The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio
Leftists love to talk about “diversity.” What they prefer to practice, however, is strict intellectual and moral conformity. That is, they are all for diversity, especially for enforcing diversity, when its a question of assuring that their agenda is being carried out. But for anyone who wishes to introduce a competing point of view, the advice is akin to that advocated by Wittgenstein at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen” — “That about which we cannot speak we must remain silent.”
Wittgenstein sought to exclude the whole realm of ethics and metaphysics from the kingdom of speech; our politically correct leftists wish to exclude anything that doesn’t conform to their political agenda. Both ambitions are preposterous, but leftists never seem to recognize this. (We don’t have Wittgenstein’s opinion on political correctness, but it only took him a few years to reject the teachings of “the author of the Tractatus”). Usage note: attentive readers will register the fact that I say “leftists,” not “liberals.” Conservatives, I know, often speak about the depredations and bad behavior of “liberals.” But it has been a long time since the people whom we have called liberals were interested in freedom or liberty. What they are interested in, on the contrary, is pursuing the illiberal agenda of control.
This is a large and melancholy subject. For the moment, I want to instance the growing attack on one of the most fecund sources of genuine diversity opinion, talk radio. Leftists hate talk radio. Why? Because it represents an independent source of opinion, a source, moreover, that is at once extremely popular and (from the perspective of the leftists) politically heterodox.
It’s possible that leftists hate talk radio because it is the mouthpiece of anti-intellectual churls and their sycophants.
The leftists hate talk radio because they’re anti-intellectual themselves — they abhor any kind of opposition and anything that contributes to free debate and free exchange of diverse ideas, opinions and analyses, so they would love to silence any public forum that allows the opposition to express itself. The main reason, however, they hate talk radio is that they want a monopoly on the information stream so they could completely control public opinion and manipulate it to implements their favorite policies, push their political agenda and determine which party and candidates win elections.
After taking over academia, most of TV, most of printed journalism, and the pop culture, they want to complete their takeover by eliminating talk radio, the only medium dominated by the opposition. They simply want to silence the opposition all together — that’s their motivation, and there’s absolutely nothing intellectual about it, their drive is as intellectual as the KGB or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Turkish Islamists that fight the media by “legal” means so as to force the media to never criticize the government. Only the Western leftists do it in reverse order — in dictatorships there’s first a revolution or a coup and then the Party takes over the information stream and silences the opposition. In the West they know a revolution or a coup couldn’t work unless they first take over the culture (see Antonio Gramsci for details), so silencing the opposition and becoming a one-party culture comes before becoming a one-party system politically. Of course, theoretically the opposition could still win elections, but practically it will be extremely difficult if the opposition isn’t allowed to speak out anywhere.
The leftist really ought to take a day and read up on how one party systems of government have worked out throughout history. True often it starts with benevolent elitist intellectuals with ‘good intentions’ but always the benevolent elites get supplanted by tyrants such as Mao, Stalin, Caligula, Hitler who grab the reins of power and then the fun begins.
What the elites on the left ought to consider is that usually some of the first to go when the tyrant arrives are the rich, the elite intellectuals, the professional class, and of course purging the political class. Unfortunately the leftist elites with righteousness and diversity on there side today, are utterly clueless of what will happen to them once THEY succeed in taking total control. Gosh I’d love to be around to watch them curl up and cry like babies when the brown shirts or whatever they are called then come for them. Alas I will most likely go down with a gun in my hand or if less fortunate in a gulag re-education camp.
The difference between people inclined to the Left and folks inclined to the Right is this: Leftists happily imagine that after the revolution people exactly like themselves will be in power. Therefore they embrace the State and its mistress, Big Government. Rightists fearfully imagine that people unlike themselves might be in power…
Now who’s more realistic, people on the Left or on the Right?
Leftists do not care if leftist government does not work. All they care about is them having power and control in perpetuity.
No, it’s because leftists, like nature, abhor a vacuum.
The “leftists” being described in this article and in your comment do not exist in any significant numbers, if they exist at all. I’m a liberal. I don’t want to end talk radio, I actually enjoy it sometimes, but even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t want to end it because I BELIEVE IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT as most liberals do. The “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t being considered by anyone anymore, and when it was, it was broadly unpopular on the left, because again, most liberals take the 1st amendment very seriously. You imagining they don’t doesn’t make it so. The New York Times, supposedly every conservative’s worst enemy, have never supported any government restriction on right-wing radio. All of the recent attempts to shut down Rush Limbaugh have been by boycott, a free market strategy that has nothing do to with Rush’s rights and everything to do with the rights of consumers and businesses acting in a free market economy to put or not put their dollars where they want to.
I attended a very liberal college, and there were several very active conservative groups on campus which were funded and encouraged by a faculty that almost uniformly disagreed with them. They were debated and disagreed with but no one ever tried to “shut them down,” because again, liberals tend to take the 1st amendment pretty seriously. How do you think a liberal student group would fair at Bob Jones University or similar institutions? How have gay/ straight alliances faired at high schools in conservative areas?
This article, and your comment, go on and on about what “Leftists” believe without providing any evidence they actually believe it. I have this experience all the time when I listen to talk radio, which I do because unlike your imaginary version of liberals, most of us are interested in hearing opposing points of view. Constantly I hear “liberals” this, and “liberals that” and these “liberals” never sound anything like me or any liberal I know. I always end up wondering why are these people arguing with imaginary opponents? Don’t they have real opponents to argue with?
Thank goodness there has finally been a sensible comment in this thread. I happen to be a liberal and while most of my friends are, I have quite a few who aren’t. The so-called liberals referred to in this screed are not like any “fellow-travelers” that I know. The main difference I see between left and right in this country is that the left has at least some recognition of the truth, something the right-wingers couldn’t care less about. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Or it might be that the leftists are merely self-righteous, supercilious pricks who can’t tolerate opposing opinions.
“the mouthpiece of anti-intellectual churls and their sycophants”
Air America folded.
+5 Insightful.
Not to worry – we churls, control freaks, and airhead sycophants have NPR, Mother Jones, The Nation, NYT, etc. to give voice to our progressive views! With the objective and civil discourse being broadcast from such fine outlets, who needs talk radio? Let’s hope that this brave administration in its second term imposes (by executive order if necessary) some “sensible limits” on First Amendment freedoms by restricting (i.e., shutting down) the subversive New Media and talk radio. If it’s not in NYT, then it never happened.
Why is everyone yelling at me? This is the Mother Jones comment board, right? No? Anyway, enough playing around on the internet for now – I need to drive my Subaru Outback (you know the one – with the “COEXIST” and “Dog is my co-pilot” bumper stickers) to Whole Foods to pick up some organic wheatgrass and vegetarian dog food, and then get the poodles into their (sustainably farmed) wool sweaters and head down to the dog park for their walkie.
Thanks for reading.
(My previous post was intended as satire, in case any readers were in doubt.)
It’s amusing that you’re admitting that the left can’t win an argument against the allegedly uneducated “anti-intellectuals” in talk radio.
