Go off, Bill!

[Rob67]

:nod:

Rob :cool:


Bill O'Reilly, Talking Points
___________________

Don't be a Kool-Aid (search) person. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points" memo. In 1978, more than 900 people committed suicide in Guyana (search) by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid at the behest of a religious nut named Jim Jones. Thus the term "Kool-Aid people."

They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently.

That brings us to some of the 9/11 people, who have chosen to use the tragedy that befell them to promote their ideology. About 100 of these people, less then 1 percent of the folks directly affected by 9/11, have joined a group called Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. The group's goal is "to promote a safe, open dialogue on alternatives to war" and is an avowed left-wing organization.

Peaceful Tomorrows is partially funded by the Tides Foundation, an activist non-profit group that gives big money to liberal organizations. Tides has donated more than $300 million to groups "working for social change."

Peaceful Tomorrows is also associated with the Fentons Communications PR firm, which books people on radio and TV and generally provides their clients with national media exposure. Fenton also represents moveon.org and the new lib radio deal.

It is Fenton which advises the Peaceful Tomorrow folks, who have become increasingly involved in high-profile situations like protesting President Bush's terrorism ads and criticizing Condoleezza Rice and other Republicans at the 9/11 Commission hearings.

The problem is that few, if any, of the news programs identify these 9/11 people as belonging to a left-wing cabal. dedicated to defeating President Bush for ideological reasons. Most Americans thought and still think that these people who booed and applauded during the commission hearings were just plain folks.

Now you know. "Talking Points" believes that using dead relatives to advance ideology is very disturbing. If conservatives were doing this, we'd say the same thing. There's something tawdry about it. And the deception that's been going on in the media is staggering. To be fair, some editors and producers didn't know, but some did and chose not to honestly identify this Peaceful Tomorrows bunch.

Now we contacted a number of these people to come in here and tell their side of the story. They all declined, even though it was this program who went to their rescue during the 9/11 charity debacle.

Constitutionally, these people have a right to support any ideology they want and I respect that right if it were done independently of the terror action. But to use dead Americans in a stealth attempt to influence a presidential election is flat-out immoral in my opinion. The families for Peaceful Tomorrows should be ashamed.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

I don't single people out for personal criticism very often, but tonight I'm making an exception because it's important for you to know the truth about people who can influence public policy.

Richard Ben-Veniste (search) has been the most partisan of the 9/11 commissioners, with the possible exception of Bob Kerrey. Now I like Ben- Veniste's tough questioning. What I don't like is the fact that he is selective in doing it. He only goes after Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE (D), 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Did you tell the president at any time prior to August 6 of the existence of Al Qaeda cells in the United States?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: First, let me just make certain...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question because I only have a very limited time.

RICE: I understand, Commissioner...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president?

RICE: ... but it's important that I also address -- it's also important, commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised, so I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you told the president...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will -- if you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions you have asked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: But he cupcakes the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN-VENISTE: I just wanted to say that having sat in on two days of debriefings with you, Mr. Clarke, and having seen excerpts from your book, other than questions you weren't asked, I have not perceived any substantive differences between what you have said to us and what has been quoted from your published work. Having said that, I'll cede my time to Congressman Roemer, if he'll give me his time with Condoleeza Rice.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARD CLARKE, FMR. WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF: That may not be a good deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

All right, so I want to ask Ben-Veniste about this. I mean, he thinks it's cute. I don't. But his people said his schedule did not permit it. He was far too busy. However, last night he somehow made time for "Larry King." Talk about cupcakes. Ridiculous? Richard Ben-Veniste qualifies.

Hey, you are afraid to come on here, Counselor. You are afraid to come on this program, sir.

[estranged4life]

"Don't be a Kool-Aid person...

They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently."


I watched the other night when Mr.O brought up this subject, And after the many times I have watched his show this is the most true statement I have ever heard spoken from his lips...Thus I salute him!

I once was a person who somewhat believed (Though apprehensively) what the American political world said, Until April 19,1995 & the following (And still ongoing in the state courts of Oklahoma) fiasco there-after that changed my mind and opened me to a more independent way of thinking without being influenced by <b>Anyone</b>...Kool-Aid person? I'm no longer in that catergory.

[Johnny Stew]

Don't be a Kool-Aid person.
They are folks who do not think for themselves. They are true believers committed to a political ideology or other belief system. And no matter what evidence is presented to them, they are incapable of change.

You see, Kool-Aid people most often in the political arena on both the right and the left. Don't be one. Think independently.Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

He included "the right" in there, but I haven't noticed him leveling this same criticism at the folks who blindly follow the President simply because it's "war-time" and who claim that to do otherwise would be anti-American, or those who follow only because he knows how to order the bombing of a country.

I don't single people out for personal criticism very often, but tonight I'm making an exception because it's important for you to know the truth about people who can influence public policy.

Richard Ben-Veniste has been the most partisan of the 9/11 commissioners, with the possible exception of Bob Kerrey. Now I like Ben-Veniste's tough questioning. What I don't like is the fact that he is selective in doing it. He only goes after Republicans.Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.

He's taken folks like George Clooney to task for perceived hypocrisies in their opinions and their political allegiances, and yet, I've never seen him rake someone like Bruce Willis over the coals.

Sure, he'll throw in the occasional comment about a Republican leader... but it's just that: occasional. And even then, the criticism is usually rather soft.

Talk about selective.

[estranged4life]

Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

He included "the right" in there, but I haven't noticed him leveling this same criticism at the folks who blindly follow the President simply because it's "war-time" and who claim that to do otherwise would be anti-American, or those who follow only because he knows how to order the bombing of a country.

Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.


Seems he never criticises the Republicans & Conservatives as much as he <b>wants</b> to slam the Democrats and liberals...He says a bit about how those on the right (The Republicans) dropped the ball but never slams 'em as fully as he does those on the left (The Democrats), Which brings me to a point, Just <b>who</b> was it that decided which group is on the left & right anyways? :laugh:

I do agree that alot of people hang on his word, But I am glad I'm NOT a blind Kool-Aid follower of a person who hangs on those words (Though I do like the Kool-Aid statement)...

As George Carlin once said, "I have this moronic thing I do, It's called thinking. Thus, I am able to form and make my own opinions."

[strandinthewind]

Like all of the talking heads, Billy O. is there to sell his product.

[CarneVaca]

Think for yourself. Always good advice.
And yet, if millions of people weren't hanging on his every word, and buying his vanity-piece books, and saying, "attaboy, Bill," whenever he said something they agree with, he'd be out of a job.

