attacks any conservative views that get on air like spitting rabid dogs. Its just awful to listen too. Like squabbling children getting out of control in the backyard. You don't care who started it, just stop. There is no around the dinner time table discussion ferretting out different thoughts ideas or points of view. I don't mind it getting heated, but I don't care for it when either is trying to shut down the other disrespectfully. Conservative radio is definately better on that, but hey too have some work to do in attacking liberal callers. Admittedly however, most of the liberal callers typically attack the host right out of the box which doesn't put everyone in a very polite frame of mind. I am interested in the other viewpoint, to know if "we" have thought of everything before we change major policy that effects all Americans. I can't often hear it because of all the NOISE!!!!!! The last thing I want is gov't to try to legislate "fair & balanced" - so get to it Liberals and do this on your own, don't have the gov't come in and subsidize you.

I think Kristen is moving t

I think Kristen is moving to the right. She's getting better looking. Liberal women are ugly.

Why liberal talk radio doesn't work?  Conservative talk radio strips down all arguements to basic beliefs of conservatism.  If you try this with liberal beliefs you always end up trying to explain why communism/socialism is good for this country when it has failed everywhere else.  Two recent examples for libs: explain the difference between these events and how the democrat proposals are different.

1) Hillary Clinton on Exxon profits: "I'm going to take those profits..."

Chavez nationalizes oil companies.

2) Fairness Doctrine.

Chavez closes down popular opposition TV station.

Liberal positions are not based on anything but feel good emotions.  They can't see the unintended consequences of their actions.  As Bob Geldof said about Live 8, "Even if it doesn't help, we have to do something".  This makes for very boring radio when you can't justify your reasoning of your beliefs beyond being for the children or seems like the right thing to do no matter what the cost.

Kindas tepped over the line N

Kindas tepped over the line Noel - You saying ther is no Easter bunny?

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Noel,I tried to listen to a Liberal Talk show here in N. Calif.

Noel,I tried to listen to a Liberal Talk show here in N. Calif.

Accidental button push on a rental car.

Here's what I heard in the 5 minutes of listening.

1.  Economy:  Unsustainable.

2.  Bush:  Worst President in lifetime.

3.  Gasoline:  Big Oil and Haliburton and Iraq.

4.  Foreign Policy:  Agressive and failed due to Iraq's intranscience regarding Democracy and its evils.

5.  Rush:  Moronic Idiot.

OK, bash 21 million listeners.  That'll get you an audience.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

AC

AC,

I think you've hit on the real point: liberal talk radio is like listening to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for more than 60 seconds -- too hate-filled!

These people like Randi Rhodes, Bill Press, Cenk Uygur, etc., etc. have nothing positive to say about anything. America sucks, Republicans suck, the economy sucks, we're destroying the planet, we're ignoring the poor, etc., etc. How long can you listen to something so depressing? Five minutes? Ten minutes?

I think the problem is that there aren't enough people who want to spend large chunks of their day being depressed. I mentioned in another thread that I turn off some of the conservative talkers when I'm in the car when it gets too negative. Frankly, I think most people on both sides of the aisle are the same.   ns

Rant away

I think the problem is the continual rant without an opposing rant. Even liberals cannot take the continual ranting of Air America.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Noel, the other issue is audience and market forces.

Noel, the other issue is audience and market forces.

If 21 million people are driving through traffic and listening to Rush and Rush goes off to play golf, they might be tempted to tune into another station, right?

Now, to be successful, the market is comprised of those people.

If no attempt is made to pander (cater?) to these folks, where else would the market drive them?  Maybe to another conservative radio show?

Oh well, the ownership questions are interesting by themselves.

One must first decide that the owners want to lose money to alienate an audience that before Rush wasn't tuning into AM Radio at all and moving along the lines of the NYT readership and advertising revenues.

So, what business model should they pursue?  Emulate the print media which is decidedly Liberal in their never ending quest to 'educate' me by explaining that my choices:

1.  For President were beyond stupid.

2.  For attacking Terrorists and protecting my children were too 'aggressive' and the world would be a better place if I gave the US economic proceeds to the UN.

3.  For being disgusted with Madam Albright's foreign policy insanity.

4.  For believing in a bedrock system that works, e.g. carbon based enegy driven economic activity.

I'm really tired of government solutions.  You know, this all started with busing.

"Oh, well busing worked to 'integrate' our schools."

If a government solution works, I'd appreciate any help from the readership here to be made aware of one of them that was initiated after the 1930's.

Thanks for all the fish.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Government intervention

Government intervention started with the Great Depression. It was found that local charities were overwhelmed by the need and needed more resources. The federal govenment stepped in. That led to the Alphabet Programs, none of which were really successful in the long run. There were as many unemployed at the beginning of World War II as their were when Roosevelt came into office. And now we had a lot of infrastructure that had been built at federal expense that was going to have to be maintained at local and state expense.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Well, I wasn't alive during the Great Depression.

Well, I wasn't alive during the Great Depression.

But, I believe that the programs of the '30s prevented civil unrest at a greater scale than what actually occurred.  Now, of course, we can look back and see the tags of Roosevelt's programs and say, "Gee, that really screwed the pooch."

But, the advent of WWII actually brought the economy back.  No argument there.