Got any other knee-slappers you’d like to share with us?
One reason that leftists don’t win debates on talk radio is that they are never allowed to speak their mind. Even greats like Mark Levin are rude and obstructive, resorting to name calling and shaming when they can’t think of anything else to say. I’m glad that there is talk radio. I just with that I could hear callers talk.
The point here is that left wing radio has failed to gain much traction. Sure a left wing caller to a right wing show isn’t likely to get very far, just as a right winger wouldn’t be very effective on a left wing show. The larger point is that the left hasn’t had much success with talk radio as a medium.
*Someone’s* never listened to a WCPT stream of Stephanie Miller or Bill Press.
If it’s not streamed live on the internet, then it not only never happened (that way,) it’s corporate propaganda for intellectually challenged JBS/KKK-type dupes and Meritocracy Myth-believing Economic Stockholm Syndrome sufferers, who can actually be convinced The President of the United States should resign because a singer lip-synced a performance.
Pretty much par for the course when a “right-winger” tries to say anything on any of the TV or cable news shows (with the only occasional exception being Fox).
It’s an n-shaped curve.
It’s really difficult to win an argument with somebody who’s much smarter and better informed than you. It gets easier for a while as your opponents smartness decreases. Then there comes a point where it gets difficult again.
It’s hard to win an argument, or even have an argument with someone too far from you in smartness in either direction.
the UK leftists are an even bigger joke
Prove it. Enage their ideas on the merits and make an argument… unless you can’t.
The main difference between Left and Right is that you think the best way to win the argument is to silence our side. We think the best way to win is to let people hear your side speak.
“The main difference between Left and Right is that you think the best way to win the argument is to silence our side. We think the best way to win is to let people hear your side speak.”
We think the best way to win is to let people hear your side speak what they really beleive.
FIFY
Ah, the old “I’m rubber, you’re glue” gambit. That’d work well if we were in grade school, but we’re not (at least I’m not, I can’t make the assumption about you).
Problem is your actions belie your words. If you really thought you could win a straight argument against Rush or Breitbart you’d be trying to make sure their voices were heard, not constantly try to shout them down. You also wouldn’t have to keep finding new ways to avoid saying what you really believe (current best example, Obama claiming to be pro-Second Amendment).
A few years back, Rush Limbaugh was brought on via live feed to a political talkshow of some sort (I forget the channel, but I saw it). Limbaugh did his usual atrocious monologue, but evidently did not realize that the discussion was, unusually for him, about to become authentically two-way. James Carville was on the panel, and he completely annihilated Limbaugh in ca. 7.5 seconds: nothing left but bits of lard and scattered cigar butts. In a real, live debate, Limbaugh couldn’t even function: same goes for his ideological compatriots, including the hack who wrote the article above. And remember Bill O’Reilly’s glorious victory over Al Franken on C-Span? Didn’t think so.
Of course, to you mouth breathing leftists there never has been a debate between a lefty and righty that the right won.
Isn’t it interesting that the author is right tho. You people lie, cheat and steal to gain every inch in every debate and vote. You people simply execute (parden the pun) your alinsky script to the letter and play to the lowest information voter (read taker) you can fool that you’re right. You’re subversives and dividers at best.
It’s possible that leftists hate talk radio because it is the mouthpiece of anti-intellectual churls and their sycophants.
Considering (especially academic) leftist admiration for Mao Zedong’s rather anti-intellectual Anti-Rightist Campaign and Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, perhaps you’re projecting just a bit.
No, he just explained why they hate talk radio. Try to keep up. And the fact they hate it isn’t really the point: that they want to annihilate it is the point.
Trying to silence competing voices is a worse thing than being “anti-intellectual”, you crummy little Leftist. At least it is in my country, the United States. I guess things are just different, wherever it is you come from.
But more likely they hate if because they can’t muster a better counter argument than to call people names.
It’s possible that leftists hate talk radio because it is the mouthpiece of anti-intellectual churls and their sycophants.
Let’s look at the article says about Speakeasy, a talk radio show.
Who among these can I find among authors at Amazon?
Andy McCarthy- author
Frank Gaffney- author
David Horowitz- author
Michael Ledeen- author
Jack Cashill- author.
J. Christian Adams- author
Robert McFarlane- author.
Michelle Bachman- author.
Not to mention Roger Kimball, the author of this article.
It would appear that “anti-intellectual churls” are intellectuals who have the effrontery to disagree with you. Leftists find it hard to believe that someone with a functioning brain can actually disagree with them. Lemme tell ya, it ain’t that difficult to find reasons to disagree with lefties. Speaking as a former lefty, mind you.
AnnCoulter, Glenn Beck, and Ayn Rand are “listed as authors on Amazon.”
Proving nothing but, any idiot can get a book published if it’s bad enough – or a talk radio show on the air.
That’s a subtle and well-reasoned “argument” you make there, skippy.
NOT.
What you’ve done is offer another example of a lefty conducting a drive-by sliming, perhaps thinking he is delivering a bone-crush riposte, and using an obscure and faux-witty nick to boot.
Epic fail?
No.
Puny fail.
Hmm. One of the things that finally pushed me off the fence to being a conservative was simply that I found conservatives so much more interesting to talk to. They talked about ideas while liberals talked about feelings.
You can always find simpletons on the other side who will confirm your prejudices.
As an aside, after thirty years as a practicing psychologist one of the conclusions I came to was that “feelings” were grossly overrated.
Normal patriotic Americans scoff at and despise liberal media because its the home of weak little sissified boys who claim to be men and nasty, skanky foul mouthed witches . You “intellectuals” buy into socialistic philosophies written in the blood of millions and discredited years ago. You are destroying our heritage and spending our children’s future. You’re dumber than hell and your arrogance is the empty boast of fools. You are parasites living off the freedom brave men bled and died to preserve and strong industrious men built with the sweat of their brows. You’re nothing…less than nothing. Go away maggots.
I’ve often noted that our superior intellects from the Left have desperately sought out a Rush Limbaugh type and have never remotely found one.
Perhaps its not anti-intellectualism but insane jealousy to be so badly beaten on the level playing field that makes the Leftists whine so.
There are plenty of media outlets that I find stupid or anti-intellectual, but I just ignore those web sites. I could care less what those people have to say or think. I find it hilarious that leftists spend their time monitoring web sites that they believe are intellectually inferior just so they can get their comment at the top of the page. Stourley, if conservatives are so stupid, why do you care what we think? Just the fact that you waste your time monitoring this site to get your comment at the top proves that you care what we think and affirms our intellectual superiority, not to mention that it reinforces the thesis of this article.
hitler, stalin, castro, chairman mao, etc., etc. all found a way to silence their critics. Do you suppose that is what the “left” is ultimately after? With some on the left I am acquainted with, I do.
Actually the churls are on the left and refuse to discuss anything w/o cries of racism and homophobia.