Ironic comments coming from Mr. O'Reilly, seeing as how he has always reserved his sharpest criticisms for Democrats and liberals.

Gee, Johnny, there you go and preempt my whole spiel. Now I have nothing to say except that I agree wholeheartedly.

Do you suppose if there were a liberal counterpart to Fox, and O'Reilly had gotten a job there, that he wouldn't be taking the very same tact against the Republicans? He's for sale.

O'Reilly has won how many Peabodys? Oh, yeah, none. He just lied about it. He's slime.

[Rob67]

Gee, Johnny, there you go and preempt my whole spiel. Now I have nothing to say except that I agree wholeheartedly.

Do you suppose if there were a liberal counterpart to Fox, and O'Reilly had gotten a job there, that he wouldn't be taking the very same tact against the Republicans? He's for sale.

O'Reilly has won how many Peabodys? Oh, yeah, none. He just lied about it. He's slime.

Well the Liberal counterpoints are CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC.

Besides...O'Reilly is in the entertainment news business. It's not his job to be fair to everyone...it's his job to speak his mind and look at current events from his perspecitive. Yes...he leans a little right from center. But, he doesn't always go with the party lines. He calls a spade a spade. I disagree with him sometimes as well. But this was one of the most dead on things he has ever said.

And...he tends to take a more conservative view because it's right! :p ;)

Rob :cool:

[The Tower]

And...he tends to take a more conservative view because it's right!

I been searching and looking and digging around for that "puke/upchucking" emoticon and, dammit, I just can't find it!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Well the Liberal counterpoints are CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC.I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

But you hit the nail on the head when you said "entertainment news," because that's exactly what it is.

O'Reilly pondered this past week why it is that Fox News is "beating the pants off of CNN," and I wanted to email him and reply that it's because Fox News, much like the ever-popular realityTV genre (specifically shows like 'Fear Factor,' 'Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire,' and 'Extreme Makeover'), tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.

It's all sensationalistic and bombastic, because that's what draws in viewers, and Bill O'Reilly has more in common with Jerry Springer, than he does with folks like Lou Dobbs or Aaron Brown.

So he can gloat all he wants about having higher-ratings, but the victory is a hollow one, given the nature of how Fox News draw in most of their viewers.

[Rob67]

I been searching and looking and digging around for that "puke/upchucking" emoticon and, dammit, I just can't find it!!!


:p

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

But you hit the nail on the head when you said "entertainment news," because that's exactly what it is.

O'Reilly pondered this past week why it is that Fox News is "beating the pants off of CNN," and I wanted to email him and reply that it's because Fox News, much like the ever-popular realityTV genre (specifically shows like 'Fear Factor,' 'Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire,' and 'Extreme Makeover'), tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.

It's all sensationalistic and bombastic, because that's what draws in viewers, and Bill O'Reilly has more in common with Jerry Springer, than he does with folks like Lou Dobbs or Aaron Brown.

So he can gloat all he wants about having higher-ratings, but the victory is a hollow one, given the nature of how Fox News draw in most of their viewers.

That's an opinion...and I would assume that people who are regular Fox viewers would probably disagree. And...using those arguments from the other side, you could say the same thing about CNN. It's all subjective.

Comparing O'Reilly to Springer is definitly off base though...have you ever seen a panel of rednecks who sleep with their immediate family members on O'Reilly? :laugh:

As far as the liberal bias on the networks.....take a glance at this site for MANY examples...http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Rob :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

I forgot to mention that Fox News employs a WWE wrestler as their financial analyst.
I think that says it all. ;)

[Rob67]

I forgot to mention that Fox News employs a WWE wrestler as their financial analyst.
I think that says it all. ;)

Is he qualified?

I would assume he isn't wearing a speedo and a cape... :D

Rob :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

That's an opinion...and I would assume that people who are regular Fox viewers would probably disagree. And...using those arguments from the other side, you could say the same thing about CNN. It's all subjective.

As far as the liberal bias on the networks.....take a glance at this site for MANY examples...http://www.mediaresearch.org/yes, of course it's my opinion, but I'd like to see how anyone could claim that CNN is sensationalistic the way that Fox News is.

It's interesting that you included a link for a website that is lead by a conservative group, and has Rush Limbaugh's seal of approval. That says a lot, doesn't it?

To be truly balanced, why not also suggest Fair.org (http://www.fair.org/)?

Comparing O'Reilly to Springer is definitly off base though...have you ever seen a panel of rednecks who sleep with their immediate family members on O'Reilly? :laugh:When his ratings start sinking, it'll only be a matter of time. ;)

(By the way, I resisted the urge to make a crack about the homophobic Southern Republicans he has on his show from time to time.) :D

[strandinthewind]

I agree the Bill O'Reilly show is biased toward old school conservatism. The Fox News Network on the other hand is a joke. It is so far to the right it is scary. I mean many times when I have visitws their sebsite, a pop up window asking for online support for the Pres. Bills comes up. That NEVER has happened at CNN or the NYTimes' sites. Moreover, Cavuto (sp.?) openly conspired a few monts ago to get the R Senators to try to block the jusdicial nominee filibusters - he essecntially promised huge amounts of coverage. He did not dop that for the left. Finally, in the industry, Fox is notorius for being a joke - a masquerade of serious journalism. So, I take it for what it is worth. :cool:

[Rob67]

It's interesting that you included a link for a website that is lead by a conservative group, and has Rush Limbaugh's seal of approval. That says a lot, doesn't it?

To be truly balanced, why not also suggest Fair.org (http://www.fair.org/)?

Well..mainly because it isn't my job to be "fair & balanced" I'm not giving out the news!!

Of course the site has Limbaugh's approval..it's main purpose is to show Liberal bias in the news media! So what?

Does this take away from the finding on the site? Or are they just dismissed as "right wing" propaganda?

Speaking of interesting, fair.org tends to have Limbaugh and O'Reilly in their crosshairs regularly. THey are entertainment news analysts that are paid to give thier point of view. They aren't journalists supposedly giving unbiased news. I have found the media Research Center, although Conservative, have targeted major news outlets and shows(ABC, NBC & CBS nightly news)...not so much entertainment organizations.

It's funny that radio hosts like Limbaugh, Savage & Hannity are on in most major markets, having gained popularity and ratings growth from the ground, up while the new Liberal network required a Billionair's financing and are only in 6 markets...with poor ratings! I heard they are even in trouble because of bouncing checks to station carriers.

Every liberal bitches and blames but I rarely hear answers to issues that would actually make me think. This is why I lean towards conservatives...less finger pointing and more action!