But, during the 1950's we built the Interstate Highway system (and into the 1960's as well) and the infrastructure was important to have in place.  Sacrifices for such bedrock foundations for our economy are probably as important as sacrificies for War.

The problem is that the infrastructure went South because too much emphasis was placed on Social Engineering by government and not enough placed on maintaining our transport arteries as well as our overall energy needs.

We could argue about this all day (or rather, discuss) but my point is that to compete in the arena of ideas or the arena of a marketplace, one does not immediately stomp all over your market participant from the starting gates.

"HI, I'm selling bottled water, ... you stupid tap water drinker."

Can't see how that works, somehow.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

AC

AC,

The problem with programs created during the '30s is that they weren't sunsetted. If each of these programs, including Social Security, had to be reapproved by a new Congress under different economic conditions ten years later, they would have been killed years ago. Just imagine in either 1945 or 1955, as the economy was beginning to boom, and the government was buried in HUGE piles of debt created by FDR, how unlikely would it have been for Congress to vote to extend SS? Doubtful, right?

Unfortunately, FDR and the Dems in 1935 adamently REFUSED sunsetting because they knew this program wouldn't pass scrutiny once the economy pulled out of depression. What a disgrace!   ns

Roosevelt proved that massive government debt could help.

Roosevelt proved that massive government debt could help.

And he was right to a point of diminishing returns.  That would be the concept of zero value (or declining) after pouring more dollars into a system (or market).

That was a useful tool.  Unfortunately, you are totally right about the sunset stuff, but even more to the point would be those 'bad' ideas that kept on giving, like Social Security.

I'd be better off had I been offered a private route from the beginning of my work life span.

Now, of course, I'm a ward of the Government.  (more or less).

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Roosevelt propaganda

You are falling for the Roosevelt propaganda machine. Exactly what or whom did the massive debt help? Workers in federal programs were released at the end of 6 months or less. The only thing that got us out of the Great Depression was WWII. And Roosevelt got us into that. He committed acts of war against both the Japanese and the Germans. Had either or both won the war, using the criteria used in the War Crimes Trials, he would surely have been convicted (had he lived that long). All of his aides would have been executed.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Gee Dagda, if you're gonna talk about Roosevelt Programs...

Gee Dagda, if you're gonna talk about Roosevelt Programs then put it back into context.  The advent of WWII had no bearing on the events from 1929 through 1938.

And before you accuse me of propaganda 'buy in' I'd appreciate you  reading some basic economic texts.

Thanks

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Aca - basic econ.

The basic economics of the situation are that the USA was no better off from the Roosevelt make work programs than nothing. We just accummulated a lot of debt. There were as many unemployed in 1941 as there were in 1929. The war caused full employment.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

dagda, I quote myself from above.

dagda, I quote myself from above.

"But, the advent of WWII actually brought the economy back.  No argument there."

So, your slam about 'buying into Roosevelt Propaganda' was not only uncalled for but also demonstrated a lack of context.

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Proganda masters

I would beg to differ. The events of 1929-41 were a direct prelude to WWII. Make work socialist programs put the Germans back on the map. And remember Wag the Dog. What better way to get people to forget your domestic problems than by getting into a shooting war.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

}}----> Lott Feinstein

Feinstein and Lott are both on Fox News Sunday.  I'm puking.

Lott trying to back down on his attack on Talk Radio.

Feinstein says she wants to go back to Fairness Doctrine.

Both think we are too stupid to understand their Immigration Bill.

Right now they're ripping each other's clothes off and entangling in a torrid embrace.  Puking again

Call Lott's DC office directly at 202-224-6253

I heard Lott on Shawn Hannity Friday and thought he was full of shi'ite.

If anyone wants to call his DC office and criticise his support for the immigration bill, his direct office number is 202-224-6253 (bypasses the switchboard)

Be nice, be polite, but make it clear - his "leadership" on this is a tragedey and you will donate money to his main opponant in the next primary,

Be warned. I had to call 9 times to get through. Busy. Busy. No answer. No answer. No answer. No answer.(3 minutes, my crell phone finally dropped the call) Busy. No answer. KEEP TRYING!

Home office

I usually call the home office and the Washington office. Home office is usually easier to get through.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

As someone who used to work o

As someone who used to work on the Hill (a fews years back) and respond to constituent comments, I just thought I would offer a friendly bit of advice when contacting Congress.

First, it doesn't matter which office you call, at least from my experience in two offices.  All comments, letters, etc. go into one big pile.  Whenever we got comments from back in the state they were sent to the DC office anyway.  Also, if you call more than once and leave your name each time (or write more than one letter), I would put money down that most offices ignore the second call or letter.

Second, when you are calling the leadership offices, make sure they are the leadership offices and not the "representative" office.  ie, you don't want to call Trent Lott's regular Senate office in Mississippi (or DC) unless you live there.  I can guarantee you that 99% of  calls these offices receive from out of district/state are totally ignored.  Unless you can vote for (or against) these people, your opinions are probably going in the trash.  Sometimes if they are nice they might forward a letter to another office, but calls are totally disregarded.

I'm sure the well-informed people on this site already know this stuff, but I just don't want anybody's efforts to end up in the trash!

No, actually, these tips are

No, actually, these tips are helpful.  Thank you.

One follow up question.  Did written/faxed correspondence carry more weight than a call?

or e-mail?  

or e-mail?  