That’s just funny. Leftists just love fact based reasoning, right? That’s why they burn books and kill history teachers
when they come to power. That’s why they purge the population of anyone intelligent enough to think cor themselves and reject the party line. Then they rewrite history to reflect the way they wish things had gone. But you know what?
No matter how you rewrite communism and fascism. It always ends in two ways – upside down in the public square or
In a bunker.
” Then they rewrite history to reflect the way they wish things had gone. ”
Actually, they did this first to separate the people from it’s founding. This is why your typical liberal propaganda will either have no cites to the people it’s talking about, only cite other liberal propaganda, or horribly takes the original people out of context.
“Anti-intellectualism” a term used by lazy liberals to club a person over the head with who disagrees with them!
i am still having problems with the libral attitude that truth is some kind of conservative terrorist activity. Talk radio is first amendment free speech, pure and simple. You are not required to like what is said. Libral imitation intellectualism can not redefine truth as anything but truth as 2+2= 4 not 6+ in the real world.
I suppose Roger Kimball thinks that quoting Wittgenstein gives his garbage some kind of intellectual credibility; you have to marvel at someone whose arguments are so ridiculous but who feels compelled to quote a major philosopher to give them a sheen of intelligence.
Right-wing talk radio dominates talk radio generally. This dominance is not a feature of “freedom” but of corporate control over the public airwaves, for which these blowhards pay nothing. If this intellectual fraud Kimball really valued accessibility and freedom of speech, he would ask why almost every talk-radio station features the same hosts and the same points of view. In his skewed world, homogenous talk radio–all featuring Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck–is somehow a sign of freedom. But it’s the vague group of “leftists” whose call for diversity is really a desire for control. In my area, there is not a single “leftist” represented on talk radio; instead it is wall-to-wall right wing screeching, from morning to night. Yet I’m supposed to celebrate this as “freedom” rather than asking why there is not a single divergent point of view represented in a market of several hundred thousand people.
Kimball is a fool (sorry–is that an “ad hominem” attack here); his argument is the usual celebration of “freedom” and “free speech” that in reality promotes the circumstances that destroy it. Tricking up this nonsense with Wittgenstein doesn’t disguise the fact that it’s intellectual garbage.
Leftists hate talk radio because it spews lies, paranoia, hatred, division, and racism.
Here’s a test of tolerance. There are numerous “pro life” elected Democrats, among them Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Name a prominent elected Republican who’s pro-choice.
Right-wing radio fills liberals inspires incandescent hatred in liberals. Hate Radio must be stopped. Roger’s Hate Rules will be next. Only then will our leftist fellow citizens find the sweet calm of universal conformity.
I did listent to Ruush once.
I neve knew before then that it was possible to be incandescent with boredom.
You of course are aware that boredom indicates a lack of imagination.
I meant the radio show not the Candian rockers. But the sentiment does apply eqauly well to both.
Perhaps you should try Rush again after you become a grown-up.
And learn to spell.
What the Canadian rockers?
My cousin let me borrow his copy of 2112, but around that time I fell for the shorter sharper pleasures of the Two Tone record label. I won’t be going back.
Interesting aside, “2112″ was greatly inspired by Ayn Rand and is a song/album in opposition to the sort of government you appear enamored with.
“In the year 2062, a galaxy-wide war results in the union of all planets under the rule of the Red Star of the Solar Federation. By 2112, the world is controlled by the “Priests of the Temples of Syrinx,” who determine the content of all reading matter, songs, pictures – every facet of life.
A man discovers an ancient guitar and learns to play his own music. Thinking he has made a wonderful discovery that will be a boon to humanity, he goes to present the guitar to the priests of the Temples, who angrily destroy it and rebuke him for unearthing one of the “silly whims” that caused the collapse of the previous civilization. He goes into hiding and dreams of a world before the Solar Federation. Upon awakening he becomes distraught and commits suicide. As he dies, another planetary battle begins resulting in the ambiguous ending “Attention all planets of the Solar Federation: We have assumed control.” (This spoken section was created by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson reportedly “messing around with a tape recorder.”) In the “VH1 Classic Albums” series about the album, Neil Peart confirmed that he intended the ending to be a happy one as the people of the Solar Federation are liberated.
On the album, Peart credits “the genius of Ayn Rand.” Rand, a Russian-born Jewish-American novelist and creator of the philosophy of Objectivism, wrote a novella titled Anthem (itself adopted as the title of another Rush song, from the album Fly By Night) from which Peart borrowed the broad strokes of the plot. This caused the band significant negative publicity, labelling the band as right-wing extremist, the british NME even making allusions to Nazism.[3]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2112_%28album%29
Yes I read that yesterday too. My problems with rush are entirely musical though.
The second link to The Speakeasy is kaputt.
Where’s the beef Roger?
The owner of a talk radio station will possibly change what it broadcasts. Not a state regulator, not an evil letfwing astro-turf campaign,THE OWNER.
And you want The People to rise-up, (well email in), and stop the owener doing what he damn well wants with his radio station. And the reason for this is that this radio station owner is, in your veiw, politically heterodox.
Outstanding.
*Yawn*
The scary thing is that English IS a first language for Mr Nemo.
“not an evil letfwing astro-turf campaign”
Perhaps you missed the part where the new owner is a left wing activist out to cripple conservative talk radio.
Usage note: attentive readers will register the fact that I say “leftists,” not “liberals.” Conservatives, I know, often speak about the depredations and bad behavior of “liberals.” But it has been a long time since the people whom we have called liberals were interested in freedom or liberty. What they are interested in, on the contrary, is prusuing the illiberal agenda of control.
Indeed. The term “liberal” is not only inaccurate, and it doesn’t only tarnish the name of liberalism, it also helps the left exploit credit they don’t deserve. They just use the term “liberal” because people in the US are less averse to it than to “socialist” or “progressive” (which came to be associated with socialism).
In many places in the world the liberals are actually supporters of the free market economy. In many European countries supporters of the free market are called “liberals” or “conservative liberals”. In Israel The Liberal Party was the party most supportive of free market economy (in the days Israel was socialist). They later joined Mahal party and together created Likud. The American Democrat Party as it is today should be correctly categorized as social-democrat and not liberal, but if I said that to the average American they’d consider me paranoid because socialism was bunsihed from American politics (which is exactly why the socialists call themselves “liberals”). Social democrats are socially liberal and support a democratic form of government, but in addition they support an extended welfare state, big government and socialized or semi-socialized economy. That describes the contemporary platform of the Democrat Party. But you can’t say that to an American.
In Israel, in the primaries of the Labor Party (that defines itself as social democrat and used to be the largest party in Israel) when Sheli Yechimovich (now the party leader) was asked to say something positive about her rival Amir Peretz she said he is “a true socialist” — that was supposed to be a compliment, but if I said to an American Obama is a socialist they’d see me as a dengerous paranoid extremist, even though Obama is more to the left than Amir Peretz. So the solution in the American context is to call them “leftists”. Certainly not “liberals”.
“but if I said to an American, “Obama is a socialist”, they’d see me as a dengerous paranoid extremist,”
Well, a liberal in America(I do not consider them American) would. The word “liberal” is used in American political discourse in American context. It does not matter the context in any other part of the world as pertains to the discourse here.