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Finally, in the industry, Fox is notorius for being a joke - a masquerade of serious journalism. So, I take it for what it is worth. :cool:

By "industry" do you mean "liberal media"????? ;) :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

It's funny that radio hosts like Limbaugh, Savage & Hannity are on in most major markets, having gained popularity and ratings growth from the ground, up while the new Liberal network required a Billionair's financing and are only in 6 markets...with poor ratings! I heard they are even in trouble because of bouncing checks to station carriers.

Thus, the expression, "if you want to fill your Church - preach hate."

[strandinthewind]

By "industry" do you mean "liberal media"????? ;) :laugh:

Rob :cool:

It has always been my feeling and thought, elitist though it maybe, that the common man does not want to think for himself. History shows they want it done for them. The "liberal media" is far more open with their thought process than people like Rush L., etc. The "liberal media" dares to ask why and dares to question authority. Conversely, the conservative media (which exists FAR more than the liberal media) clearly wants to force Christianity and all of the ruling authority that comes with it down the throats of everyone - and make a pretty penny while doing it even though they know it is not fair, America was NOT built on that premise, and the it is a classic do as I say not as I do schpeel. To me that is abhorrent. To others, it is God's way. The argument will never be solved, esp. as long as people can make a buck preaching the hate, like Fox News and MSNBC overtly and subtly do.

I mean, which of the true conservative values has W adhered to. Certainly he is not fiscally conservative - he is borrowing money left and right. Certainly he is not for less instrusive govt. - can you say a Const. Amend. taking away a state's right to allow gay marriage, tghe Patriot Act, etc. Finally, the Fed. Govt. is the largest it has ever been mostly due to W. None of these things in any way fit the conservative framework.

[estranged4life]

I been searching and looking and digging around for that "puke/upchucking" emoticon and, dammit, I just can't find it!!!

<html>
<div align=center>
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Puke-1.gif">

<br>
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Puke-2.gif">
</div>
</html>

[Johnny Stew]

It's funny that radio hosts like Limbaugh, Savage & Hannity are on in most major markets, having gained popularity and ratings growth from the ground, up while the new Liberal network required a Billionair's financing and are only in 6 markets...with poor ratings! I heard they are even in trouble because of bouncing checks to station carriers.

Actually, it's not funny.
It's sad and frightening that the conservative message gets that much attention and P.R..

As I said, when you make something into a three-ring circus (which O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity do), then of course people are going to watch or listen, because it's sensationalistic.
The amount of viewers or supporters doesn't mean the message is a good one.


Every liberal bitches and blames but I rarely hear answers to issues that would actually make me think. This is why I lean towards conservatives...less finger pointing and more action!

For the record, the Republicans & conservatives have historically been considered the "finger-pointers" and the ones who play "dirty pool."
And, any "action" they take almost always somehow screws over "the little guy."
Just have a look at the link in my signature (the AFL-CIO's BushWatch (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/bushwatch/)).

[strandinthewind]

<html>
<div align=center>
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Puke-1.gif">

<br>
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Puke-2.gif">
</div>
</html>

LOL - Brian J. LOL!!!!!!!!!

[Rob67]

Actually, it's not funny.
It's sad and frightening that the conservative message gets that much attention and P.R..

As I said, when you make something into a three-ring circus (which O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity do), then of course people are going to watch or listen, because it's sensationalistic.
The amount of viewers or supporters doesn't mean the message is a good one.

Your position is noted. But I disagree with it. I don't listen to Limbaugh but I catch some of Hannity's show on the way home from work. (I am not much into talk radio!) I understand he has a point of view he is trying to poresent but I never got the "sensational" side of it from him. He is just stating his opinions...and he backs them up. And, I know liberals hate personalities like Hannity, but just because they do doesn't mean the message is bad, either. Why is it bad?

For the record, the Republicans & conservatives have historically been considered the "finger-pointers" and the ones who play "dirty pool."
And, any "action" they take almost always somehow screws over "the little guy."
Just have a look at the link in my signature (the AFL-CIO's BushWatch (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/bushwatch/)).

Yeah, yeah...the left blame the right and the right blame the left....yada, yada...Both sides are guilty. Politics is sickening sometimes..... :rolleyes:

I heard a Democratci strategist the other day on the radio say that a major reason for the presidential loss in '00 and the subsequent loss of seats in Congress in '02 was because the Dems were spending too much time attacking Repub's and not getting their policy messages out. I agree. It's all you hear from Kennedy and Daschel, etc....blah, blah..."Bush is to blame for everything!! Vote for us!! We'll fix it!! We won't tell you how yet!!"

Rob :cool:

[The Tower]

He is just stating his opinions...and he backs them up. And, I know liberals hate personalities like Hannity, but just because they do doesn't mean the message is bad, either. Why is it bad?

Um, gee- I dunno......

Maybe because he's a major lying scuzzball??? The message is bad because he lies and distorts the truth.

[strandinthewind]

Um, gee- I dunno......

Maybe because he's a major lying scuzzball??? The message is bad because he lies and distorts the truth.

My fav. was when Hannity and Scarborough BOTH said the Dixie Chicks had aided SH by saying in England that they were embarrased to be from Texas because W was from Texas. I mean please! That was gross pandering to the far right to boost ratings with little care and no regard for the truth. Again, if you want to fill your church, preach hate.

[dissention]

O'Reilly needs to get some original material. The whole Jim Jones/kool-aid person schtick is Randi Rhodes'. She's been saying it for ages and uses it when talking about O'Reilly and Hannity; she must be proud that she's rubbed off on that schmuck. :lol:

[dissention]

It's funny that radio hosts like Limbaugh, Savage & Hannity are on in most major markets, having gained popularity and ratings growth from the ground, up while the new Liberal network required a Billionair's financing and are only in 6 markets...with poor ratings! I heard they are even in trouble because of bouncing checks to station carriers.

Try not to speak when you don't know what you're talking about. :wavey:

All of those radio shows are carried by Clear Channel. If you don't know all about Clear Channel, I'm not going to waste my time by explaining anything to you. Limbaugh stills ranks 21st almost ever year and when he was up against Randi Rhodes, she whipped his ass and took the number one slot. None of those conservative shows "gained popularity and ratings from the ground up," they were forced onto the market by Clear Channel. Hannity's show regularly bombs and he gets close to no listeners in his major market, New York.

Air America does not get poor ratings, either. Radio ratings come out every quarter, four times a year and their ratings won't be published until the end of June. The only way for them to measure ratings is by measuring their online streams. Ironically, their online streams were higher than Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Savage's combined. The last time they checked, they had over 2 million simultaneous streams. That's not good, that's amazing.