Oh yeah, email!  Duh...sorry

Oh yeah, email!  Duh...sorry.  Offices were just starting to figure out how to handle email when I was there, so things might be different now.  I believe most offices when I was there used an actual address like HisHighnesstheSenator@XXXXXXXX.  From what I gather, these days a lot of offices use a web form, and you can't even submit unless your ZIP code matches the list from their state/district.  My offices would respond to emails with a paper letter, so if the writer didn't leave a name or address...circular file!  But, some years have passed now, so I can't say with certainty how emails are handled today, or if responses are sent back via email, etc.

As for call vs. fax vs. letter vs. email, my bosses weighed them pretty much the same.  What held less weight were the postcards or form letters (of faxes) we received on some issues.  After some research, we discovered that a lot of people who were supposedly sending in these postcards had no idea they were writing in.  It seemed like some interest groups would just divide their membership lists up and send off the cards or letters to the correct office, unbeknownst to the member.

I would suggest that if you receive a request from an interest group to contact your reps to modify any form letter in a small way.  That way the office you are sending it to knows it is actually YOU that is sending it and expecting a response.

Hope this helps!

In keeping with the theme of

In keeping with the theme of this thread - merci beaucoup!

NC....Thank-YouI am so glad y

NC....

Thank-You

I am so glad you posted that about calling the leadership offices...it is important that those are the offices you call individually.

I meant to tell that to someone here after the last Bill was pulled....and forgot. It is very important...I only learned that from years of experience...I used to have the C-Span congressional guide book, before I got the PC.

It worked out fine btw....lol!

Lott trying to back down on h

Lott trying to back down on his attack on Talk Radio.

I love it.

Couldja maybe have been wrong about the amnesty bill, too, Senator ...?

The Way Liberals Work

The way liberals like to communicate is to ram their view down your throat and, if you don't agree with them, they try to trask you.  Debate, in the true sense of the word, is the furthest thing from their mind.  This morning, I read a commentary by Debra Saunders about the Global Warming Debate, which is being conducted in typical liberal fashion:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/hooey_denier_deniers.html

If the tactics here don't sound like Air America and other liberal arguments about our country, nothing does.  These are the tactics you use when you can't win in the arena of ideas.

I don't know of a conservative talk show that doesn't welcome liberals expressing their views. Once again, most of them show they can't win with the talking points sent out by the kool-aid servers.  The problem with the kool-aid, served by the Democrats is, if you don't like the taste, the only thing they know how to do is put in more sugar.

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Powers is your typical Faux N

Powers is your typical Faux News Liberal i.e. not particularly liberal.

So she is wrong;  Air Americ

So she is wrong;  Air America was wonderfully entertaining but failed due to the vast right wing conspiracy?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Ya know, Sir Thomas, your use of French to describe Fox News

Ya know, Sir Thomas, your use of French to describe Fox News is such a typical cheap Liberal slam.

Did you think that up all by yourself, or did you get it in the 'memo'?

Coming to this site with such silliness is so typical of the Liberal Leftoid.  When I read the comments regarding the Liberal attempts to stifle Conservative Talk Radio here, nearly every one of the commentors cannot help but reference the absolute fascist effort by Liberal Legislators to use a Hammer and Sickle to censor and autocratically impose Liberal ideas on the masses.

Sound sorta familiar?>

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

You ever notice that libs cal

You ever notice that libs call their enemies "facist" constantly, but never call them a "communist?" Hmmm...

Devastating commentary, Sir Thomas.....

Faux News?  Devastating commentary, Sir Thomas.  Have you met Montana Lyons or j. frank wilson?  They like that sobriquet, too.

Well, if we're gonna be trite, I suppose you won't mind if I call you a MoveOn Moonbat?    ;^>

Don't hate him because he's c

Don't hate him because he's clever, RJ ...

And they wonder, dahlia

And they wonder, dahlia, why their radio sucks......

Hate, derives from fear/respect for power.

Hate, derives from fear/respect for power.

Tyranny over the mind, so to speak.

So, that would be a non-starter.  That dog won't hunt.  That idea has no plumb bob.  That dog won't get off the porch...

etc.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

It is not devestating because

It is not devestating because it is part of any rational individuals thought when describing the 'liberals' that appear there. Silly me for thinking I may find someone rational on here, though.

Yes, Sir Thomas, it was silly for you to pass off 'thinking"

Yes, Sir Thomas, it was silly for you to pass off 'thinking" as consisting of a cheap Liberal lable, here.

And rational hasn't been demonstrated yet by your brilliant ideas, your smooth presentation and logical constructs.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Yeah you are probably right.

Yeah you are probably right. By the way, if you are into this sort of thing, have you ever been to newshounds.us or mediamatters.org? They too act as media watchdogs, but only to a higher standard than is seen on here.

This is a joke, right?

Shirley, you jest.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Who is shirley?

Who is shirley?

I suggest you'd be much happier with those 'standards', Sir...

I suggest you'd be much happier with those 'standards', Sir Thomas.

Why don't you log off and go back to the world where people actually buy into your French amour.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Oh don't talk to me about the

Oh don't talk to me about the French! I can't stand them! They opposed the war in Iraq - idiots! They have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, vastly superior to that of the US - idiots!

Now, now, Sir Thomas, take a deep breath.

Now, now, Sir Thomas, take a deep breath.