The left has pimped the term so long as to condition Americans to know a barbara streisand as the definition of a scumbag liberal. So too such human feces as micheal moore. Those maggots are the definition of “liberal” in America. obama fits in this mold.
Or you could post all of the lefts favorite self descriptions as I do sometimes. To wit: “….liberal/marxist/progresive/socialist..” The list goes on , the cockroaches are the same.
The word ‘liberal’ has a meaning. Liberals support individual liberties, so by definition they can’t support giving ever extending power to the government, nor ever extending limitations on individual liberties. I know that Americans use this term in your own “quirky” way due to your own internal political evolution (the Dem party used to be dominated by liberals in the real sense of the world until the socialists became the dominant force and usurped the term ‘liberal’), but the main problem here is that you play into the hands of the leftists by portraying them as something they are not. Take someone like Thomas Friedman who extols the virtues of the Chinese government’s central planing — that’s anything but liberal — by calling him a liberal you conceal the nature of the problem, which was exactly the purpose of the socialists when they usurped the term ‘liberals’. Van Jones, for instance, is nothing short of a communist by his own admition, yet people call even him a liberal. Obama is a social-democrat. If you call him a liberal Americans (those who don’t read PJMedia) don’t even know waht they’re voting for. It’s doing a disservice to the American political discourse.
Oh, it is very important to know what the term “liberal” means in the rest of the world, because they offer clues to how the Left came to America — and why it had to come by that path.
Individualism, in particular the notion of self-government as meaning individual selves, not groups, is the true antidote to Leftist collectivism. In the Anglosphere, this notion took deeper root than on the Continent. There, individualism was quickly supplanted by nationalism, a form of collectivism. As individualism reached its (incomplete) triumph in 1776, the path being taken by the Continent was revealed in 1793, when the French aped the American revolution, but failed to grasp its principles; instead of the inalienable Rights of Man, their documents spoke of the government-granted “Rights of the Citizen”. Such an ideological climate carries no inherent hostility to collectivist tyranny, and so the Left was able to gain power under their own brand, socialism. Sll the flavors of modern totalitarianism were consequently nurtured to full bloom there. Hence, the term “liberalism” there still holds its original Enlightenment meaning of “the system of natural rights”, as it was known before the Marxists cleaved liberty into two pieces, “political” and “economic”, and dubbed the latter “capitalism”.
America, it is said, “never took to socialism”. Not so named, no. They could not sell their ideas using their own “brand” here. Unfortunately for us, American liberalism was intellectually ungrounded; they understood that liberty and individual rights were good, they did not know *why they were also morally right*. So, the Left established its foothold here by that means, by intellectualy colonizing American liberals via intellectual fashions coming over from Europe – in particular Bismarck’s new German welfare state, which laid down the necessary foundations for you-know-who 50 years later. The first signs of mutation surfaced with Herbert Croly and the Progressives, with their attacks on the “night watchman” concept which we now know as the principle of constrained government.
The rest of the story is pretty much Invasion of the Ideology Snatchers. About all that’s left of genuine American liberalism is the crumbling husk of the word; the rest is pod people.
Good point and one worth making over and over until it sinks in. The left aren’t liberal in any sense of the word today. They’re completely illiberal and this desire to shut down debate is just one more piece of evidence that supports the use of this label.
They’re progs, in the same vein as the morlocks.
Consolidated, centralized and monopolized commmerce has long been ignored, so why shouldn’t monopolized propaganda be ignored. Left or right propaganda, I don’t listen too them so I could care less.
Yet you cared enough to comment. Why?
Sometimes there is need for a little common sense/reality to put a break in all the radicalized commenting. Theres no legitmate purpose to bitchin about everything if you don’t provide for some resolve. Theres simple solutions to this complaint! Buy and invest in whatever it takes to build media outlets and audiences that defeat your professed enemies. If thats not in the tarot cards for your side then wave the white flag, go home, buy more guns, a few cases of beeer, computer keyboards and share war stories of what could’ve been to the grand kiddies if we’d only bought up all the media outlets.
“Theres simple solutions to this complaint! Buy and invest in whatever it takes to build media outlets and audiences that defeat your professed enemies. ”
See Glenn Beck.
But zeke likes powerful centralized governments.
Actually, I prefer a government to run as it was designed to run and NOT by radical extremists of any politcal brand.
You should define your terms before responding.
Make a second statement.
This first one was politically neutral.
If you are Progressive Saint Zeke, your second statement, even if it is to describe the weather outside your window, will reveal who you are.
And allow people to maybe even decide to ignore you – if you are Progressive Saint Zeke.
You’re probably the very disturbed one who is archiving all my commenting and then extracting snippets from them to construct bogus postings posing under my PJM identity. A very psychologically disturbed individual! Are youm and identity theif in real life?
Fakeout!
There is no such thing as a PJM Identity.
This site is not set up that way.
You can call yourself anything, and say anything, here.
Which really does cheapen the debate.
But it does offer amusement.
Just goes to show that PJM allows their site to be a playground for the mentally disturbed I supose . You certainly quailify!
… and am wondering, do the two Zekes want to take this outside?
BTW, whichever Zeke wants to see the United States government run along the lines of the United States Constitution, including:
Separation of Church from and State AND State from Church (in other words, Catholic & Christian hospitals do not have to perform Abortions and Catholic and Christian schools do not have to include Birth Control in their insurance plans or distribute them to their students UNLESS the accept funding from any level of government that as a matter of policy does distribute Birth Control BUT no religions get tax exempt status either)
Federal government does not take powers from the State governments that are not delineated in said Constitution …
then I’m with you, and am content to call you whatever you want to be called
The other Zeke can go to hell.
No, Nemo, the people aren’t going to “stop” the owner from doing what he wants… they will tell him how they feel and he will make a business decision on what to do then… nobody’s rights are being infringed…..
True.
I have to say I was a little surprised that the Democrats didn’t seriously go after reinstating the so called “fairness doctrine” in the first two years of Obama’s first term when they had absolute power. That would’ve been an effective way to take a big hit at conservative talk radio while throwing the dying progressive talk shows a lifeline and allowing the leftist propaganda factories on cable TV news to continue to operate unimpeded. In short everything they want. I think a bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine was introduced by a congressional Democrat (whose husband was president of the nations largest liberal talk radio show) but it didn’t go anywhere.
Think it through. Can you imagine the kind of potential vulnerability the MSM would have under a reinstated fairness doctrine? They don’t want that at all.
They’ll probably move to do it now. Of course, Boehner will demand he is shown standing behind Obama on the new trillion dollar coin. That’s how he stands up to the left. Heroic, I’d say.
They may respond with “local content requirement” regulations.
Priorities. Obamacare must first fail and enlarge the permanence of government, first by failing spectacularly in order to push us fully into full-blown single-payer. Hell, it will fail so painfully you might see single-payer get passed by Republicans just to stanch the bleeding, and it’s the only solution that the MSM will discuss.