As for the "bounced checks" bull**** that you got directly from The Smudge Report, it's ENTIRELY false. Liu, the man who owns and operates Multicultural Broadcasting (which airs the LA and Chicago Air America) illegally double-booked the air time and broadcasted the Spanish network that they booked instead of AA. He forced security to escort the AA personnel out of the building and changed the locks to the studio. What he did was illegal; he already cashed the checks and got the money, it had nothing to do with bounced checks. HE STOLE MONEY. AA went to court and got a restraining order anf got a court order that forced Liu to turn the stations back on. Check your facts, man.

While we're talking about Savage, I'd like to hear you try to defend that rat bastard like you do every other conservative. That f*cker is plain evil.

[The Tower]

Check your facts, man.

I heard a Democratci strategist the other day on the radio say that a major reason for the presidential loss in '00 and the subsequent loss of seats in Congress in '02 was because the Dems were spending too much time attacking Repub's and not getting their policy messages out.

Conservatives don't check facts- they're too busy getting their (fraudulent) policy messages out.....

Try not to speak when you don't know what you're talking about. :wavey:

While we're talking about Savage, I'd like to hear you try to defend that rat bastard like you do every other conservative. That f*cker is plain evil.

I couldn't have said it better myself!! :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

But you hit the nail on the head when you said "entertainment news," because that's exactly what it is.

O'Reilly pondered this past week why it is that Fox News is "beating the pants off of CNN," and I wanted to email him and reply that it's because Fox News, much like the ever-popular realityTV genre (specifically shows like 'Fear Factor,' 'Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire,' and 'Extreme Makeover'), tends to pander to the lowest common denominator.

It's all sensationalistic and bombastic, because that's what draws in viewers, and Bill O'Reilly has more in common with Jerry Springer, than he does with folks like Lou Dobbs or Aaron Brown.

So he can gloat all he wants about having higher-ratings, but the victory is a hollow one, given the nature of how Fox News draw in most of their viewers.
Absoluteley Johnny. We are living in the administration of black is white and up is down. Rupert Murdoch & Co. wholeheartedly support that notion and I'm sure their bank accounts are overflowing as a result.
Lou Dobbs rocks. He is to the point and not afraid to step on any toes. But yes, it seems that the majority of people want to be entertained by their news, reveling in human suffering and embarassment.

[dissention]

I must disagree. I have never seen such blatant and gleeful bias on any of those networks, as I've seen displayed on Fox News.
And what's worse is the fact that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced."

Well, they do have the token liberal (Colmes) to balance the vile conservative (Hannity).

But you have to question how balanced that is.

Hannity is a viper and Colmes is just stupid.

Also, Rob, if you don' think Hannity is vicious, read his latest book. It's shockingly bad and erroneous, but he presents all of it as facts. or, you could read Ann Coulter, who believes that McCarthy is one of the greatest men to ever grace the earth. :eek:

[Rob67]

Try not to speak when you don't know what you're talking about. :wavey:

If everyone on this board followed that advice it would be very quite around here, me thinks! ;) :laugh:

All of those radio shows are carried by Clear Channel. If you don't know all about Clear Channel, I'm not going to waste my time by explaining anything to you. Limbaugh stills ranks 21st almost ever year and when he was up against Randi Rhodes, she whipped his ass and took the number one slot. None of those conservative shows "gained popularity and ratings from the ground up," they were forced onto the market by Clear Channel. Hannity's show regularly bombs and he gets close to no listeners in his major market, New York.

Air America does not get poor ratings, either. Radio ratings come out every quarter, four times a year and their ratings won't be published until the end of June. The only way for them to measure ratings is by measuring their online streams. Ironically, their online streams were higher than Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Savage's combined. The last time they checked, they had over 2 million simultaneous streams. That's not good, that's amazing.

Well…sure…because they are on in only 6 markets and they have been parading the talent on all the network talk shows. So, the only way I can hear them in Pittsburgh or anywhere else outside those 6 markets would be streaming internet. There is the reasoning for your numbers. I can hear Hannity or Limbaugh anywhere on the radio if I chose to so of course the internet audience will be lower.

And, where are you getting your ratings numbers??? Every thing I read puts Limbaugh at #1 in most listened to talk radio and Hannity is close behind. Here’s a list from the biggest industry trade magazine:

According to Talkers Magazine (www.talkers.com) in 2003, here are the most listened-to syndicated shows:

1. Rush Limbaugh - 14.50+
2. Sean Hannity - 10.00+
3. Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 8.00+
3. Howard Stern - 8.00+
4. Michael Savage - 6.00+
5. Art Bell - 4.25+
5. Jim Bohannon - 4.25+
5. Dr. Joy Browne - 4.25+
5. Don Imus - 4.25+
6. Neal Boortz - 2.50+
6. Ken and Daria Dolan - 2.50+
6. Clark howard - 2.50+
7. Michael Gallagher - 2.25+
7. G. Gordon Liddy - 2.25+
7. Bruce williams - 2.25+
8. Kim Komando - 1.75+
8. Tom Leykis - 1.75+
8. Jim Rome - 1.75+
8. Doug Stephan - 1.75+
9. Glenn Beck - 1.50+
9. Michael Medved - 1.50+
9. Dave Ramsey - 1.25+
10. Bob Brinker - 1.25+
10. Dr. Dean Edell - 1.25+
10. Phil Hendrie - 1.00+


While we're talking about Savage, I'd like to hear you try to defend that rat bastard like you do every other conservative. That f*cker is plain evil.

Can’t…I don’t listen to him. I couldn’t tell you where he stands on anything. But it’s nice to know that he is a “rat bastard” and that the “f*cker is plain evil.” Insightful…thanks. :rolleyes: :D

BTW, what’s with the elitist attitude and all the hatred??? Were you not hugged enough as a child??? :xoxo: :laugh:

“Yes!! Feed your hatred!! That is the path to the Dark Side!!!” ;)

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Well, they do have the token liberal (Colmes) to balance the vile conservative (Hannity).

But you have to question how balanced that is.

Hannity is a viper and Colmes is just stupid.

Also, Rob, if you don' think Hannity is vicious, read his latest book. It's shockingly bad and erroneous, but he presents all of it as facts. or, you could read Ann Coulter, who believes that McCarthy is one of the greatest men to ever grace the earth. :eek:

More name-calling and hatred...jees! :shocked: ;)

Look...I am not defending every right wing kook. Ann is a tad extreme, Limbaugh is definitly way over there at times. But, listening to Hannity, when I get the chance, I rarely see hatred. In fact, he had Kerry's campaign manager on the other day and they had a relatively calm discussion. Of course they disagreed but he got equal time to say his piece. It mainly comes from liberals...just look at all the posts on this board. In fact...go back through every post I have ever had and every post Diss has had and count the number of times the word "stupid" is used for a member of the opposite party or someone with an opposing view, for that matter.