Listen, I've actually got to go for a while.  I might find time to stop back.  It's been fun shooting into the fish barrel with you, though.

Dear sir, when George Soros stops funding Mediamatters.org, I might take some interest in their work.  If Mediamatters.org were upfront about their Liberal Bias; as is Newsbusters upfront about its conservative Bias, and when Pigs Fly;  then I'll consider that they have any  standards.

We are pretty open here about our POV.   We don't attack Don Imus for example with the goal of conflating that silly show with Conservative Talk Radio.

That's just an example.

But you keep on thinkin' Butch, that's what you seem to be good at.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

The stated aim of Mediamatter

The stated aim of Mediamatters.org  is to monitor conservative misinformation. Not a lot of clarity is lacking there.

Just passing by and saw this

Just passing by and saw this comment.  As I see it, MediaMatters seems to get a lot of their "monitoring" wrong, as they have a permanent page at their website solely dedicated to "corrections".

http://mediamatters.org/corrections

If their healthcare system is

If their healthcare system is one of the best in the world why do world leaders come to the U.S. to have important surgery done and not France?

The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral

Broaden your horizons

If you broadened your cultural horizons you would not ask. If you did you would know who Shirley is.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Fair enough, Geoffrey.

Fair enough, Geoffrey.

dagda: Surely, you can't be s

dagda: Surely, you can't be serious?

Yes I am

I am serious as hell, and don't call me Shirley. :)

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

lol

lol

Come on, Sir Thomas

Come on, Sir Thomas, I thought we could have a little intellectual fun here, but you're not keeping up your end of the bargain.

I hate having to explain to you, but "sobriquet" was just a little playful French toss-back of your "faux"....le frisbee, if you will...

And "MoveOn" was because you would have to be at the far left end of the political spectrum to consider Powers not liberal. 

This isn't liberal talk radio, Sir Thomas, so you'll have to try harder.   ;^> 

Erm yes - I understood - am I

Erm yes - I understood - am I talking above you? If so, be sure to let me know and I'll dumb things down a little.

Beam me up, Scotty... ;^>

Beam me up, Scotty...   ;^>

RJDon't be wasting more time

RJ

Don't be wasting more time on Mobius

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Pseudo-intellectuals on the march

Did someone in your past tell you that your IQ was over 100? There is a difference between talking in riddles and talking over the heads of people. I doubt very much that you have the intellectual capacity to talk over the heads of the people here. So, you must be talking in riddles. Trying to cover it by pretending to be an intellectual does not work here. Most people are both intellectuals and highly informed.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

First class honours from the

First class honours from the most prestigious university in the UK is all I can offer. I accept that that is small fry compared to people whose ideas are so backward that they probably still live in caves.

Scotty, where are you?

Scotty, where are you?  Beam me up NOW!

Sir Thomas, what's the optimal solution to the Prisoner's Dilemm

Sir Thomas, what's the optimal solution to the Prisoner's Diliema?

Sorry, had to log back in for this.  I do have to leave, but I'll wait for your reply.  Don't take too long to look it up.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

You come back having been awa

You come back having been away for a few moments, and then have the nerve to charge me with looking things up. Furthermore, it's a *dilemma*.

Well, actually, I did log off. You will note I corrected the ty

Well, actually, I did log off.  You will note I corrected the typo.

So, that didn't work, huh?

Not doing so good here my man.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Don't try and recover now, my

Don't try and recover now, my friend. You had a chance and it all went rather wrong, didn't it? Are you feeling a little bit silly now?

I have nothing to recover from, actually, Sir Thomas.

I have nothing to recover from, actually, Sir Thomas.

Your ignorance of basic logic is astounding.  The rule at this site is that nitpicking typos and spelling does not an argument make.

Being rather new, I'll give you a pass on that one.  But, really, Doctor, if you want to run with the big dogs, you have to show some depth.

Haven't seen any yet.

Another little hint to the all encompassing grandour of the English School system; touting credential here on this site does not work.

For example, when Bill Gates gets a college degree, I'll kowtow to the college degree.

What you don't seem to grasp is that particiipants on this site have pretty sound educations; have in many cases run businesses and made a payroll; and generally don't buy into the idea that Liberals are the sharpest tools in the shed.

As an Iguana I know once told me; it don't take much to find out sunshine is cool.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

That's a better effort at rec

That's a better effort at recovering, I'll give you that. Good little speech, best thing you've said all day, even if slightly ruined by more poor spelling.

You are great at labeling, Sir Thomas.

You are great at labeling, Sir Thomas.

My issues with spelling and typing are easily corrected if I care to bother.

Your issues with substance and logic are endemic.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

ACA -- I don't know, but you

ACA -- I don't know, but you may be outclassed here -- when a person has "first class honours from the most prestigious university in the UK", well -- don't know about you, but the intellectual might from that person is just too much for me to take. I have to shade my eyes from his brilliance every time I read another one of his comments. You must be blind, by now, and probably struck dumb as well. Sorry. Now go back and write Shirley 100 times on Notepad.... :-)

Well, I'm just so 'put in my place'.

Well, I'm just so 'put in my place'.

:-)

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

SCOTTY!!! It's been "educated" in the UK, and it's

SCOTTY!!!   It's been "educated" in the UK and it's killing me by boring me to death!   Beam me up!

