• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Look out Conservative Radio - Air America is Here

faminedynasty said:
I understand fully why people get a kick out of listening to a drug-addicted freak like Rush Limbaugh. Hell, I'd give any drug addicted freak a shot on the radio.

Boy you added a lot to the debate.......:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
The only talk radio personality is listen to is Mihael Medved.............He is a Conservative and invites Liberals to call and debate him.........It is really funny when they end up getting frustrated and resort to their name calling and insults then hang up.......

I listened to Michael Medved's show driving home tonight. I was actually able to sit through several minutes of some cockamamie theory about how Valerie Plame started the whole controversy on purpose in order to cover for her "do-nothing husband," not to mention Medved's incessant prattling about the "Washington Compost" and "New York Slime." And I suppose (by the same logic the other neocons use) if I called him on it, he would probably call me anti-Semitic.

As far as I know, the only thing Michael Medved is qualified to talk about is bad movies.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I listened to Michael Medved's show driving home tonight. I was actually able to sit through several minutes of some cockamamie theory about how Valerie Plame started the whole controversy on purpose in order to cover for her "do-nothing husband," not to mention Medved's incessant prattling about the "Washington Compost" and "New York Slime." And I suppose (by the same logic the other neocons use) if I called him on it, he would probably call me anti-Semitic.

As far as I know, the only thing Michael Medved is qualified to talk about is bad movies.

Tomorrow is disagreement day at 2PM pacific time........You should give him a call and debate him on any issue...........Every time a liberal does that they end up calling him names and hanging up.....Maybe you would be different.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Tomorrow is disagreement day at 2PM pacific time........You should give him a call and debate him on any issue...........Every time a liberal does that they end up calling him names and hanging up.....Maybe you would be different.....

Does he screen his calls? I can't imagine anyone who likes intelligent discourse and debate would be inclined to listen to his dribble.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Does he screen his calls? I can't imagine anyone who likes intelligent discourse and debate would be inclined to listen to his dribble.

He calls is disagreement day and he encourages people who disagree with him on the issues to call so I don't think the calls are screened...

Try and put your bias partianship aside for a minute when you listen to him.........You have a lot of people on the left who really have no clue when it comes to political issues..........They call him and try and make a case for and issue but invariably he proves them wrong.....Like in this forum and their Leader Howard Dean they lose it, revert to insults and name calling and hang up...
 
danarhea said:
I stopped listening to most of Conservative radio a long time ago, except for Savage Nation. I was turned off by the hate that oozed from my radio every time I turned it on.

Well, today, Conservative radio got its ass literally kicked in the hate market.

My wife subscribes to The Nation magazine. Yup, she is a devout Liberal in every sense of the word. She is always trying to convince me that she is right, and always wants me to read her magazine, although she never reads The American Conservative, which is the magazine I get. Yea, the mailman always gives us funny looks. LOL. Even funnier is the night she and I were arguing politics and the police showed up at our front door. A neighbor had called in a domestic disturbance complaint on us. Thought we were about to beat the crap out of each other. Before the officer left, we were all laughing about it. My wife and I have been married for 35 years. I guess opposites attract. :)

Anyways, there was an ad for Air America in The Nation, and my wife talked me into going to the website and listening to the webcast. Guess what it was about? Some guy (I forget his name) spewing the same kind of stuff that used to turn me off about Conservative talk radio, and every other sentence, he would scream "Those sons of bitches". It went on like this for about 20 minutes, when my wife, as Liberal as he is, killed the Windows Media player screen, and said "What an asshole". LOL.

Yup, I can see it now. Conservative hate radio is dying, and Liberal hate radio is taking its place. More channels to turn off.

I occassionally tune into Savage, moreso for the commedic aspect of some of his "rants" or whinings if you will. Curiousity got the better of me, and I checked out his website. I about screamed in a fit of rage when I saw his section with the beheading videos of Nick Berg, and the others. I was horrified, because he had a fit about Al Jazeera showing them, and now he's got em?
 
Navy Pride said:
Try and put your bias partianship aside for a minute when you listen to him.........You have a lot of people on the left who really have no clue when it comes to political issues...........