Read virtually ALL of Tower's posts...then tell me who is more vicious... :shrug:

Rob :angel:

[dissention]

Well…sure…because they are on in only 6 markets and they have been parading the talent on all the network talk shows. So, the only way I can hear them in Pittsburgh or anywhere else outside those 6 markets would be streaming internet. There is the reasoning for your numbers. I can hear Hannity or Limbaugh anywhere on the radio if I chose to so of course the internet audience will be lower.

You seem to be forgetting that this network isn't even three weeks old, Rob.

And, where are you getting your ratings numbers??? Every thing I read puts Limbaugh at #1 in most listened to talk radio and Hannity is close behind. Here’s a list from the biggest industry trade magazine:

I was speaking about Limbaugh's home market in Florida. Check out those numbers, they're awful. The only reason that these people get such numbers is because Clear Channel monopolizes the airwaves. Do a google search on "clear channel stations" and the articles that come up about their business practices are shocking.

Can’t…I don’t listen to him. I couldn’t tell you where he stands on anything. But it’s nice to know that he is a “rat bastard” and that the “f*cker is plain evil.” Insightful…thanks. :rolleyes: :D

MSNBC gave him his own show on their channel and then fired him after a particularly nasty outburst where he told a caller that all gay people were evil and that he wished they would all just gets AIDs and die. ;)

BTW, what’s with the elitist attitude and all the hatred??? Were you not hugged enough as a child??? :xoxo: :laugh:

I got hugged...by Repugs. :laugh: Like I said, I make no bones about my hate of Republicans. It's common knowledge.

[dissention]

More name-calling and hatred...jees! :shocked: ;)

Look...I am not defending every right wing kook. Ann is a tad extreme, Limbaugh is definitly way over there at times. But, listening to Hannity, when I get the chance, I rarely see hatred. In fact, he had Kerry's campaign manager on the other day and they had a relatively calm discussion. Of course they disagreed but he got equal time to say his piece. It mainly comes from liberals...just look at all the posts on this board. In fact...go back through every post I have ever had and every post Diss has had and count the number of times the word "stupid" is used for a member of the opposite party or someone with an opposing view, for that matter.

Read virtually ALL of Tower's posts...then tell me who is more vicious... :shrug:

Rob :angel:

I don't listen to his radio show, I've only seen him on his ****ty show and he's quite the asshole. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, he just comes across as rude and treats his guests quite badly; his ego is overpowering.

I am vicious, Rob. Very vicious. I'm from Massachusetts, I'm liberal, and I live in a country that is run by Shrub and Cheney. But I'll tell you one thing: if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be just as vicious. Your disdain for liberals is as apparent as my hate for Republicans.

[Rob67]

I don't listen to his radio show, I've only seen him on his ****ty show and he's quite the asshole. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, he just comes across as rude and treats his guests quite badly; his ego is overpowering.

I dunno...after some of the things he gets criticized for by his own guests...He dishes it out just as liberals do...


I am vicious, Rob. Very vicious. I'm from Massachusetts, I'm liberal, and I live in a country that is run by Shrub and Cheney. But I'll tell you one thing: if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be just as vicious. Your disdain for liberals is as apparent as my hate for Republicans.

That's fine...you live in the greatest country in the world that allows you to be vicious if you want to. And it's okay. It's a very common trait with most extremists, left and right, to be vicious and hateful. That's why most of the people I know and I look at the extremes of both sides with humorous curiosity. I don't have "disdain" for liberals...I think their priorities are a little unbalanced...I feel the same way about the far religious right. So what?
You can't HONESTLY say that I have the same hate as you do...there are no instances in my posts where you can back that up. I have always said I try to think independently...if more of my views fall on the conservative side...so be it.

I just hope you aren't that vicious and hateful in other aspects of life! :laugh: It clouds rational judgement and would make for an unfun existance!

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

You seem to be forgetting that this network isn't even three weeks old, Rob.

Riiight....I am only commenting on the info you presented...and?



I was speaking about Limbaugh's home market in Florida. Check out those numbers, they're awful. The only reason that these people get such numbers is because Clear Channel monopolizes the airwaves. Do a google search on "clear channel stations" and the articles that come up about their business practices are shocking.

OOOHHH...okay, I see now...we're only talking about a particular market now. Who cares about his "home" market?? He's national!! I am sure there are other markets where he isn't #1, or whatever. San Fransisco popped into my head for some reason...hmmm, go figure. :laugh: I hope the Liberal talk shows go well. I hope they don't fall into the trap of blaming everything wrong in their lives on Bush. That turns most people off. If just blaming Bush for everything is your only argument then you don't have one. Bush will come and go like every other president and the next one will be blamed the same way Bush, Reagan, even Clinton by the far right were.


MSNBC gave him his own show on their channel and then fired him after a particularly nasty outburst where he told a caller that all gay people were evil and that he wished they would all just gets AIDs and die. ;)

I never heard that...but it's wrong and if he said what you claim, in that context, then he deserved to get fired. Like I said, I don't listen to him. Hate, either from the left or right, clouds rational judgement.

I got hugged...by Repugs. :laugh: Like I said, I make no bones about my hate of Republicans. It's common knowledge.

Well, if I ever met you I would offer up a hug and buy you a beer. ;) I would even humour your viciousness!! :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

It has always been my feeling and thought, elitist though it maybe, that the common man does not want to think for himself. History shows they want it done for them. The "liberal media" is far more open with their thought process than people like Rush L., etc. The "liberal media" dares to ask why and dares to question authority.

AND...the liberal media seems to always put the blame on us and refuses to accept the fact that the blame could come from either themselves or others in the world. I have to disagree with your view. I don't consider Rush and Hannity the "media." I consider them entertainers. They do pander to a particular philosophy. I admit that I am not the most articulate person when it comes to discussing numbers and dates, etc. But I have a viewpoint that is sometimes expressed better by people with the gift of gab. I think that's the draw for Limbaugh and Hannity, even Franken & Colmes, if you will.