Oh, you haven't stopped readi

Oh, you haven't stopped reading, I notice.

Ahhhh! It spoke to me!

Ahhhh!  It spoke to me!  Scotty, if you don't beam me up, I'm doomed!   The creature's insidious, creeping UK "education" dullness will take over my mind....

Hey, that's a game theory que

Hey, Prisoner's Dilemma ... that's a game theory question, one of my favorite topics. (I hope y'all don't mind me hijacking this thread for my own entertainment.) The "answer" to Prisoner's Dilemma is:

In a single game, the optimal strategy for both players to defect, which yields a suboptimal outcome for both, despite the fact that both players followed their dominant strategy.

However, the situation changes when we iterate the game (i.e., we play it repeatedly and indefinitely). Robert Axelrod published a book called "The Evolution of Cooperation," where he staged a computer tournament of Prisoner's Dilemma. Different strategies were used, and the strategy that won was ... ta da ... "Tit for Tat." It worked because it was simple, predictable, and it rewarded cooperation and punished non-ccoperation.

In gradute school, for a term paper, I staged my own tournament with a different game, "Chicken." (Chicken is the strategic model for terrorists, although that wasn't my interest at the time -- it was in the 1980s) My little game showed that the winning strategy was ... ta da ... "Massive Retaliation." That means that you start by cooperating, but when the other person exploits your cooperation, you never cooperate again. That strategy discussion has influenced my thinking ever since, especially about the war against terror.

Products of UK schools

I have seen the products of the UK educational system. I also read two UK papers everyday with their complaints about the system. I would not use this as a recommendation.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Oh look out, from nowhere the

Oh look out, from nowhere the might of Cambridge is being challenged! Is it a bird?! Is it a plane?! No it's... dagda?? dagda?

&quot;Oh look out, from nowhe

"Oh look out, from nowhere the might of Cambridge is being challenged!"

And here we have a prime example of the John Kerry School of Elitism and Snobbery.  Why do these people think their ideas hold more water if they list their educational backgrounds?  A bad idea is a bad idea whether the person espousing it has a "mighty" Cambridge degree or is a high school dropout.

Good arguments stand on their own and do not require recitation of academic achievements to back them up.

If this guy is "Cambridge educated", then I

If this low-wattage guy is "Cambridge educated, with first class honours", then I really am Captain Kirk......   ;^>

But there has been no substan

But there has been no substantive argument from either side. The petty name-calling and ridicule has taken place on both sides - indeed I would argue that I did not start it. Furthermore, that is all that it has been, so to accuse me of lacking in good arguments on a thread like this is somewhat nonsensical.

Intellectual elitism

Your pretension to intellectual elitism was the start for me. I found that condescending, if false. Now, pretending that you were not the start of it is just silly. Is the "British way"? I thought it was "stiff upper-lip, etc." BTW, you never answered about Kim Philby and the Cambridge Five.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

That was not pretension I'm a

That was not pretension I'm afraid - the challenge to which I answered, as distinct from the rest, did not question my ability to make good arguments but my IQ so I'm perfectly entitled to make such comments.

Cambridge Five

You still have not answered about the Cambridge Five. Philby graduated with highest honours as well, did he not? BTW, which college were you at at Cambridge and where did you do you're schooling before that.  What did you do your A-levels in and what were your scores?

How long have you lived here? Your American English is almost as good as a native speaker.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

To be honest I'm slightly wor

To be honest I'm slightly worried by someone that wants a full run down of my academic background, because I don't know where you are going with it. Whether you believe what I have said or not I don't think any more of that information is going to convince you. And I really should have no distinctive  American English, because I'm English English. I live in England, and have an unhealthy addiction to American politics/media.

Proud product of English schools

Would love your academic background because I have a little trouble believing that you are a graduate of any college, much less, Cambridge. So, my questions are designed to test your knowledge of the English school system and the level of your veracity. Your distinctive American English is in your spelling and word selection. Given the problems that England has with politics right now, I don't think I would be worrying about the USA. Unhealthy addictions should be gotten rid of.

I do follow UK politics and read two of your newspapers daily. I IM with one person who used to be in London and one in Ireland. I await your responses. So far you have avoided all my questions.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

If you knew much of English p

If you knew much of English politics, you would be aware that the influence of the USA over our power-brokers is one of the country's biggest worries. So, every reason to be interested, really. I continue to be reluctant to give you much information about my academic background - got my GCSEs at 16, my A-levels from a nearby sixth form two years later, took a gap year and then went to Cambridge. Completed a degree and then an MA.

A levels

What did you take your A-levels in? And what is your MA in? Mine is in Theatre, my thesis was on Ben Jonson, hence my interest in England.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

My A-levels were in English,

My A-levels were in English, Classics, and History. My UG degree was in history and my MA - which has not been done at Cambridge - is in medieval history.

Sorry Sir Thomas, you'd be wr

Sorry Sir Thomas, you'd be wrong.

You were the one who started it with the oh-so-insipid "Faux News". 

We've seen it, and trolls like you ,a thousand times before here.

The only person you're impressing here is yourself.  Bad show, Sir Tom.

Why should that comment offen

Why should that comment offend you? Must all here be fans of Fox News? If so, why?

Sir Thomas

We are respectfully sending back to your peaceful little kingdom, the buttox of General Cornwallis left behind in his hasty retreat from the uneducated ex colonists.