You could say that about the right just as easily. Most people are pretty uninformed and vote for who they like the best.
 
hipsterdufus said:
You could say that about the right just as easily. Most people are pretty uninformed and vote for who they like the best.
sad but very true
 
debate_junkie said:
I occassionally tune into Savage, moreso for the commedic aspect of some of his "rants" or whinings if you will. Curiousity got the better of me, and I checked out his website. I about screamed in a fit of rage when I saw his section with the beheading videos of Nick Berg, and the others. I was horrified, because he had a fit about Al Jazeera showing them, and now he's got em?

regarding savage, i rarely find myself in the car when he is on, and never heard of him until he had his shortlived tv show on cable
but he is amusing

as to the video of the Beheadings
i think it must be viewed by all adult americans, especially the Soft White Underbellies
so they can understand what we are up against
reading about it, is not the same as seeing/hearing it
it is bloodcurtailing, beyond anything Hollywood has put out
the sounds of the victims is disgusting
 
DeeJayH said:
regarding savage, i rarely find myself in the car when he is on, and never heard of him until he had his shortlived tv show on cable
but he is amusing

as to the video of the Beheadings
i think it must be viewed by all adult americans, especially the Soft White Underbellies
so they can understand what we are up against
reading about it, is not the same as seeing/hearing it
it is bloodcurtailing, beyond anything Hollywood has put out
the sounds of the victims is disgusting

Man, my stomach lurched just reading your e-mail.

I watched it some time ago. I'm not sure I would go so far as to recomend it to all Americans, any more than I would want all Americans to see the Abu Ghraib torture pictures/video.
 
hipsterdufus said:
You could say that about the right just as easily. Most people are pretty uninformed and vote for who they like the best.

No one is saying the system is perfect but its the best one going........
 
hipsterdufus said:
Man, my stomach lurched just reading your e-mail.

I watched it some time ago. I'm not sure I would go so far as to recomend it to all Americans, any more than I would want all Americans to see the Abu Ghraib torture pictures/video.

Every time I hear about Abu Ghraib I laugh.......Hell I was tortured more in survival school before I went to Nam...............If you want to hear about real torture as McCain or the guys that were held in the Hanoi Hilton........Now that is real torture..........
 
Navy Pride said:
Every time I hear about Abu Ghraib I laugh.......Hell I was tortured more in survival school before I went to Nam...............If you want to hear about real torture as McCain or the guys that were held in the Hanoi Hilton........Now that is real torture..........
There are reports of people being killed during interrogations at Abu Ghraib. I have to assume that survival school wasn't quite as rough on you. And I also assume you'll discount the reports as a liberal conspiracy to bring down an otherwise innocent president Bush. That's ok.

I like Senator McCain, because he's so strongly opposed to Bush's torture campaign. Now if Bush would only listen to him......
 
Binary_Digit said:
There are reports of people being killed during interrogations at Abu Ghraib. I have to assume that survival school wasn't quite as rough on you. And I also assume you'll discount the reports as a liberal conspiracy to bring down an otherwise innocent president Bush. That's ok.

I like Senator McCain, because he's so strongly opposed to Bush's torture campaign. Now if Bush would only listen to him......

Do you ever post a link for your lies?
 
DeeJayH said:
regarding savage, i rarely find myself in the car when he is on, and never heard of him until he had his shortlived tv show on cable
but he is amusing

as to the video of the Beheadings
i think it must be viewed by all adult americans, especially the Soft White Underbellies
so they can understand what we are up against
reading about it, is not the same as seeing/hearing it
it is bloodcurtailing, beyond anything Hollywood has put out
the sounds of the victims is disgusting


I respectfully disagree. I think the fact that they use this archaic method would make MOST normal thinking Americans know what we are up against. It just shocked me to see them there, because I remember Al Jazeera getting blasted by Savage and others. I have a cast iron stomach, but I couldn't watch that. Next thing, I would be on a plane to Iraq (waiting until PMS set in of course) and kill anything with a gun that isn't American, and that might not be a good thing, or would it? and I am JUST kidding, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch.
 
debate_junkie said:
I respectfully disagree. I think the fact that they use this archaic method would make MOST normal thinking Americans know what we are up against. It just shocked me to see them there, because I remember Al Jazeera getting blasted by Savage and others. I have a cast iron stomach, but I couldn't watch that. Next thing, I would be on a plane to Iraq (waiting until PMS set in of course) and kill anything with a gun that isn't American, and that might not be a good thing, or would it? and I am JUST kidding, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch.

Reading through the posts, a few things occurred to me. Rush went from being a disc jockey in California to promo director for the Kansas City chiefs and ultimately was awarded an opportunity to do news with commentary in the early 1980's in Sacramento. His show was nationally syndicated during the Reagan administration and was rapidly gaining stations at an unprecedented rate. By Bush the 1st's administration he had nailed the No. 1 spot and has held it since 1984 or 85. His onetime audience--never matched by anybody--exceeded 30 million people daily. He literally pioneered the talk show format as wel know it today. His audience base has diminished by a third with so many other really good talk show hosts coming on board--Medville, Hannity, Ingram, Savage, etc.--but Rush still has the #1 spot. Scorn him all you wish, but you don't enjoy more than 20 years in the #1 slot unless you have something of substance to offer.