I am all for questioning authority...that's what is so great about this country. We can question it. But, I think there is a respectful and responsible way to go about it. To be honest, the hate comes from the extremes of both sides. AND, sometimes someone on the far left accuses someone who simply disagrees with them as hateful. It reminds me of this group discussion I had back in college. I was friends with my dorm RA, Dia, who was black. He sponsored floor talks about race religion, tolerance, etc. I did not initially participate because I knew I would speak my mind and thought that if I gave my point of view then I would unjustly be labled a "racist" because I am against AA. He convinced me to share, and I did attend a meeting. And you know what?? I presented my view honestly. I presented my case and was immediately attacked as being a racist for just saying I disagreed with AA becasue it didn't address the problem. I just turned to Dia and was like "See what I mean??" I wasn't racist...I just disagreed about the effectiveness behind a policy. And I presented my case in a respectful light. Thing about Dia, he knew where I was coming from and stuck up for me in this instance. He was a good guy. I think the same thing happens with Conservatives and Liberals immediately attacking each other for having different points of view.


Conversely, the conservative media (which exists FAR more than the liberal media) clearly wants to force Christianity and all of the ruling authority that comes with it down the throats of everyone - and make a pretty penny while doing it even though they know it is not fair, America was NOT built on that premise, and the it is a classic do as I say not as I do schpeel. To me that is abhorrent. To others, it is God's way. The argument will never be solved, esp. as long as people can make a buck preaching the hate, like Fox News and MSNBC overtly and subtly do.

I also disagree with the assertion that conservative media FAR exceeds Liberal media. That would have to be a difference of perception. And, I am completely against pressing religion on anyone. I think the PC police have gotten carried away over the word "god". I have watched a lot of FOx News and CNN...I can't remember every seeing something that made me go..."You know what? That is hate!!"

I mean, which of the true conservative values has W adhered to. Certainly he is not fiscally conservative - he is borrowing money left and right. Certainly he is not for less instrusive govt. - can you say a Const. Amend. taking away a state's right to allow gay marriage, tghe Patriot Act, etc. Finally, the Fed. Govt. is the largest it has ever been mostly due to W. None of these things in any way fit the conservative framework.

Agreed on many of those points. If you can show me a fiscally conservative, strong foriegn policy Democrat, I'll gladly vote for him/her!!! :nod:

Rob :cool:

[The Tower]

More name-calling and hatred...jees! :shocked: ;)

Look...I am not defending every right wing kook. Ann is a tad extreme, Limbaugh is definitly way over there at times. But, listening to Hannity, when I get the chance, I rarely see hatred. In fact, he had Kerry's campaign manager on the other day and they had a relatively calm discussion. Of course they disagreed but he got equal time to say his piece. It mainly comes from liberals...just look at all the posts on this board. In fact...go back through every post I have ever had and every post Diss has had and count the number of times the word "stupid" is used for a member of the opposite party or someone with an opposing view, for that matter.

Read virtually ALL of Tower's posts...then tell me who is more vicious...

Odd, I thought I was really, really, being careful and holding my tongue. Imagine what you'd say if I posted what I REALLY think? Unfortunately, I can't because it would violate the spirit and rules of this board.

Anyways..... I won't speak for anyone but myself. My disgust with conservatives and republicans is absolutely justified. I see no reason on earth why I should hold back from expressing my outrage.

I'm just guessing that you, oh cool Rob, have never been a target for discrimination from the government based on who you are- if you have been, I'm sorry. However, this current administration (not to mention Bush Sr and that awful, awful Reagan) has been so deceptive and so insidious with regard to courting the wealthy, discrimination against homosexuals, destroying the environment, gutting education and the whole Iraq thing that I just cannot believe that any good person would support them in any fashion.

I know that you don't get it and you probably never will. I'm sure there are some decent conservatives out there, but I have yet to meet one. And I come from a VERY conservative family, so I know the score. It's all passive-aggressive. "Compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. Just because one has a civil demeanor does not guarantee that they are a civil person and vice versa. Republicans LOVE to demonize their opposition by using sleazy tactics- all in an effort to distort and/or deflect away from the real issues.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a liberal- I'm a libertarian.

[strandinthewind]

Rob, how can you say that. Fox news anchors openly smirk when saying either Clinton's name. Morevoer, there own anchors and reporters have openly conspired to give Republican legislation more air time. I mean that to me is a bias in the actual reporting of the news not found on CNN or even at the NY Times.

As for O'Reilly and that ilk (from both camps) - to say they are not the news is a little misleading. Clearly, people turn to them for the news and believe everything they say. AND there are FAR more of the raging conservative ones than there are raging liberal ones. I mean count them. :)

Finally, Kerry IS more old school conservative than W and his posse. I mean at least Kerry is for state's rights as opposed to W (FL election, federal def. of marriage, etc.) So, Kerry gets my vote - I men even though I know it will cost me more money in taxes in the end, it is time to pay the piper for W's economic malfeasance.

[dissention]

Riiight....I am only commenting on the info you presented...and?

You also commented on the completely false information you presented about Air America bouncing checks and getting kicked off the air. You wouldn't touch my calling it out as bogus with a ten foot pole, though.

I hope the Liberal talk shows go well. I hope they don't fall into the trap of blaming everything wrong in their lives on Bush. That turns most people off. If just blaming Bush for everything is your only argument then you don't have one. Bush will come and go like every other president and the next one will be blamed the same way Bush, Reagan, even Clinton by the far right were.

As opposed to the way conservative radio blames the country's problems on the left-wingers? If that doesn't turn off most people, it certainly won't when it comes from the liberals. However, if you took the time to listen to AA, you'd know it's much more than that; they don't just talk about Shrub and his Hitler-esque reign.

I never heard that...but it's wrong and if he said what you claim, in that context, then he deserved to get fired. Like I said, I don't listen to him. Hate, either from the left or right, clouds rational judgement.

Look for the video, it's everywhere on the net. :)

Well, if I ever met you I would offer up a hug and buy you a beer. ;) I would even humour your viciousness!! :laugh:.

Well, I don't touch alcohol, but I'd love an Evian. ;)

[dissention]

"Compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.

:lol:

I'll toast to that!!!

[Johnny Stew]

AND...the liberal media seems to always put the blame on us and refuses to accept the fact that the blame could come from either themselves or others in the world.See, that's another point where it goes both ways. I can't recall EVER reading, hearing, or seeing a conservative leader (or even a conservative mouth-piece) truly owning up to a foul-up on the part of Republicans.

If something is wrong, then find a liberal to blame.
I mean, look at how quickly the Republican party jumps to the "blame Clinton" defense. Wow, that's really constructive of them. Blame the guy who's been out of office for four years, and nevermind any mistakes or wrongdoing that has taken place in the years since then.
And how about the twelve years BEFORE Clinton was president? I don't see Republicans owning up to just exactly whose administration it was, that first trained and armed Bin-Laden and his cronies. That's conveniently pushed under the rug.