Hope I'm not being vague in my script as it was not only his left behind he left behind, but his whole arse.  This clarification just in case you thought I had forgotten the apostrophe.

You're argument isn't going 

You're argument isn't going very well,  Sir Thomas.

I didn't say I was offended, did I?....I said you were the one who started it (name calling) by starting off here with "Faux News"....after you clearly stated you weren't the one who started it.  Sorry.  You lose.

Secondly, your next two questions are a typical liberal tactic, to deflect your having been squashed like a bug, into a new topic altogether.  Nice try, but that's also a non-starter.

As I said in my prior post, Sir Tom, we've seen liberal trolls and their insipid talking points (not to mention extremely weak debate tactics) a thousand times before.  Why don't you try "Bushie McChimp"?  It's only been used three hundred times this week.  You'll get the same reaction though.

So you lose again.

But would someone that called

But would someone that called MSNBC or CNN a petty name be attacked in such a way? I suspect not. So, really, you have dodged that one haven't you, and then made a rather pathetic attempt at claiming victory. So I ask again, why should not approving of Fox News be so offensive?

That's just plain stupid.  F

That's just plain stupid.  Figure it out with your self-proclaimed Cambridge-fed intellect.

Done with you and your trolling.  Take it over to DKos.

I can try to provide one expl

I can try to provide one explanation, which might help you become even smarter than you currently proclaim. "Faux" means "artificial, fake". When someone claims that Fox News is artificial, or fake, one must provide specific examples -- and these examples must show that the "fakeness" is systemic, not accidental. If you can't do this, then you are simply throwing the term out there as a challange. And if you do that, you should expect people to pick up on that challange, as everyone did.

Now, let me tell you that when you ask a question like "Why should that comment offend you?", you are being completely dishonest, and you are showing exactly how shallow you are. This invites ridicule, which you either must want, or you have no experience in arguing your points. You're not going to win respect with those types of juvinile comments. If you really expect to engage in a discussion of opposing viewpoints, you need to show that you have more ability than you have so far demonstrated.

Just out of interest, do you

Just out of interest, do you think that people on here would have reacted in such a way had I used such a term for MSNBC/CNN?

You know the answer to that o

You know the answer to that one, don't you? But the fact is, you didn't. And you used the term for a very specific reason -- to get a reaction. And, you know that a reaction would occur.

But here's where I'm dissapointed in you -- instead of just trying to get a reaction, you could have approached the situation differently and tried to engage in an argument, instead. But you didn't -- either because you don't know how, or because you delibertly wanted to simply evoke a reaction.

My suggestion is for you to look through these NB threads and see the amount of discussion that everyone engages in. Then, compare this with what you see on typical (although not all) lib threads. There is a big difference.

And this difference is what everyone is reacting to. These NB threads are not full of hate or foul language. When we see someone throw out stuff as is typical of lib threads, we don't react with patience or kindness -- although, we try to engage in discussion.

I accept your point, but let

I accept your point, but let us be honest - there was very little effort to actually engage me in a discussion about it, was there?

Re-read my answer to you -- w

Re-read my answer to you -- when you start out being an antagonist, you close the door pretty quickly. You need to be honest -- did you even want a discussion? Or did you simply want to start hurling stones? The NBer's who responded told you up front -- discussion don't start when the same-ol' lib talking points are hurled out -- we've seen it too many times. You aren't the first to throw out the same tired phrase -- and we are expecting that anyone who wants to discuss things begins from his own thoughts -- not the thoughts of others.

That concept is key-- and I think Blonde tried to lay it out in the clearest terms.

Your answer says:&quot;When w

Your answer says:

"When we see someone throw out stuff as is typical of lib threads, we don't react with patience or kindness -- although, we try to engage in discussion."

Didn't happen.

Ok, Sir Thomas -- here's wher

Ok, Sir Thomas -- here's where I stop. Now you are pretending to be the victim of NBer's -- "poor, poor Sir Thomas, never was given a chance, even though he tried his best".

It's clear, now, that even when we try to engage you, you simply aren't the type that can be engaged. I will now echo those others that have also responded -- go back to your typical lib blogs, where you can post your one-liners and never, ever, have to worry about intellectual content or working through a logical argument.

TnT,I enjoyed your attempt to

TnT,

I enjoyed your attempt to school Sir Thomas in the etiquette of posting here.  Nicely done. 

I obviously failed in my somewhat blunt attempt, and I thank you for further explaining my points (spot on, BTW)...I just don't have the patience any longer.

What do they say about &quot;

What do they say about "leading a horse to water"?

The problem is, we have a horses-a$$ here, and I can't find the right saying -- unless I want to be banned from NB forever.

No worries in that regard, Tn

No worries in that regard, TnT.

I see you've elicited the "But wait (hand-waving-in-the-air-frantically), Sir, pick on me!!!" response.

Wow, these liberals just don't get it do they? 

I have responded perfectly re

I have responded perfectly reasonably to your point and there is certainly no effort at playing the victim, only honest answers to that which you ask. Please tell me which part of your comment I did not engage with and I'll do my best. Or have I just shown you to be somewhat hypocritical?

To sate your interest, Sir Thomas, here's the scoop.

To sate your interest, Sir Thomas, here's the scoop.