Why is conservative talk radio so successful and liberal talk radio so pitiful? It is I think because conservative radio offers ideas, principles, values, concepts of substance. Yes all are highly critical of high profile liberals and liberal values and this is, I think sometimes unfairly, characterized as 'hate radio', but you are also informed of real things happening in the real world. Conservatives don't take their marching orders from talk radio. Talk radio is successful because it reflects conservative views and conservatives can't hear their views expressed anywhere else on the radio. Fox News whips butt among cable TV news networks too because, along with the liberal point of view, it does offer a conservative point of view that nobody else offers. It was a breath of fresh air to millions of conservatives and immediately came under attack by liberals who don't want the conservative point of view presented in any way other than with contempt and derision.

Liberal talk radio, conversely, does not offer much in the way of ideas, principles, values, and concepts of substance but devotes most of its energy to attacking conservatives, most particularly conservatives who have been elected to office. When that is all you hear on liberal talk radio, it becomes very tiresome very quickly, even to liberals. So their ratings suck, they can't pull in substantial advertisers, and they are dependent on the donations of rich liberals to stay on the air.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Man, my stomach lurched just reading your e-mail.

I watched it some time ago. I'm not sure I would go so far as to recomend it to all Americans, any more than I would want all Americans to see the Abu Ghraib torture pictures/video.

How could you even compare an innocent man being beheaded slowly with a dull buoy knife to Abu Ghraib?

I'm against torture, but to put the aforementioned reprehensible act on the same moral plain is inane.

I'm sure Nick Berg would have much preferred to have been forced to make a human pyramid and wear underwear on his head than the alternative.
 
I have to admit I have mixed emotions about the use of torture to gain information.....

That said I have a question for my liberal buddies.........If we had one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01 in custody on 9/10/01 and by using torture to get the info out of him and prevent the attacks that killed 3,000 innocent civilians would you liberals be all right with that?

Yes or no please........
 
Navy Pride said:
I have to admit I have mixed emotions about the use of torture to gain information.....

That said I have a question for my liberal buddies.........If we had one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01 in custody on 9/10/01 and by using torture to get the info out of him and prevent the attacks that killed 3,000 innocent civilians would you liberals be all right with that?

Yes or no please........


It's not a yes or no question when you have so many qualifiers and the benefit of hindsight.

First if we "had one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01" in custody on 9/10/01, he wouldn't be "one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01". He would be a 'Muslim in custody'.

Second, what if he told you that he was planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge during morning rush hour, just so that you would stop torturing him? Remember, you wouldn't keep torturing him until he gave you information about flying airplanes into buildings, because that hadn't happened yet. At what point would you know if you had the correct information about something that might happen in the future?

Third, if and that's a big if, you believed him, all preventive efforts would be at or near the Brooklyn Bridge and you would have done nothing to stop the tragedy of 9/11/01.
 
BWG said:
It's not a yes or no question when you have so many qualifiers and the benefit of hindsight.

First if we "had one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01" in custody on 9/10/01, he wouldn't be "one of the terrorists that knocked down those towers on 9/11/01". He would be a 'Muslim in custody'.

Second, what if he told you that he was planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge during morning rush hour, just so that you would stop torturing him? Remember, you wouldn't keep torturing him until he gave you information about flying airplanes into buildings, because that hadn't happened yet. At what point would you know if you had the correct information about something that might happen in the future?

Third, if and that's a big if, you believed him, all preventive efforts would be at or near the Brooklyn Bridge and you would have done nothing to stop the tragedy of 9/11/01.

Well one of the terrorist missed his flight on 9/11/01 and if wwe had him in custody on 9/10/01 and could have gotten the info out of him by torture would that justify it..............

Second and third that is why you have to get accurate information, and it has been done in many cases.........
 
aquapub said:
"Conservative radio is dying" is not an accurate statement. "Liberal radio and both its listeners have taken hate radio far passed anywhere conservatives ever even attempted" would be more accurate.

Ratings for liberal radio are embarrasing. Almost as bad as liberal books. Even though liberal writers get gigantic multi-million-dollar grants upfront, instant glorification from the New York Times, and gleaming, softball interviews from biased, left-wing activists like Katie Couric, their books almost always bomb. My conclusion from this lengthy history is that liberals don't read. Nothing else could explain it. Conservatives have a very hard time getting published (or at least they did until Regnery came along), almost never get grants from anyone, get downplayed by the media, and yet they still sell books like nothing I've ever seen.

Conservatives read. Liberals scream.

As far as talk radio goes, liberals have only been in the business for a few years. It takes time. You should recheck your facts on books though.

Here is the NYT top five Hard cover - non fiction

1. THE TRUTH (WITH JOKES), by Al Franken
2. THE YEAR OF MAGICAL THINKING, by Joan Didion
3. TEAM OF RIVALS, by Doris Kearns Goodwin
4. THE WORLD IS FLAT, by Thomas L. Friedman
5. DRIVEN FROM WITHIN, by Michael Jordan, edited by Mark Vancil

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/

Also, Bill Maher was recently on with New Rules.

Here's a little snippet from the Boston Globe on the subject:


Liberal authors triumphant as US bookshelves lean left


This week, "Treason" by the popular conservative agitator Ann Coulter clocks in at number five, but no other right-leaning political book appears anywhere in the top 30. The top position belongs to Al Franken's "Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)," a satirical body blow to the conservative punditry. A more cerebral attack on the same conservatives, Joe Conason's "Big Lies" registers at number eight.

"Thieves in High Places," by Texas populist Jim Hightower is at number nine, and "Stupid White Men" by documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, which had dropped off the list only to surge back in recent weeks, is at number 15. Meanwhile, Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History," now at number four, continues its four-month drive to becoming one of the top sellers of the year.

This is where liberal talk radio started in 2003. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it's nothing like this picture.

As of last May, the top 44 radio stations of 50,000 watts and above owned by the five largest ownership groups carried 312 hours of nationally syndicated conservative talk and five hours of nationally syndicated liberal talk, according to statistics quoted at a Senate hearing

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...thors_triumphant_as_us_bookshelves_lean_left/
 
hipsterdufus said:
As far as talk radio goes, liberals have only been in the business for a few years. It takes time. You should recheck your facts on books though.

Here is the NYT top five Hard cover - non fiction

1. THE TRUTH (WITH JOKES), by Al Franken
2. THE YEAR OF MAGICAL THINKING, by Joan Didion
3. TEAM OF RIVALS, by Doris Kearns Goodwin
4. THE WORLD IS FLAT, by Thomas L. Friedman
5. DRIVEN FROM WITHIN, by Michael Jordan, edited by Mark Vancil

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/

Also, Bill Maher was recently on with New Rules.

Here's a little snippet from the Boston Globe on the subject:



This is where liberal talk radio started in 2003. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it's nothing like this picture.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...thors_triumphant_as_us_bookshelves_lean_left/

All that proves is liberals like to give away their money like they did making Michael Moore rich..........
 
hipsterdufus said:
As far as talk radio goes, liberals have only been in the business for a few years. It takes time. You should recheck your facts on books though.

Here is the NYT top five Hard cover - non fiction

1. THE TRUTH (WITH JOKES), by Al Franken
2. THE YEAR OF MAGICAL THINKING, by Joan Didion
3. TEAM OF RIVALS, by Doris Kearns Goodwin
4. THE WORLD IS FLAT, by Thomas L. Friedman
5. DRIVEN FROM WITHIN, by Michael Jordan, edited by Mark Vancil

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/

Also, Bill Maher was recently on with New Rules.

Here's a little snippet from the Boston Globe on the subject:



This is where liberal talk radio started in 2003. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it's nothing like this picture.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...thors_triumphant_as_us_bookshelves_lean_left/

There were several attempts at liberal talk radio back in the 1980's, shortly after Rush made his debut, and all bombed.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There were several attempts at liberal talk radio back in the 1980's, shortly after Rush made his debut, and all bombed.

Bottom line the American people, especially our troops don't like the hate rhetoric that the left espouses......That is why it will always bomb......
 
SixStringHero said:
How could you even compare an innocent man being beheaded slowly with a dull buoy knife to Abu Ghraib?

I'm against torture, but to put the aforementioned reprehensible act on the same moral plain is inane.

I'm sure Nick Berg would have much preferred to have been forced to make a human pyramid and wear underwear on his head than the alternative.

Six String - you're right of course. I was thinking as a parent when I made that reply. I make a conscious effort to turn off the news any time that Abu Ghraib stories our on, because I don't want my children to see torture on TV.
It's even harder when my children ask "Are these people (the soldiers at Abu Ghraib shown torturing prisoners) bad daddy?"
 
Back
Top Bottom