And the economy? Fahgeddaboudit! Anyone who thinks there was an economic problem during the Reagan/Bush years, are treated as if they're crazy. I've seen plenty of presumably rational Republicans who claim that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, and should have his face on Mount Rushmore for the wonderful things he did for the American people!
And any problems were merely the result of the presidency of that Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

I am all for questioning authority...that's what is so great about this country. We can question it. But, I think there is a respectful and responsible way to go about it. To be honest, the hate comes from the extremes of both sides. AND, sometimes someone on the far left accuses someone who simply disagrees with them as hateful.But see, that's the problem. I see very little "authority questioning" amongst conservatives.
It's all about status-quo with the Republican party. The rich should stay rich, and the poor should stay poor. Minorities should continue living their lowly lives, and no one should have to care how many people are living at poverty level.

If you're poor or in a minority, forget about getting any help from the Republican party.
They fight against laws that would eliminate discrimination, they fight against creating financial aid for lower-income families and students, etc., etc.

Again, and as always, I am not saying that the Democratic party is perfect. Far from it. But I sure as hell don't want to leave my future in the hands of the Republicans.
Not only won't I be allowed to marry, but I wouldn't be able to afford it anyway!

If you can show me a fiscally conservative, strong foriegn policy Democrat, I'll gladly vote for him/her!!! :nod:Well, many people feel that John Kerry is too conservative, and damn-near a Republican.
Will he be getting your vote? ;)

[Rob67]

You also commented on the completely false information you presented about Air America bouncing checks and getting kicked off the air. You wouldn't touch my calling it out as bogus with a ten foot pole, though.

Um, sure I will. I told you what I heard, and that's that. I am sure you spent a lot of time looking into it so I will take your word that it was bogus. Happy? :rolleyes: :)

As opposed to the way conservative radio blames the country's problems on the left-wingers? If that doesn't turn off most people, it certainly won't when it comes from the liberals. However, if you took the time to listen to AA, you'd know it's much more than that; they don't just talk about Shrub and his Hitler-esque reign.

If you mean Limbaugh and Hannity, etc...well sure...that's their job. They get paid to give their opinions. But, they spend most of the time talking about issues. And, I am sure the AA network is much more then Bush-Bashing...it won't last long if that's all it is. It's all a double edged sword.


Look for the video, it's everywhere on the net. :)

Again...I'll take your word for it!

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

Um, sure I will. I told you what I heard, and that's that. I am sure you spent a lot of time looking into it so I will take your word that it was bogus. Happy? :rolleyes: :)

You don't have to look into it if it comes from The Smudge Report; it'll obviously be bogus. :wavey:

[Rob67]

Anyways..... I won't speak for anyone but myself. My disgust with conservatives and republicans is absolutely justified. I see no reason on earth why I should hold back from expressing my outrage.

I'm just guessing that you, oh cool Rob, have never been a target for discrimination from the government based on who you are- if you have been, I'm sorry. However, this current administration (not to mention Bush Sr and that awful, awful Reagan) has been so deceptive and so insidious with regard to courting the wealthy, discrimination against homosexuals, destroying the environment, gutting education and the whole Iraq thing that I just cannot believe that any good person would support them in any fashion.

I know that you don't get it and you probably never will. I'm sure there are some decent conservatives out there, but I have yet to meet one. And I come from a VERY conservative family, so I know the score. It's all passive-aggressive. "Compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. Just because one has a civil demeanor does not guarantee that they are a civil person and vice versa. Republicans LOVE to demonize their opposition by using sleazy tactics- all in an effort to distort and/or deflect away from the real issues.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a liberal- I'm a libertarian.

Kind of sucks that you have to go through life with so much hate...sad.:(

Oh..if you mean by "discrimination" the fact that I am still paying for my 4 years of college where others got grants or free rides based on race, then yes I was discriminated against. And, no, I am not complaining. ;)

And, yes...I think I am pretty cool...thanks!! :)

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

You don't have to look into it if it comes from The Smudge Report; it'll obviously be bogus. :wavey:

AAAHHHH!! What did I say about assuming!!!!!! :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

AAAHHHH!! What did I say about assuming!!!!!! :laugh:

Rob :cool:

Well, Smudge makes an ass out of himself, but not me. After all, you posted the fake story from him... :thumbsup:

Oh, whatever happened with his big story about Kerry having an affair?

[Rob67]

Rob, how can you say that. Fox news anchors openly smirk when saying either Clinton's name. Morevoer, there own anchors and reporters have openly conspired to give Republican legislation more air time. I mean that to me is a bias in the actual reporting of the news not found on CNN or even at the NY Times.

I'm not claiming to know the "behind the scenes" workings. I just call it as I see it. I am not an idiot. I can tell when there is slant, be it left or right. Yes, I understand Fox caters to conservatives. So What? The networks are blatantly liberal. As far as air time. I was reading about all the visits and air time given to the the Air America talent recently. I believe they were counting the number of interviews and appearances on the networks talk shows and news programs vs. the conservative personalities like Hannity. It was like 20 to 1 or some outrageous number. And don't tell me Katie Couric is unbiased...wow.

As for O'Reilly and that ilk (from both camps) - to say they are not the news is a little misleading. Clearly, people turn to them for the news and believe everything they say. AND there are FAR more of the raging conservative ones than there are raging liberal ones. I mean count them. :)

You know what? If someone is two dumb to tell the difference then that's their fault. O'Reilly even says on his show almost every time I've seen it (which isn't often) that he is not a reporter. He's just giving his take on current events. I believe he addresses this in his mailbag segment. But, I won't deny that Conservative analysts tend to be more popular and abundant. The liberal ones that I can think of have failed (Donahue).

Finally, Kerry IS more old school conservative than W and his posse. I mean at least Kerry is for state's rights as opposed to W (FL election, federal def. of marriage, etc.) So, Kerry gets my vote - I men even though I know it will cost me more money in taxes in the end, it is time to pay the piper for W's economic malfeasance.

I need to here more of what Kerry's policies are going to be. I want to hear his long term views on the war on terror. If he's banking solely on the UN, then he hasn't got my vote. ALso, regarding spending....taking one spend crazy pres out and putting another spend crazy in isn't good enough for me. I might be more inclined to vote against Bush if Lieberman was still in it. He seems like a good, honest guy to me. I would even settle for a Libertarian or independant that had fresh ideas and wasn't weighted down by party agendas.