The people here don't stoop to French to ridicule a news outlet.

Get it?

MSNBC and CNN have definately been caught in 'fake' news stories.  I cite for example, the CNN special on US Special Forces using poison gas in Laos.

Shamefull, disgraceful and for my pennies - cause to boycott their news at every level.

MSNBC 'perp' walked Karl Rove out of the White House, ala (a little frog there for ya) Chris (spittle) Matthews.

So, we have a bit of a hard time over the faux game here.

All news outlets are subject to mistakes.  Fox has made a few.  But Fox is leading in the ratings and that would mean that maybe people are tired of the old Liberal lines trying to 'socially engineer' our brains.

Read some more Thomas Jefferson.

"I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Something the French ought to think about with their socialism.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Fox has high ratings because

Fox has high ratings because it is often very entertaining, I would not deny that. Further, never before has one channel so comprehensively digested viewers from a certain sector of the political spectrum.

So, Sir Thomas, why stoop to inanities to describe FOX?

So, Sir Thomas, why stoop to inanities to describe FOX?

If you have facts, argue the facts, if you have the law, argue the law, if you have neither, pound the table?

It is a bit disingenuous to keep saying "no one has offered up an argument" to me when many have asked serious questions and had to tolerate your effite toss-off of Cambridge.

Let me know when England outstrips the US in innovation and technical advances.  I'm waiting with bated breath.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

These are good points, ACA...

These are good points, ACA, and I would add that all he's accomplished is to derail the thread, like the Troll he is.  

If he had nearly the horsepower he claims to have, he would address the subject of the thread and argue, for example, why liberal talk radio DOESN'T suck.

Derailed the thread indeed.Ma

Derailed the thread indeed.

Man I hate it when the comments have to go to page two...

LOL!

Just got on here and flat list looks like here I come already....

Dang it all. 

"SIR" Thomas? LOL! A pretentious Troll is still a Troll

"SIR" Thomas?  LOL!   A pretentious Troll is still a Troll, and a pretentious bore is still a bore.   

I was not once nationalistic

I was not once nationalistic about any of this - and avoided any predictable anti-American slurs - so to stoop to that level I'd suggest that it is you that is coming up rather short on the arguments front. God only knows what point you are hoping to make there, too.

Oh get off your English Bashing victim High Horse, Sir.

Oh get off your English Bashing victim High Horse, Sir.

You started this thread as a foreigner with an American slur, calling Fox News "faux news', using French to do it.

You throw out Cambridge as if we were supposed to bow down before the mighty God of English Education when I can find thousands of Oxford graduates who would tell you to simply 'stuff it'.

You seem to think that I or anyone else cares what England thinks about American influence over your own leaders.  You also seem to think that you have every right to come here and pitifully avoid discussion over any substantive issues being raised to you by saying, "um..you have a point," or "um...you are probably right."

Well, for your self appointed effite intellectual exuberance, I have no respect for anything you have demonstrated here on this site and if you really want pity, you'll hang around.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

&quot;You seem to think that

"You seem to think that I or anyone else cares what England thinks about American influence over your own leaders."

I was asked why I was interested, not asking anyone to care why I was interested.

"You started this tread as a foreigner with an American slur, calling Fox News "faux news', using French to do it."

I criticise English channels all the time, to take what I said as a slur on America is positively barmy. Very much starting to understand why Olbermann once referred to this site as 'whacky', now.

FYI, Tommy my lad.

FYI, Tommy my lad.

1.  I did not take umbrage at your slur against Fox News being American.  You brought nationalism into the equaiton.  Get it?  Only when you whined about the English being victimized by us bad ol' mean Americans did I take the point to the level of absurdity.

2.  I took issue with your whole approach to the site.  That of making what we would normally call a 'drive-by' post that was intended or at least had the impact of a reaction to the use of the French slam against Fox.

3.  I have brought many examples into my thinking and you only now, as far as I can tell, have responded to any substantive post I have made with your own explanation of your thinking.

4.  Barmy is as barmy does.  Hence, the comment about the High Horse of victimhood.

5.  You haven't dealt with much here except to avoid substance while decrying the lack thereof.

6.  I personally don't care whether you think the site is barmy, as I would think anyone who has to fall back on Olbermann to make some kind of point might indeed understand 'barmy' themselves.

So, here's the deal, Tommy.

Get real, get less insulting in your posts and get honest about holding your own, rather than hiding behind some virtual credential that has no merit here.

Then you will be responded to in kind.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Clearly I'm not going to find

Clearly I'm not going to find much support on a site like this but your distortions are remarkable. I have not once made England out to be a victim. I explained my interest in American politics and thought your comment about technological development etc was a lazy and utterly pointless remark which, incidentally, you have not yet explained. You are simply twisting everything because, contrary to how you wish this site to be perceived, it is not remotely tolerant of those who do not conform to your pre-conceived ideas of who should comment on the supposed liberal media.

BBC?

Doesn't the BBC qualify for this as well. They pander to liberals all over the world. We just got a report on that, did we not?

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

I would argue that you did st

I would argue that you did start it first by refusing to debate and then by choosing to harp on a few typos. You would have to be a complete moron to not understand what is being conveyed even with typos. Of course that has always been the refuge of those who pretend to know what they are talking about change the subject by attacking the way something is said instead of refuting it.

The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral

Cambridge Five

Wasn't Cambridge grad Kim Philby part of the infamous Cambridge Five?

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Serf Thomas

Sir Thomas Credentials:

Doctor of University Meditation, Bachelor of Standards and Historically Inferior Telletubbies.

Blah, blah, blah...Sir Thomas

Blah, blah, blah...Sir Thomas, we're all backward and dumb, and Newsbusters is mean. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Actually she is a liberal.You

Actually she is a liberal.You dont have to be a foaming at the mouth type to be a liberal.Unfortunately most are anymore.All you seem to see is those close minded bigots whose view is the only one exceptable to them.Being open minded and tolerant has gone out the window.Now it is about the party line.I dont have a problem when someone believes different from me.I have a problem when someone lies and distorts the truth for there own agenda.People like Micheal Moore and Ken Olbermann.I would definately like to have them in room with a locked door.We could go thru a wall to wall counseling session.Win,lose, or draw. 

She used to be a lot farther

She used to be a lot farther to the left than she is now. I guess it helps to have the truth stare you in the face on a regular basis. As for the other loons, they are able to keep their mouths foaming either by sheer disingenuousness, or by staying proactive with their ignorance.

The main lib players meet the truth with a poker-faceand the rest of the lemmings try to hide from it.

How typically "tollerant".

As is typical of a true hard-core liberal, Sir Thomas has no counter-argument and so attacks the messenger.

Air America was forced into bankruptcy because 1) they offered nothing but ridicule and hatred without any alternative ideas. 2) they ran the network like they want to run the government, always in a deficit without controlling costs.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

&quot;As is typical of a true

"As is typical of a true hard-core liberal, Sir Thomas has no counter-argument and so attacks the messenger."

That is the bottom line.There is no debate.The so called liberals just want to rant.I dont like extremes right or left.The problem is the left have taken over the Dems.All they care about is suppressing any opposing views.Especially in their own party.The "Big Tent" Dems use to talk about got shrunk to a pup tent.I not a Rush fan and I have no use for Air America but they have the right to voice their views.I sure the 2 fans of Air America enjoy all that negative stuff.I dont.

LOL, really? She was a member

LOL, really?

She was a member of the Clintoon Administration, later was a VP for AOL, and then worked for the AOL-Time Warner Foundation (none of whom are from the right side of the aisle.)

Then she worked for the far-right NY State Democratic Commitee, served as right wing loon Andrew Cuomo's Press Secretary when he ran for Governor of New York, and also worked for Human Rights Now, a decidely far-right organization.

Who are you responding too?If

Who are you responding too?If it was my comment on her being a liberal.Well my saying that was in response to this post by Sir Thomas

 "Powers is your typical Faux News Liberal i.e. not particularly liberal."

 For some reason I got kicked to page 2.Must of found out I am Black Irish.J/K

I was also responding to Seno

I was also responding to Senor Tommy's original post.

}}----> Lib Radio?

Libs do very well with TV because NBC can touch up an SUV rollover with a couple of cleverly placed pyrotechnics.

Libs plugged into Marshal McLuhan early and often.  Radio is passe, TV is now.

Talk Radio is now foreign to Libs because they embrace it only as a stepping stone to the big visual show.

Libs never weaned themselves from the Glass Teat and require visual stimulation to tell them how to feel.  Concepts require imagination.  Pictures invoke feeling.  Kumbaya dudes.

DC Talk Radio

Can someone let me know the liberal talk radio programs in the Washington, DC area?

I happened to have this on th

I happened to have this on that morning...I can't believe it.

It was delicious....

Kirsten spoke Truth to Power....as the leftists love to say.

I enjoyed the segment and was giggling as I worked.

&quot;Further, never before

"Further, never before has one channel so comprehensively digested viewers from a certain sector of the political spectrum."

That's so laughable, it isn't even funny, if that's possible. Seriously, do you people have a big box of made-up facts written on small strips of paper that you reach into to discover the talking point/rebuttal of the moment, or do you just make them up off the top of your head?

Me thinks Sir Thomas is just

Me thinks Sir Thomas is just sore because, deep down, he knows the once mighty United Kingdom is soon going to be reduced to an Islamic Caliphate, the capitol city of which will be known as Londonistan.

Let's face facts, here. If the birthrates in that unfortunate island nation continue as they are, very soon, No. 10 Downing Street is going to be occupied by some turban-wearing weird-beard named Akmed. The Royal Family is going to be packed off to someplace like India to live out their lives in exhile, and poor Sir Thomas, along with his fellow subjects, are going to find themselves living under Sharia Law.

And there won't be a bloody thing that Sir Thomas, nor the rest of the poor blokes on that sad island will be able to do about it, either. After all, his nation decided long ago that only government should have guns. Tsk, tsk.

Hey, Sir Thomas, just make sure you keep up those jizya payments to the local Islamic representative (you know, the one with the dull, rusty sword at your throat. Who knows, just maybe he will behead you last.

Holy crap, gang. Quit feeding

Holy crap, gang. Quit feeding the latest incarnation of Hater, will you please?

lol

lol

proof of media bias: calling neoStalinsts "liberals"

The fact that mainstream media still use "liberal" to refer to anti-Western radicals (most of whom advocate extensive limits on speech, elections, religion, educators, etc.) attests to journalism's incredible and blatant bias.