Gun control now. Can’t let those fresh children’s graves go unexploited, now.
Talk radio isn’t seen as nearly the threat it might have been any more. Fairness Doctrine is probably seen as unnecessary for their purposes now that the 2012 election has demonstrated the power of their fully operational advantage in the MSM and on the low-information Internet.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to anything but over-the-air broadcasts. Not cable, not satellite and not the Internet (the latter two hadn’t been invented yet).
I stream numerous talk shows over the Internet. How can you require individual websites to give equal time to opposing views?
The reason why liberals don’t push the Fairness Doctrine much anymore is even they realize that the universe of broadcast and podcast and Internet streaming today is beyond anyone’s ability to control without totalitarianism.
The leftists are not pushing for the fairness doctrine? Is that like when leftists claim to support the second amendment while promoting gun bans?
I’ve never understood why conservatives with deep pockets don’t make more of an effort (any effort?) to buy up radio stations small and large or even attempt a hostile takeover of one of the MSM organs (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN) or the NY Times or Wa Po. There doesn’t appear to be any urgency on the conservative side to do this. The result being that the narrative is always written by the Left and conservatives are always responding rather than initiating.
That’s what Breitbart was trying to say. Hopefully his message didn’t die with him.
You can’t buy if the owner won’t sell. Glenn Beck offered to buy Al Gore’s moribund Watermelon Channel (a.k.a. Current TV) but was rejected. Then Gore sold to Al-Jazeera for ~$499.99 million more than the product was worth.
Dont forget that Algore’s stated reason was that Al Jazeera ‘fell more in line with his views’. Well, since Al Jazeera is synonymous with Big Oil and Algore’s body of work is mainly anti big oil scremongering and scams, I guess we can surmise that Algore aligns more with anti-american totalitarian Islam than with an American with a differing view.
scremongering = scaremongering
I wonder about this too. Though it was before my time, I am certain this country was a lot more conservative back in the 60′s than it is today, with a lot fewer victim groups with permanent, insatiable grievances. Where were these conservatives when the left began their long march through America’s educational institutions and opened our immigration system to millions of third worlders, many of whom see America as a racist, oppressive host country that must assimilate to their demands for evermore largesse and accomodations? Where were these conservatives when the left took over every aspect of our popular culture and media? Aside from an internet/talk radio echo chamber, how can conservative voices even hope to compete with the vast media/entertainment complex that defines reality for over half the country?
Most of the National media was solidly leftist by the late 1930s and that leftism was ingrained by WWII when we had to say nice things and think nice thoughts about our gallant Soviet allies. The entertainment industry first in New York and then as it expanded to California was decidedly liberal from the turn of the 19th-20th Centuries and became more and more communist dominated by the ’30s a fact only reinforced by our alliance with the Soviets in WWII. Academia was solidly leftist in the elite schools by the late twenties and much of it openly communist by the thirties and forties. The march continued into the state schools in the fifties and sixties. When I entered college in a small rural Southern college in 1967, most of my professors in the humanities were marxists.
There were all sorts of homegrown and imported anarchist and leftist groups from the last quarter of the 19th Century onward and organized labor had a decidedly leftist tilt almost from the outset and much of it had become communist dominated by WWII. With Roosevelt’s election and the National Labor Relations Act, organized labor became the cash cow and storm troopers of the Democratic Party.
Business remained solidly conservative except those portions of the business community that were either heavily regulated by government, did business largely with government, or relied on public funding. A good indicator is the amount of opposition to unionization in the thirties and in the aftermath of WWII. Unfortunately for the Nation, WWII unionized much of the Nation’s industry as most war production contracts were what we’d call today project labor agreements in which the unions were guaranteed the members and work was done under contracts that had no-strike provisions and binding arbitration of grievances.
There was a National revulsion at the excesses of labor and the increasingly open communist/Soviet sympathies in some sectors after WWII. A Republican Congress elected on a theme of “Had Enough?” attempted to rein in labor with the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act which with its right to work provisions eliminated compulsory unionization in about half the states. The reason there was a Red Scare in the late forties and early fifties was because there were so many Reds and the were so open about it. There were purges and blacklists but of limited effect and in reality the Reds just got quieter about it. Organized labor under George Meany after the AFL and CIO merger in ’57 became decidedly anti-communist and purged at least the open communists.
Unfortunately the first public employee unionization began in the late ’50s and the public employees took right up where the old CIO unions had been as bastions of socialism. By the ’70s the public employees were unionized in, I think, all of the union states. A combination of increasing urbanization, decreasing industrialization and concentration of the remaining industry in the Third Sector of businesses dependent on government, the increasing size of government and the increasing number of unionized government employees at all levels, and an increasingly brazenly leftist media and entertainment sector combined to both turn the political culture decidedly leftward and eliminate the once effective opposition to the Left from busness, industry, and the financial sector by the ’90s.
GWB was really an aberration elected largely on the fact that there remained a small majority of the res publica who were repulsed by Bill Clinton and the Democrats’ slavish defense of him. GWB hung on to a small minority in ’04, but war weariness and incessant leftist propaganda so diminished the conservative/Republican brand that I don’t believe any Republican could have overcome the brand damage and the militant organization of the left to defeat any Democrat in 2008 or 2012. The brand damage isn’t recovering at the National level and I don’t see how it will. I knew a corner had been turned in the Country when I went to a gathering of public and private labor relations heads in 2005. First, some of the union political types were brazenly socialist, something they wouldn’t have dared to talk about 20 years earlier. Second, I was treated to a presentation by the VP for labor relations of a large private CA healthcare provider and her sidekick from SEIU. The healthcare industry was once an adamant opponent of unionization and here was a VP for labor relations from a major healthcare corporation talking about the company’s “partnership” with SEIU to help secure better healthcare for Californian and the Nation. In that moment, I knew they had won. The only real opposition to the Left other than individuals is those portions of small business that aren’t dependent on or at the mercy of government, and right now, that isn’t enough to break the stranglehold they have on the urban areas of the Country and thus on the Presidency.
I just talked to a union plumber, a guy I grew up with who did 5 years in San Quentin
His view of labor unions is that they are like prison gangs. He is safer because he stands together with 1000′s of other guys who pay dues to maintain their preferred status.
Those of us that stand alone can be picked off by more powerful forces.
“His view of labor unions is that they are like prison gangs. He is safer because he stands together with 1000′s of other guys who pay dues to maintain their preferred status.”
I’m actually not troubled by their having that attitude and the right to exercise it as it relates to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. Where I become troubled is when they can exercise that right politically. Today’s unions don’t give a rat’s a** about collective bargaining; they collect dues to play politics and buy a favorable management or government. That’s not just wrong; it’s evil.
Being educated and learning to question is the goal of conservatives not replacing the leftist with conservative propaganda. Being able to discriminate truth from fiction, a lost skill of so many uninformed people nowadays.
I assumed they’re not fiscally solvent. And the only way t hey stay in the black is calling in favors from their powerful liberal friends.
American so-called “liberals” remind me about the good Soviet citizens of the 1930s: the same “holy hatred” toward capitalists (Obama’s 1-percenters); the same ecstatic admiration of “the leader”; the same cowardice and fear to look in the eyes of reality; the same readiness to denounce a neighbor; the same hatred toward the “enemies of the people” (these are all those who voice opposition to the government), and the list can go on and on.
I live in southeastern NC and our local stations no longer air Beck, Hannity, Levin or Michael Savage. All were dropped within the last six to nine months. Coincidence? I think not.
Dropped for falling ratings and/or declining-in-value demographics?
I think so.
An underappreciated part of Rush’s radio success is his ability to draw a lot of women into his audience. Because women’s preferences control 85% of consumer spending in category after category, from household necessities to luxury goods, they are the most valuable demographic to advertisers. (Now you know why TV is full of crud. Women watch most TV in every time slot.)
The problem is most people really are stupid and decadent. The only reason the media used to be decent is that the government kept it clean to keep the public above their own level.
I meant, “above it’s own level.”
I think you meant “above its own level.”
I’m left wondering what the real ‘liberal’ would think if they were to understand what the left is really trying to achieve. Too bad there are so many low information ‘liberals’ in our country. Understanding the agenda of Obama Reid and Pelosi isn’t difficult – it simply requires one to read between their ‘line’ of BS. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
The same thing in IN and IL.
Talk Radio is assault media. We need a ban on assault media…
/leftists
It doesn’t surprise me that the left will try to trample over the First Amendment as well as the Second.
Hey, under leftism people don’t have any rights.
When AM music radio started to be eclipsed by FM, certain Canadian stations wanted to emulate the American and British example and move to an all talk, politics format. This idea was promptly quashed by the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC, the airwaves and spectrum regulator) no doubt acting on the instructions of the (liberal party) minister of communications of the day.
The back room deal that was made granted station owners the right to move to a 24-7 news / traffic / weather format in exchange for dropping applications for American style “talk radio”, a format that is detrimental to law, order and good government and surely inflammatory in the eyes of many Canadians and their civil servant rulers. I am sure that listeners to Canadian radio in US border states have noticed that there is nothing equivalent to the minyans of US talk radio hosts broadcasting on Canada’s airwaves. When phone in talk radio is aired, the hosts, guests and callers are circumspect & neutered.
This is how free speech is comprised in a country without a First Amendment.
I haven’t lived in Canada (or anywhere near it) for more than half a decade so things may have changed.
For many years the premier “talk radio” in the nation was a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (a government owned company) phone in four hour offering on Sundays with the ubiquitous and inoffensive title of “Cross Country Check-up”.
Even as a young adult in the last years of Trudeau mania, I knew that Government Radio = Government Agenda. Government Talk Radio = Validation for Government Policy.
BEWARE ALL YANKS GOOD AND TRUE!
Try 630CHED out of Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, specifically the Rutherford, Charles Adler and Rob Breakenridge programs.
I wonder if any of those minyans were attending my synagogue.
Correction:
I confused a minyan with a minion.
The Windhover By Gerard Manley Hopkins
To Christ our Lord
I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird, – the achieve of, the mastery of the thing!
Leftist find any opinion or thought that they didn’t given everybody else to be “hate speech.”
Not only that, but their already very limited range of acceptable thought keeps getting narrower and narrower.
muslims are being imported.. the most important thing for their arrival and colonization is the disarmament of the non-muslim population that would object to things like organized rape jihad and welfare fraud.. as well as the usual sudden jihad terrorism that muslims are known for..
don’t believe me?
Why did Labour disarm England before opening the floodgates?
Has anyone ever seen muslims following Kafir Laws?
Lets cut to the chase: present day ‘liberals’ are fascists. They await with bated breath Kristallnacht and quiver with orgasmic intensity to light the match and burn down the Reichstag.
The Corporate Fascist are going all in. Well, let us all meet at the gates!
Molon Labe!
“Its Not Fascism When We do It”: U.S. Government Claims that Truth Is Too Complicated and Dangerous to Disclose to the Public By Washington’s Blog Global Research, January 15, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-fascism-when-we-do-it-u-s-government-claims-that-truth-is-too-complicated-and-dangerous-to-disclose-to-the-public/5319012
Hey, it’s a free market. If some rich liberal wants to replace successful conservative talk radio shows with the drivel of a new “Air America”, good for him. He’ll lose money and another station in the same market will pick up the successful conservative shows. Then he’ll be a broke liberal and someone else gets rich. Sounds like a winning proposition!
There is nothing more anti-intellectual than the Left. I’ve argued with them many times, and they sound like a broken record. They repeat the memes, issues and positions of the Left. And you cannot talk them out of anything because they do not think for themselves. They would have to know what other people in their group are doing before they could change. It’s most frustrating.
Also, they are elitists. They act like they know and are consistent with the powers that be, the authority. I don’t buy any of it. If they cannot show me why I ought to believe something so that I can arrive at my conclusion independently, then they are worthless to me or to any thinker.
I worked in radio for a long time and I think is the next domino in the fall of older media. Now that my cell phone company is offering no download limits I’m streaming pandora to my car radio via bluetooth. The next step will be to pick out ‘radio’ shows on the internet that I want to listen to (vs what is available on the actual radio dial). With any luck these people buying radio stations will take a bath on the investments…
Back in the day when Dostoevsky was writing in Russia the term liberal meant communist. That is what is has come to mean in the United States.
You do know that you can go to your fav radio station and click on “Listen Live” and hear what you want to hear. Do this, people.
I would love to see conservatives branch out from the talk radio format into local television news. Always seem like there is a TV station that comes in 4th out of 4 in the local news ratings. I bet that the last-place station could move up in the ratings simply by becoming the conservative-friendly alternative TV news outlet that partners with conservative talk radio.
Here in the Dallas area Soul 730 has been sold to a company which changed it’s format to target Koreans instead of Blacks.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/Longest-Running-Radio-Show-in-Dallas-is-Silenced-185380412.html
There are a couple other stations that target Asian audiences like this http://radiovietdallas.com and this http://www.funasia.net/index.php plus numerous Spanish language stations. The free market brings real diversity, not the government mandated affirmative action kind.
It’s good to see liberals buying something instead of trying to control it by government fiat, stealth regulation or law-fare. The small radio stations they hate are viable only because they serve their public. Change the content and the station dies and libs lose their money. Perhaps, they’re irritated by rather successful efforts to isolate and de-fund their talk radio – NPR.
good point.
The problem on the right is that year after year, after all the sustained assaults on our freedom of speech rights, we still wring our hands and mouth sanctimonious bromides about the First Amendment. The only way the left will understand that we mean business is when we start trying to shut THEM down. Once we frame it in terms of “No, WE will tell YOU what YOU can say” then maybe they’ll back down.
Leftists are like the collectivist Borg with even less independent thought and more inbreading.
Look at it from a Randian perspective.
Myron founds his own business and makes a success of it. He build his company Regis into the larger supplierr of hair care producys to salons. Later he decides to buy a radio station. He’s the
Randian hero of the piece. Roger is the rabble rousing vilain trying to bring low the man making his own destiny.
Roger tried to invoke a left wing plot by claiming that somebody, we’re not told who, SPECULATED that a plot existed. Even that claim is second hand.
What we have here is a Capitalist Captain of industry buying a station.
First they came for talk radio, then the came for the internet….
Wittgenstein’s moral philosophy was not a separate from his ordinary philosophy.
Language plays tricks on you, and he was into spotting the tricks.
Theorizing a word into a place where no ordinary human interest has supported it sets off one of the tricks.
It’s one thing to shun opposing views. It’s ratcheting it up quite a bit to mechanically shut those views down. It’s over when they use organs of government to shut those views down; and that’s where I see this headed.
They’ve morphed their minds and our system into something where everything and action is provisional, primarily the constitution. It couldn’t withstand the modernists philosophy.
Check out Leonard Peikoff’s The DIM Hypothesis, and you’ll start to see just how messed up various cultures have been and could be.
Crystal Dixon, the African-American Director of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, was fired for expressing a religious opinion about homosexuality that liberals found disagreeable. Please cite the example of someone on the left who a conservative fired for expressing an opinion.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/6th-circuit-diversity-trumps-religious-freedom/
“Leftists are like the collectivist Borg with even less independent thought and more inbreeding.”
They’re also less charming, more harmful, and harder to reason with.
After Waco and the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Clintons blamed both on talk radio, especially the bombing. Slick Willy tried to ban Conservative media from radio to newspapers and even the first websites. He didn’t get it because there was too much opposition back then.
Now I’m not so sure. Even the rank and file leftists are feral enough that they would love to see differing opinions squashed while the more rabid have already called for a “Final Solution” to those who disagree. Note that even the tamer elements of the left have NOT called them out such bloody minded gibbering.
As Hannah Arendt said, the totalitarians have built up their base, a base immune to rational thought that operates on pure emotion, particularly envy and hate. Even the broader cadre of fellow travelers will be accepting of laws and codes against the opposition to the movement and once that is stifled will quickly come to accept it’s destruction.
So Zeke, you don’t listen to “left or right propaganda?” Then I assume you don’t watch CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Chanel, or anything online from Yahoo! or Google . . .correct?
I watch RFDTV, Rural TV and they just purchased FNnet, Food Channel, HGTV and on special occaisions watch a little of both FNC and MSNBC to catch up on both sides propaganda. I’m simply not into the intellectual special interest peoples propaganda to their minions with only one exception…….
Fakeout!
Seriously, there are holes in the Comments process and Code of Conduct on PJMedia that anyone in their right mind (or not) can drive a Mack Truck full of offensive language through, crash it, and just stink the place up.
Is that the kind of site you want to run?
I cancelled my PJTV membership rather than support this Hot Mess you guys are running here.
Actually, that’s one of the things I’ve liked about PJMedia — the comment section is SO open, it lends itself to an interesting experiment in self-regulation. It’s a microcosm of the way America is supposed to be: let the people behave civilly, and get unnecessary regulation out of the way.
For the most part, commenters were open, honest, thoughtful, respectful, and supportive. They followed the rules, and although every once in awhile an “excitable” few would play free with the epithets, they were the exception, and everyone behaved like civilized adults.
I’ve noticed an ugly change in the last week or so, though. Apparently PJ has gained enough interest in the MSM that it has started attracting trolls…and now it’s just painful to read the comments sometimes.
I think it’s very telling that the loss of civility and breakdown of the self-regulating format is directly proportional to the number of [progressives/liberals/Democrats/Obamites/what-have-you] that are posting here now.
I’ve read liberals’ attempts to explain why the content of AM talk radio is almost wholly conservative. That is, when they attempt to explain it at all. Garrison Keillor once referred to “the midgets of talk radio” at a time when Rush Limbaugh’s daily audience was ten times the size of Keillor’s weekly audience. Their usual explanation, or excuse, is that owners of AM radio stations prefer to lose money on shows whose political content they agree with rather than turn a profit on liberal political content. This flies in the face of evidence like Air America’s financial failure and swift demise and the fact that nearly all of the top ten AM talkers are conservatives like Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Medved. My own explanation for conservative talk’s popularity is its inherent interactivity. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Glenn Beck are constantly hearing directly from the public and repeating what that public wants to hear, while members of the MSM are constantly reviewing the rest of the MSM and repeating what the rest of the MSM wants to hear.
Lance Armstrong and Barack Obama have been engaged in a duel for lifetime membership in the Frequent Liars Club, that, unlike the NFL Championship game, is virtually non-covered in the press.
In fact, Lance and Barack have each used the press for their own fragrantly wicked purpose to silence the truth telling; trying to prevent the world from knowing what scum sleeps in their disrespectful beds.
Lance stooped so low as to have his press team characterize former female friends of Lance who long ago realized what a liar he is as psychotic whores. Not only that, but many of his former friends Lance steamrolled with slanderous lies simply for telling the truth about the dope. Some who jumped off the Lance lie band wagon Lance took to court and sued. Others he used his dirty money and influence to black ball out of the bike racing business until their went on food stamps.
On the other hand, Obama delights in calling his opponents everything from felons to enemies to murderers.
In Obama’s second term, the pipsqueak stands behind thug lawyers and thug union scabs as he continues his crusade to transform Hitler’s night of the long knives into a kind of vocal chord cutting party directed at fact and truth tellers by buying radio stations all over the nation; veer from the orthodoxy of Obama’s bastardized version of the truth and you’re targeted for radio elimination.
Fact is, Obama’s a totalitarian fascist that gives Lenin, Stalin and Heinrich Himmler a run for the dirty money when it comes to trying to silence the opposition.
Doubtless, Obama possesses the hate and venom to not just figuratively cut radio personality vocal chords, but to cut throats.
America has no idea what a Muslim extremist mad man Obama truly is. The things he supports should turn any stomach.
This one turns mine.
Obama revels in the slaughter of the late term abortion newborns who miraculously survive the procedure only to be thrown in the trash like garbage, an Obamacare protocol done in more hospitals than you’d think.
Needless to say, Obama is a hypocrite of the first order, especially when it comes to children, either aborting them or handing out thousands of true military assault rifles (Operation Fast and Furious) to Mexican drug cartels to be used in the machine gunning carnage, massacre, bloodbath of bullet riddled innocent men, women and children.
Then Obama uses another executive order of privilege to hide his dirty work.
Of course, Obama is not unaware of the protection weapons can afford. His daughters’ schools have more armed guards than math teachers while the average American’s kids aren’t good enough for that kind of real protection. Obama leaves millions upon millions of school children exposed to nuts who want to kill them by insanely and steadfastly opposing armed protection for six year olds. Some argue this makes Obama the insane one.
Not surprisingly, more and more, people are asking how a pathological fascist could be elected President of the United States.
Well, the number one answer is a corrupt press; a media that locks arms like the Nazis marched in lockstep as they fill the air and paper with the lies, deceit and corruption; with the Obama’s hate-America-first talking points.
Which include anything that Obama wants said or printed. Really, it’s press pathetic. Press gone crazy. If someday patriots invaded the New York Times and hung the traitors by the nearest yardarm I personally wouldn’t be surprised, for the damage to America these pukes inflict every day to the fabric of America is as incalculable as it is damnable.
Obama and his team of goons, gangsters, homeboys and gorillas conspire to shred the constitution, taking dead aim on amendments in the Bill of Rights they despise. The attack on the Catholic Church (first amendment) has largely been organized religion driven while the attack on the second amendment has largely been press led.
The looting of our treasury which closes the door on the American Dream for our children is detestable and disgraceful. The dependence on foreign oil that Obama’s non-drilling executive orders relegates us to could potentially cut off our nation at the knees.
Obama has oiled the wheels of our destruction.
Like Hitler, he’s fired every general who believed in laying it on the line for freedom. Like Hitler, Obama worships at the alter of America’s and England’s demise and destruction.
Yet, far too many Americans refuse to see him for the demonic figure he truly is. Evil incarnate.
Michelle, his nappy headed ho with the new wig, boasts an approval rating of 67% as she hides her 100% hate for America with lawyers who tell her what to say every single day.
Doing what’s good for them and bad for America is the Obama’s modus operandi and has been for years. Sadly, until the Obama machine is seen for its deep seated anti-American ethic, America is doomed to sink militarily, economically and every which way.
While England Slept was written in 1938.
Unless Americans wake up to the danger posed by the Muslim Extremist Moles residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. we are, like England was prior to 1944 when the United States saved the world from a bunch of other totalitarian goons, in a world of hurt.
Throw the bum out.
“Yet, far too many Americans refuse to see him for the demonic figure he truly is. Evil incarnate.” Hmmm, possibly because they (occasionally) know a nutty viewpoint when they hear one. You have lost all perspective and the things you say are so over-the-top that anyone but the most rabid anti-Obama nut would have to take a step or three away from them.
Leftists feel threatened by Conservative talk radio. Can you name one, Leftist talk radio host who broadcasts nationwide?
Myron Kunin is now a business owner.
He will need to air shows that draw listeners who will buy what is advertised during the shows he airs.
Rush Limbaugh is still on the air. Carbonite suffered for its cowardice.
Conservatives understand the concept of paying for stuff.
Liberals and Progressives are like the fans of Porn. They assume that they can get it for free, and will not only pursue the free stuff, but steal what others have made with the hope of selling it.
Myron Kunin will discover what the business owners of online porn providers discovered.
That his customers are lying, thieving scum.
I can find great points on both sides. And I give credit where it is due. Right wing talk radio is a little extreme for me. PJ media is also extreme for me. Anyone who commits completely to one side or the other cannot be in touch with the real world. Neither side has all the answers. If you dont read news sources from both sides then you are not getting the full story. Thats the bottom line.
Agreed.
Out of curiosity, exactly what great points have you found from the Left? It’s not like the rest of us live in a vacuum and haven’t heard the meme. I’ve listened to Leftist talking points and claims of success many a time, and have yet to find one thing edifying in at least 20 years.
Your conclusion is no different than saying all opinions are of equal value. Most of us know better.
This from the guy from whom I shamelessly borrowed my moniker, slightly tongue in cheek when the controllers are named “idealists” etc.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
~Robert A. Heinlein
Next ?
Barry was on it from the getgo during the first term, as in telling Congress to ignore Rush Limbaugh & advising graduating seniors to “balance out” their media exposure and read the Huffington Post !
At some point he talked less about that.
Voices of dissent from His Oneness™ still obviously irked him, but he seemed to realize that he didn’t quite have the power (yet) to make it illegal to point out that he was full of you know what.
The fact that the Left tries to shut down any and all views that don’t comport with its own is proof positive of its totalitarianism.
Ben Franklin said it well…
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing
the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors…That Men
ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours
deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without
hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny…Only the
wicked Governours of Men dread what is said of them…”~Benjamin Franklin
The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: Boston and London, 1722 – 1726
Modern day leftest:
When did this start (what time period) the take over of media?
Was it event driven, ie war a depression
If it was event driven will it take an event to change the coarse?
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2013/01/19/why-you’re-not-likely-to-see-another-neal-boortz/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway
Some pithy and cogent remarks by retiring broadcaster Neal Boortz on the future of conservative talk radio.
I used to listen to AM radio all the time during long business trips across the emptier parts of the United States. What struck me most was not the steady drumbeat of hatred you got from Rush and the others, but how much of the time was devoted to buttering up their audience, assuring them how much smarter they were than the urban intellectuals. I could only conclude that the middle of the country was suffering from a crisis of self esteem. One thinks of hard rightists as true believers with an unshakable faith in their own righteousness, but evidently they need a huge amount of reassurance to keep the faith. They also have to be carefully protected from exposure to contamination from liberal ideas. Which is why three hours of Limbaugh a day is education, while taking Philosophy 101 or even reading the New York Times once in a while is brainwashing.
…steady drumbeat of hatred you got from Rush and the others
You just proved for all time how very little you know or understand of anything.
Accusations of hatred are meant to stifle debate, maily in the culture war.
In California Prop 8 became Prop Hate.
Whatever misbehavior the left accuses us of, that is exactly what they are doing at that moment.
“not the steady drumbeat of hatred you got from Rush and the others”
Of course, lets not forget that mouth breathing leftists define hatred as ‘that with which I disagree’.
<>
Of COURSE they do! The root of “diversity” is DIVIDE; Divide and Conquor. Americans are a tolerant people by nature, we’re all descended from immigrants, so the idea of “diversity” seems as American as apple pie.
But the intent of the Left is to divide us into factions; name them if you like…race, gender, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, wealth…any distinction that can be used to pit us against one another.
Talk radio presents the alternate view and exposes the Left’s intentions, so it must be silenced! The left cannot have the light of truth shining on their failed ideas.
How it must hurt them when Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Marc Levin lays bare the Left’s falsehoods! As Ben Franklin said “The sting of the rebuke is in the truth”.
UNITY!
Next?? Did you miss the several attempts over the past decade to get Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves?
It may be that “leftists” are fed up with lies, willful ignorance and anti-science nonsense; not so much as a desire to “enforce diversity”.
No Marxist politician has served in the US Congress since the great depression. Only Centrists and Rightist exist in the US. Foreigners find this “red scare” among Americans wholly hallucinatory.
I am a liberal and I love right wing talk radio. It is far more amusing than to hear people closer to the way I think and it gives me insight on how the other side thinks. Most of them are clowns and it is hard to take them seriously though. There are a few exceptions. My favorite is Dennis Prager but Limbaugh spews hatred and his brand helps the Democratic party the most. Thankfully people like him on our side do not have his soap box or we would look terrible.