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Well, Smudge makes an ass out of himself, but not me. After all, you posted the fake story from him... :thumbsup:

Oh, whatever happened with his big story about Kerry having an affair?

This I don't know much about. I don't read Drudge. As in any campaign year they always try to make issues out of stuff that shouldn't be issues. Left and Right. Ridiculous... Now, if he's gettting head in the Oval Office from an intern while on the phone with foriegn nationals and members of Congress....well that's another story. :rolleyes: :)

Rob :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Rob, how can you say that. Fox news anchors openly smirk when saying either Clinton's name. Morevoer, there own anchors and reporters have openly conspired to give Republican legislation more air time. I mean that to me is a bias in the actual reporting of the news not found on CNN or even at the NY Times.

As for O'Reilly and that ilk (from both camps) - to say they are not the news is a little misleading. Clearly, people turn to them for the news and believe everything they say. AND there are FAR more of the raging conservative ones than there are raging liberal ones. I mean count them. :)

Finally, Kerry IS more old school conservative than W and his posse. I mean at least Kerry is for state's rights as opposed to W (FL election, federal def. of marriage, etc.) So, Kerry gets my vote - I men even though I know it will cost me more money in taxes in the end, it is time to pay the piper for W's economic malfeasance.

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

[strandinthewind]

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

No hiding the ball :laugh:

I was talking about Federal Income Tax!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Rob67]

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

Tax hikes do not = reduced deficit. Controlled spending does. Why raise taxes and give more money to those who mis-spend it in the first place? I think the more money that is in the consumer and business owners hands, then the more jobs are created, the more money is spent by consumers and the economy fixes itself.

Yes, Bush is spend happy, but I would be afraid that Kerry would be the same way.

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

. . .

Yes, Bush is spend happy, but I would be afraid that Kerry would be the same way.

Rob :cool:


But, Kerry would have the sense to get the money to spend through taxes. Economic theory suggests both ways cannot exist!!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

No hiding the ball :laugh:

I was talking about Federal Income Tax!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm not hiding the ball. I'm saying if the fed taxes go down, we're going to pay another way. The gas prices are higher, property taxes are higher, etc., etc. We end up paying either way. :wavey:

[The Tower]

Kind of sucks that you have to go through life with so much hate...

Well, it would suck it that were the case. However, I'm not going through life "filled with hate". I have conviction against my oppressors. There is a difference.

What I find sad is all these conservatives out there who claim to support the "fiscal" side of the equation, yet run a blind eye to the fact that they are also supporting repressive social policies. What's even more infuriating are those who support Dubya thinking he's a fiscal conservative, when nothing could be further from the truth. And so their vote is completely wasted AND they are still supporting homophobia and racism. Better to not vote at all than to support scum like Dubya.

Oh..if you mean by "discrimination" the fact that I am still paying for my 4 years of college where others got grants or free rides based on race, then yes I was discriminated against. And, no, I am not complaining.

I don't think anyone should have to pay for college. The US is one of the few remaining industrialized nations that does not cover higher education costs- which I think sucks. The richest nation in the world should be able to provide all of its citizens with higher education. Democrats would probably try to arrange it so that you DIDN'T have to take out student loans. However, I think your point is more along the lines of the idea that everyone should have to pay if you have to pay. While I don't think affirmative action is the best solution, it's better than the past. Again, I think all higher education should be free- and Republicans will never agree to that idea. They'd rather bomb Iraq.

Now, if he's gettting head in the Oval Office from an intern while on the phone with foriegn nationals and members of Congress....well that's another story.

I'd rather have a president get head and lie about it, than a president convince the country to bomb another country and lie about it any day of the week!

I need to here more of what Kerry's policies are going to be. I want to hear his long term views on the war on terror. If he's banking solely on the UN, then he hasn't got my vote.

But Bush has your vote even though he doesn't have a long term plan for the war on terror?? :confused:


And now, for the vicious stuff I'm so well noted for:

I am not an idiot.

You know what? If someone is two dumb to tell the difference then that's their fault.

I love typos. I know everyone makes them, including myself. But sometimes the irony is just too, too, fun.

XOXO

[strandinthewind]

In fairness, the Democrats never voted anything in that would have paid for all higher education, despite any game they may have talked. So, to lay that on the R's alone is unfair :shrug:

Back to the warring . . . .

[The Tower]

In fairness, the Democrats never voted anything in that would have paid for all higher education, despite any game they may have talked. So, to lay that on the R's alone is unfair :shrug:

Back to the warring . . . .

I think if given the time and the opportunity, the Dems would eventually get to full higher education coverage. Since, Republicans are pulling in the opposite direction, I think it's a fair assessment.

[strandinthewind]

I think if given the time and the opportunity, the Dems would eventually get to full higher education coverage. Since, Republicans are pulling in the opposite direction, I think it's a fair assessment.

Eight years under Clinton was not enough - and mind you I like Clinton :laugh: I mean he never even suggested it in any significant manner and sure never put Legislation in play to ensure it :shrug: So, I have to cry foul and lay this blame on both of our pathetic two parties as history demonstrates they seem to be pulling in the same direction on this one :cool:

[The Tower]

Eight years under Clinton was not enough - and mind you I like Clinton :laugh: I mean he never even suggested it in any significant manner and sure never put Legislation in play to ensure it :shrug: So, I have to cry foul and lay this blame on both of our pathetic two parties as history demonstrates they seem to be pulling in the same direction on this one :cool:

I agree with you. Definitely. Not nearly enough has been done by ALL of the past U.S. administrations.

I think my point is more along the lines of this: Any Democrat who would espouse legislation for the gov't to provide universal higher education coverage would be SLAUGHTERED by any Republican out there today as a "big government, spend-o-liberal". Look what happened to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. So, I don't think it's feasible in the current climate for any Democrat to suggest the idea- even though I know most of them are probably for it. Politics sucks, what can you say?

Also- I think things like universal health care and universal higher education are so much more worth the tax dollars than defense, subsidizing corporations, giving money to Saddam and Saudi Arabia and Manuel Noriega- et. al., etc., etc., etc.

[gldstwmn]

I love typos. I know everyone makes them, including myself. But sometimes the irony is just too, too, fun.

XOXO

You rock. :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

In fairness, the Democrats never voted anything in that would have paid for all higher education, despite any game they may have talked. So, to lay that on the R's alone is unfair :shrug:

Back to the warring . . . .

True but remember Pell grants?

[Rob67]

I think if given the time and the opportunity, the Dems would eventually get to full higher education coverage. Since, Republicans are pulling in the opposite direction, I think it's a fair assessment.

Unless universities give it away who do you want to pay for it?

Rob :cool: