This story has mostly positive ratings. 128 votes / 11 sinks
L.A. Mayor to answer Rush Limbaugh race swipe
Do No Evil – A spokesman for Antonio Villaraigosa says the Los Angeles mayor is planning a statement in response to an ethnically-flavored drive-by served up by Rush Limbaugh yesterday.
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lifted the cap on the number of television and radio stations a company can own in a single market. Clear Channel started buying up markets of all sizes (CBS/Infinity also sharing much of the pie in major markets) with a smattering of a few other companies here and there... The result has been very little competition. Since most media owners are conservative (and since a plethora of Rush clones were available in syndication by that point) it made since to program their dying AM stations with conservative talk (People tend to forget that - even though Rush Limbaugh has had his show since 1988 - and the meager success he had in the beginning he owed to the Reagan FCC repeal of the Fairness Doctrine - Rush's rise to fame happened with the election of Bill Clinton. And after 1996 and with many more affiliates added, he bashed Clinton all the way to the bank!).
And Clinton regrets... while it was Reagan who vetoed the Truth in Telecommunications Act... with the plan all along with the Repugs to unleash the likes of Rush and Faux Fox Facts on Americans to deceive!
It's also very cost effective.. Stick someone like Rush in his studio--- actually in his house in Palm Beach, and flip a switch and you have the most listened to talk show on the radio.... because it's basically the ONLY talk show on the radio.. he can claim a large fan base only because he's on so many stations... in most markets he get ratings that are less than stellar...
He also used to PAY stations to carry his show.. in return he got a couple of live commercial spots to keep for his own out of each segment...
So was the mayor offended by the remark that he thought he was a secret service guy or a Bill Clinton lacky? AKA Shoeshine boy. DO liberals and those taking issue with this believe something about the shoe shinning business that we don't know about? Please Lib's tell us how you feel about people who shine shoes for a living. Are you suggesting that you are better than that? Is a person who makes a living in that business somehow "below" you. Would the mayor say he would be embarrassed to be in that business. This is more PC run amuck. I would say move on there is nothing to see here unless it is the libs putting down people in the shoe shine business.
Also I am curious based on the term "race swipe" in the headlines. It appears that the racist stereotyping is being applied by those who are "offended" by the reference. My question to those that are offended is this. What race exactly is a shoe shine boy? Upon Reading Rush's comment I did not see that he referred to a particular race. He said "secret service guy" and "shoeshine boy" Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Leave it to you, cape. Turn Rush's racist comment around to make it look like we're racist.
There is nothing wrong with a shoe shine boy. There's also nothing wrong w/being a Secret Service agent. The problem is with Rush's assumption that, since the man is Latino, he's a shoe shine boy or Secret Service.
Add to that his shock that this Latino is the Mayor of a major city, and you SHOULD see why we are "offended."
Actually, it's not even that I'm offended any more. This fool has said & done so many ridiculous things in the past that it's basically EXPECTED of him in these situations. AND HE NEVER FAILS TO LIVE TO OUR EXPECTATIONS!!!!!
>>Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Ask Rush. Apparently he's the one with the definitions.
Well I am beginning to think this is an internet hoax as I have read the entire transcript of this spot and am unable to identify where he made this remark. perhaps someone can pick it out as I can't find it.
"I spent more time talking to the mayor of Los Angeles. Clinton came in. I didn't see him 'cause couldn't hear so I had to sit close to my date. I'm focused looking at her, trying to hear what she's saying. I look up, and there's Clinton standing there, shakes my hand, is there for maybe 30 seconds, and goes to his table; comes back and has the mayor of Los Angeles with him -- and the mayor is going on and on and on about how excited he is to meet me, and I don't know who he is because I can't hear him introduce himself. He gives me his card. I said, "Whoa, this is the mayor of Los Angeles." So I did slide to the right, out of the booth, stood up, shook his hand"
As opposed to yours? You drop in with a drive by comment without actually verifying or showing us where the original quote is. Do you have a copy of the transcript where this quote was made other than the article that started this thread. From what I can see one does not exist. I could be wrong and invite you to show us where the original non-edited record is.
>>I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog.
Are you intentionally twisting this? The ire comes from Rush's racist "He's Latino; he must be a shoe shine boy," and then his shock that this Latino is actually the Mayor of a large US city. To try to paint those angry with his racist attitudes as racist is either stupidity, intentional twisting, or just plain delusion.
Isn't it funny how cons will scoff at the concept of cultural sensitivity one moment and then at just the "Wright" moment they suddenly become nuanced and understand all facets of racism, etc?
"I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog."
--Yours is essentially the same unbelievably lame argument Limbaugh gave following the remarks that derailed George "Macawitz" Allen's political career. He claimed one of his "Spanish" employees told him "macaca" meant "clown." You're very well trained, libsr.
As a conservative, do you have a definition of a shoeshine boy applied here to a non-WASP man?
I don't think you're dumb but you sure are playing the role, not too well I may add.
Political correctness? I doubt it. Insensitivity? I'm certain of it. Political BS? Anything coming from the mouth of Limbaugh is certain to be that. He makes Benedict Arnold's unpatriotic act seem to be a personal act of sacrifice. It pales in comparison to anything that Rush is capable of doing in the name of this nation. He's an embarrassment to America. Just like Father Coughlin is to the Catholic Church.
If you mean to say that conservative talk radio is profitable and liberal talk radio isn't and that relates to ideology in media, you certainly don't understand media in that vein.
If you allude that conservative talk radio is profitable because the owners of media are liberal, you're also wrong.
What you really don't understand is that the majority of media ownership is conservative, for all intents and purposes, and that is because they're in business to make a profit, not because they're on an ideological bent like Fox.
Clearchannel is the largest radio corporation in the world. It's owned and operated by a very ideologically conservative owner. And that's happened only in the last 20 years.
Why won't cons simply admit that they can't compete when obliged to present both sides of an issue? Shows like Limbaugh's do relatively well because the right wing media know that cons see things in terms of black and white, aggressively seek opportunities to have their egos stroked and will flock to anything which validates their opinions and views.
You know this, DKL. Look at the way some of you wingers here bare your fangs when FUR-ners like Candida and others dare to express an opinion which doesn't square with yours. It's bad enough that you have to tolerate us American liberals who refuse to dance to your nationalistic tune but someone from another country? Well, that's just going too dang far, huh?
Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine. Lib radio is a financial flop and even Al Gore has grown tired of pumping money into it. Liberalism is a big loser in the court of public opinion. No one pays to support the Lib media, as evidenced by the demise of the NY Times and Air unAmerican. Face it, when it comes to competing on an even playing field, Libs can't hack it.
"Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine"
--Of course you'd think it was "unfair." The right wing media has always known that poorly educated cons are easily befuddled by legitimate debate and only want to be spoon-fed concepts and arguments that make them feel good. You cannot deny this. The bottom line is that you needed Ronnie Reagan to more or less unilaterally step in and, to your way of thinking, level the playing field. Let's be frank...
If you cons truly believed your arguments could stand on their own merits, you wouldn't need to sit glued to your tv sets every night watching Bill O'Reilly maniacally scream in the faces of his guests in order to feel as if your voice was being heard. You don't know what a level playing field is, baby.
Unlike educated Libs like Rosie O'Dumbass, Janeane Garofalo, or basically anyone with a show on Air unAmerican. I'm still wating for you to be frank. O'Reilly isn't a Conservative, btw, and I don't watch him. You'd know that if you actually understood Conservative views instead of mindlessly repeating DNC rhetoric.
Rush? He's an entertainer/media mouthpiece, so he says what he's paid to say.
Rosie and Garofalo aren't really good examples because they're comediennes who say what they think, which is more than you can say for Rush or Oreilly?
How about your president or Ronald Raygun?
2 of the biggest spenders that ever came down the pike. Not very conservative.
The problem in America is that people aren't thinking about what would be best for the country, and name calling doesn't help.
What about Ron Paul? He's the only candidate that has really said what he's going to do if he wins, the rest are scary.
The liberal/conservative arguments are for talk show hosts and fools, this has no bearing on who really runs our country which by the way are the bankers. It's us against them and their ideology is money and we are their slaves.
Now we have Air America, Nova M, and certain shows from Jones Radio. This is a harder sell in smaller markets where management will do nothing to promote it.
Since we progressives are yearning for real information, we have turned to streaming on-line and/or subscribing to XM or Sirius for our talk. We get our news largely from the internet.
Times are really tough. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck. Dobbs - it's just terrible. Where's the lib talk shows? I want to listen to one (except Franken - I can't stand the lying arrogant jerk). I bet it's a right wing conspiracy that keeps the left wing radio from airing their views!!
The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part.
"The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part. "
Sorry. The "liberal media" scam is one of the biggest myths of this decade. If you take far-left views and far-right views and come down squarely in the center of the two you will find *always* that the media falls right-of-center. Always.
As for the networks being owned by conservatives, one has only to look at NBC as an example, owned by GE (one of the largest contractors of the military-industrial complex) in turn owned by the bin-Laden groups (which quashed news stories about Osama through their influence).
""The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR."
Liberal?? That equates to honest,and anything that is honest is anti rush,anti republican,anti right.Those damn public stations,how dare they tell the truth and have honest reporting.
Maybe i'm the dumb one here,but shouldn't,by it's very nature,the media be liberal(look up the definition of liberal)? If it isn't then we face the prospect of a state run media,kinda like China,Iran,Russia,those country's that really are ultra conservative.
Progressives don't really need all that many liberal talk shows. We're comfortable with what we got, since many of the regular cable network programs and over the air newscasts are moderate, fair, and balanced.
Limbaugh is more of a comedian anyway...in between Howard Stern and Don Imus. Listen to them once or twice, you realize that what they say is for shock effect only, and move on. The difference between Limbaugh and the other two is that he not only thinks he's funny, he thinks he's important, and sways public opinion...which he doesn't. He just shows us how ignorant he really is.
I think sometimes the shock is when many of these programs play back the actual statements of the liberals and democrat(ic)s. The actual words from these people are shocking. For example Hillary and Obama saying they are going to confiscate the profits of a private company or industry. That is shocking to me. That is what Hugo is doing. That is what Putin is doing. Are we as a free nation going to advocate the confiscation of peoples retirement funds and stock purchases? These publicly traded and owned company profits are "owned" by the shareholders. Some estimate that over half of all Americans through retirement accounts and various other financial instruments are invested in the stock market.
McCain's comment of the US staying in Iraq for a 100 years was a shock for me...but I haven't heard those specific comments from Hillary and Obama. I'll look for them...
I guess you must be in shock that the US is still in Japan, Germany, and Korea then. I would also guess that you would be shocked that any move to pull out of Iraq now (despite how we got there) would be viewed by Islamic Extremist as a victory and would again give validity to the statements made by their leaders that the US is a paper Tiger and invite additional attacks on US interests around the world including inside our borders. Shocked? If the US pulls out of Iraq and there is a move to turn it into a base for Islamic extremists would you call for, as Obama does, the US to go back in?
Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq. You can say hey it does not matter that Saddam was thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families. This action caused a huge surge in people being convinced that blowing themselves up in a Pizza parlor full of civilians was the right thing to do. You can ignore or disbelieve all of the reports that were generated under Clinton linking Saddam to Osama. See 1998 Bin Laden Indictment http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nl... Ignore that under Clintom the official US policy became regime change http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislat...
Your URL to prove that the Clinton admin linked Iraq to Al Qaeda is an indictment. Where is the subsequent trial or investigation or conclusion?
Your own government - since Iraq was invaded - has proved that all of the reasons to invade Iraq were FALSE. The Republican controlled Senate in 2005-2006 conducted 2 investigations, and the Pentagon recently concluded a long investigation into all of the pre-war intelligence. All the investigations did prove that the Bush administration lied about all of the reasons to go to war - NO WMD, NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and NO connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
By the way, most of the rest of the world DISAGREED with Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
And your question is erroneous -- in a court of law they would sustain the objection to it as "leading the witness".
"Bush administration lied " Not exactly true. The Bush administration had intelligence reports that were not 100% iron clad. That is why they are called estimates. I am not going to go into this in depth as there is no changing the minds either way. The President asked for a vote and received an overwhelming majority for the Authorization to use force. The UN had a vote and the vote by the UNSC was unanimous. The indictment was based on the belief and research of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Of New York, Mary Jo White and the FBI. I don't think they lied and believed the indictment contained true charges. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/prladen.pdf
>>Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq
What DOES matter is that the intel WAS questionable, and if you're going to war, you better be D^MN SURE that the intel is correct - AND you better not be cherry picking the intel, like Bush was.
>>thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families
Those bombers whose families he supported are & were fighting an occupation by Israel. While abhorrent, and they ARE AND WERE abhorrent, they no more horrible than what Israel does on a daily basis in Gasa & the West Bank. And the US supports Israel unconditionally.
>>Will you support Obama if he orders troops back in after he pulls them out?
That all depends on the context. If Iraq attacks us or 1 of our allies, then probably. If not, the absolutely not - especially if he uses trumped up reasons like W did.
Yes, I am surprised we're still in Germany and Japan, two countries that we're supposed to be on relatively good terms with. They really should re-consider our presence on their soil. There's no need for us to be there...waste of our time and money.
At the rate we're going, we'll have bases in every nation in this world in about 750 years. But, at least we won't be far away from a McDonald's...
Define bad...or worse. Isn't it already bad? And what would make it worse? It's a nation that was in turmoil before we invaded because of one dictator, it's in turmoil now, and for the forseeable future, will be in turmoil.
What will our presence do? Will it bring total calm, while installing democracy? How long will that take? al-Quada presence has increased since we've been there...it will grow a lot more in the coming years, just to fight the US.
On this point I disagree with Obama..I would withdraw all troops over the next 18-24 months, and let the country fend and learn for themselves. We did the job Bush wanted...we rid the country of a dictator. Now...lets move on, and get out.
We can't save the world, no matter how admirable and desirable it may be.
254)
You want to know why our country is so messed up? People let a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh on to the radiowaves.
Jovial - actually what is messed up is jerks like Limburger are trying to keep other voices from the radio
How are they trying to keep other voices off the radio?
I'll answer that:
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lifted the cap on the number of television and radio stations a company can own in a single market. Clear Channel started buying up markets of all sizes (CBS/Infinity also sharing much of the pie in major markets) with a smattering of a few other companies here and there... The result has been very little competition. Since most media owners are conservative (and since a plethora of Rush clones were available in syndication by that point) it made since to program their dying AM stations with conservative talk (People tend to forget that - even though Rush Limbaugh has had his show since 1988 - and the meager success he had in the beginning he owed to the Reagan FCC repeal of the Fairness Doctrine - Rush's rise to fame happened with the election of Bill Clinton. And after 1996 and with many more affiliates added, he bashed Clinton all the way to the bank!).
And Clinton regrets... while it was Reagan who vetoed the Truth in Telecommunications Act... with the plan all along with the Repugs to unleash the likes of Rush and Faux Fox Facts on Americans to deceive!
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT....
It's also very cost effective.. Stick someone like Rush in his studio--- actually in his house in Palm Beach, and flip a switch and you have the most listened to talk show on the radio.... because it's basically the ONLY talk show on the radio.. he can claim a large fan base only because he's on so many stations... in most markets he get ratings that are less than stellar...
He also used to PAY stations to carry his show.. in return he got a couple of live commercial spots to keep for his own out of each segment...
So was the mayor offended by the remark that he thought he was a secret service guy or a Bill Clinton lacky? AKA Shoeshine boy. DO liberals and those taking issue with this believe something about the shoe shinning business that we don't know about? Please Lib's tell us how you feel about people who shine shoes for a living. Are you suggesting that you are better than that? Is a person who makes a living in that business somehow "below" you. Would the mayor say he would be embarrassed to be in that business. This is more PC run amuck. I would say move on there is nothing to see here unless it is the libs putting down people in the shoe shine business.
Also I am curious based on the term "race swipe" in the headlines. It appears that the racist stereotyping is being applied by those who are "offended" by the reference. My question to those that are offended is this. What race exactly is a shoe shine boy? Upon Reading Rush's comment I did not see that he referred to a particular race. He said "secret service guy" and "shoeshine boy" Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Leave it to you, cape. Turn Rush's racist comment around to make it look like we're racist.
There is nothing wrong with a shoe shine boy. There's also nothing wrong w/being a Secret Service agent. The problem is with Rush's assumption that, since the man is Latino, he's a shoe shine boy or Secret Service.
Add to that his shock that this Latino is the Mayor of a major city, and you SHOULD see why we are "offended."
Actually, it's not even that I'm offended any more. This fool has said & done so many ridiculous things in the past that it's basically EXPECTED of him in these situations. AND HE NEVER FAILS TO LIVE TO OUR EXPECTATIONS!!!!!
>>Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?
Ask Rush. Apparently he's the one with the definitions.
Well I am beginning to think this is an internet hoax as I have read the entire transcript of this spot and am unable to identify where he made this remark. perhaps someone can pick it out as I can't find it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050...
"I spent more time talking to the mayor of Los Angeles. Clinton came in. I didn't see him 'cause couldn't hear so I had to sit close to my date. I'm focused looking at her, trying to hear what she's saying. I look up, and there's Clinton standing there, shakes my hand, is there for maybe 30 seconds, and goes to his table; comes back and has the mayor of Los Angeles with him -- and the mayor is going on and on and on about how excited he is to meet me, and I don't know who he is because I can't hear him introduce himself. He gives me his card. I said, "Whoa, this is the mayor of Los Angeles." So I did slide to the right, out of the booth, stood up, shook his hand"
Rush always edits his transcripts. I'm suprised at you Cape. That's the oldest trick in the book, akin to "the dog ate my homework"
Great fact checking...
As opposed to yours? You drop in with a drive by comment without actually verifying or showing us where the original quote is. Do you have a copy of the transcript where this quote was made other than the article that started this thread. From what I can see one does not exist. I could be wrong and invite you to show us where the original non-edited record is.
Ouch...I just got here. ;-(
"He said "secret service guy" and "shoeshine boy" Do liberals have a stereotypical definition of what race a shoeshine boy is or should be?"
Precisely. I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog. Hell, here in Vegas, a shoeshine boy makes pretty damned good money.
>>I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog.
Are you intentionally twisting this? The ire comes from Rush's racist "He's Latino; he must be a shoe shine boy," and then his shock that this Latino is actually the Mayor of a large US city. To try to paint those angry with his racist attitudes as racist is either stupidity, intentional twisting, or just plain delusion.
Isn't it funny how cons will scoff at the concept of cultural sensitivity one moment and then at just the "Wright" moment they suddenly become nuanced and understand all facets of racism, etc?
hehehe
"I never attributed a shoeshine boy to anything other than Underdog."
--Yours is essentially the same unbelievably lame argument Limbaugh gave following the remarks that derailed George "Macawitz" Allen's political career. He claimed one of his "Spanish" employees told him "macaca" meant "clown." You're very well trained, libsr.
capeman,
As a conservative, do you have a definition of a shoeshine boy applied here to a non-WASP man?
I don't think you're dumb but you sure are playing the role, not too well I may add.
Political correctness? I doubt it. Insensitivity? I'm certain of it. Political BS? Anything coming from the mouth of Limbaugh is certain to be that. He makes Benedict Arnold's unpatriotic act seem to be a personal act of sacrifice. It pales in comparison to anything that Rush is capable of doing in the name of this nation. He's an embarrassment to America. Just like Father Coughlin is to the Catholic Church.
CapeCoral implies that liberals despise shoe shine boys.
What a pathetic attempt to twist things.
Pathetic failed attempt.
"Since most media owners are conservative..."
An assumption with no basis in fact. You don't know much about media. If Air America were profitable, it'd be syndicated just as much as Limbaugh.
>>If Air America were profitable, it'd be syndicated just as much as Limbaugh.
If Air America on-line personalities paid to have their shows aired on various networks, they'd be as wide-spread as Rush, too.
BTW, isn't that called "Payola"?
hilarious,
How does profitability relate to ideology?
If you mean to say that conservative talk radio is profitable and liberal talk radio isn't and that relates to ideology in media, you certainly don't understand media in that vein.
If you allude that conservative talk radio is profitable because the owners of media are liberal, you're also wrong.
What you really don't understand is that the majority of media ownership is conservative, for all intents and purposes, and that is because they're in business to make a profit, not because they're on an ideological bent like Fox.
Clearchannel is the largest radio corporation in the world. It's owned and operated by a very ideologically conservative owner. And that's happened only in the last 20 years.
The unFairness Doctrine. Oh you mean, actually allowing listeners to choose the shows to which they can listen.
Why won't cons simply admit that they can't compete when obliged to present both sides of an issue? Shows like Limbaugh's do relatively well because the right wing media know that cons see things in terms of black and white, aggressively seek opportunities to have their egos stroked and will flock to anything which validates their opinions and views.
You know this, DKL. Look at the way some of you wingers here bare your fangs when FUR-ners like Candida and others dare to express an opinion which doesn't square with yours. It's bad enough that you have to tolerate us American liberals who refuse to dance to your nationalistic tune but someone from another country? Well, that's just going too dang far, huh?
Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine. Lib radio is a financial flop and even Al Gore has grown tired of pumping money into it. Liberalism is a big loser in the court of public opinion. No one pays to support the Lib media, as evidenced by the demise of the NY Times and Air unAmerican. Face it, when it comes to competing on an even playing field, Libs can't hack it.
"Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine"
--Of course you'd think it was "unfair." The right wing media has always known that poorly educated cons are easily befuddled by legitimate debate and only want to be spoon-fed concepts and arguments that make them feel good. You cannot deny this. The bottom line is that you needed Ronnie Reagan to more or less unilaterally step in and, to your way of thinking, level the playing field. Let's be frank...
If you cons truly believed your arguments could stand on their own merits, you wouldn't need to sit glued to your tv sets every night watching Bill O'Reilly maniacally scream in the faces of his guests in order to feel as if your voice was being heard. You don't know what a level playing field is, baby.
Unlike educated Libs like Rosie O'Dumbass, Janeane Garofalo, or basically anyone with a show on Air unAmerican. I'm still wating for you to be frank. O'Reilly isn't a Conservative, btw, and I don't watch him. You'd know that if you actually understood Conservative views instead of mindlessly repeating DNC rhetoric.
So who is a conservative that you support?
Rush? He's an entertainer/media mouthpiece, so he says what he's paid to say.
Rosie and Garofalo aren't really good examples because they're comediennes who say what they think, which is more than you can say for Rush or Oreilly?
How about your president or Ronald Raygun?
2 of the biggest spenders that ever came down the pike. Not very conservative.
The problem in America is that people aren't thinking about what would be best for the country, and name calling doesn't help.
What about Ron Paul? He's the only candidate that has really said what he's going to do if he wins, the rest are scary.
The liberal/conservative arguments are for talk show hosts and fools, this has no bearing on who really runs our country which by the way are the bankers. It's us against them and their ideology is money and we are their slaves.
Now we have Air America, Nova M, and certain shows from Jones Radio. This is a harder sell in smaller markets where management will do nothing to promote it.
Since we progressives are yearning for real information, we have turned to streaming on-line and/or subscribing to XM or Sirius for our talk. We get our news largely from the internet.
"we progressives" - That would be "we liberals".
Times are really tough. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck. Dobbs - it's just terrible. Where's the lib talk shows? I want to listen to one (except Franken - I can't stand the lying arrogant jerk). I bet it's a right wing conspiracy that keeps the left wing radio from airing their views!!
The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part.
Thanks Tessylo. I missed you.
meant to neg.
"The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part. "
Sorry. The "liberal media" scam is one of the biggest myths of this decade. If you take far-left views and far-right views and come down squarely in the center of the two you will find *always* that the media falls right-of-center. Always.
As for the networks being owned by conservatives, one has only to look at NBC as an example, owned by GE (one of the largest contractors of the military-industrial complex) in turn owned by the bin-Laden groups (which quashed news stories about Osama through their influence).
""The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR."
Liberal?? That equates to honest,and anything that is honest is anti rush,anti republican,anti right.Those damn public stations,how dare they tell the truth and have honest reporting.
Maybe i'm the dumb one here,but shouldn't,by it's very nature,the media be liberal(look up the definition of liberal)? If it isn't then we face the prospect of a state run media,kinda like China,Iran,Russia,those country's that really are ultra conservative.
Where do you get your facts? "The "liberal media" scam"? Please present some data to supports that stand.
whiner...
Progressives don't really need all that many liberal talk shows. We're comfortable with what we got, since many of the regular cable network programs and over the air newscasts are moderate, fair, and balanced.
Limbaugh is more of a comedian anyway...in between Howard Stern and Don Imus. Listen to them once or twice, you realize that what they say is for shock effect only, and move on. The difference between Limbaugh and the other two is that he not only thinks he's funny, he thinks he's important, and sways public opinion...which he doesn't. He just shows us how ignorant he really is.
I think sometimes the shock is when many of these programs play back the actual statements of the liberals and democrat(ic)s. The actual words from these people are shocking. For example Hillary and Obama saying they are going to confiscate the profits of a private company or industry. That is shocking to me. That is what Hugo is doing. That is what Putin is doing. Are we as a free nation going to advocate the confiscation of peoples retirement funds and stock purchases? These publicly traded and owned company profits are "owned" by the shareholders. Some estimate that over half of all Americans through retirement accounts and various other financial instruments are invested in the stock market.
McCain's comment of the US staying in Iraq for a 100 years was a shock for me...but I haven't heard those specific comments from Hillary and Obama. I'll look for them...
I guess you must be in shock that the US is still in Japan, Germany, and Korea then. I would also guess that you would be shocked that any move to pull out of Iraq now (despite how we got there) would be viewed by Islamic Extremist as a victory and would again give validity to the statements made by their leaders that the US is a paper Tiger and invite additional attacks on US interests around the world including inside our borders. Shocked? If the US pulls out of Iraq and there is a move to turn it into a base for Islamic extremists would you call for, as Obama does, the US to go back in?
>>I guess you must be in shock that the US is still in Japan, Germany, and Korea then.
We did not PREEMPTIVELY, on FALSE PRETENSES, invade any of those countries.
Iraq, on the other hand, is a completely different story. We invaded on cooked evidence & outright lies.
And Germany, Japan & Korea don't have the overwhelming majority of their citizens & gov't wanting us out.
>>a move to turn it into a base for Islamic extremists
In case you haven't noticed, the longer we stay, the more of a "base for Islamic extremists" it's becoming.
Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq. You can say hey it does not matter that Saddam was thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families. This action caused a huge surge in people being convinced that blowing themselves up in a Pizza parlor full of civilians was the right thing to do. You can ignore or disbelieve all of the reports that were generated under Clinton linking Saddam to Osama. See 1998 Bin Laden Indictment http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nl... Ignore that under Clintom the official US policy became regime change http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislat...
You can ignore operation Desert fox http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/ But you cannot ignore history forever.
Will you support Obama if he orders troops back in after he pulls them out?
Your URL to prove that the Clinton admin linked Iraq to Al Qaeda is an indictment. Where is the subsequent trial or investigation or conclusion?
Your own government - since Iraq was invaded - has proved that all of the reasons to invade Iraq were FALSE. The Republican controlled Senate in 2005-2006 conducted 2 investigations, and the Pentagon recently concluded a long investigation into all of the pre-war intelligence. All the investigations did prove that the Bush administration lied about all of the reasons to go to war - NO WMD, NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and NO connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
By the way, most of the rest of the world DISAGREED with Bush's plan to invade Iraq.
And your question is erroneous -- in a court of law they would sustain the objection to it as "leading the witness".
"Bush administration lied " Not exactly true. The Bush administration had intelligence reports that were not 100% iron clad. That is why they are called estimates. I am not going to go into this in depth as there is no changing the minds either way. The President asked for a vote and received an overwhelming majority for the Authorization to use force. The UN had a vote and the vote by the UNSC was unanimous. The indictment was based on the belief and research of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Of New York, Mary Jo White and the FBI. I don't think they lied and believed the indictment contained true charges. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/prladen.pdf
Here is some additional information on the matter http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/fitzgeral...
>>Again it matters not if you did not believe the intel supplied by all world intel agencies or not regarding Iraq
What DOES matter is that the intel WAS questionable, and if you're going to war, you better be D^MN SURE that the intel is correct - AND you better not be cherry picking the intel, like Bush was.
>>thwarting a peace process by supplying $25,000 to homicide bombers families
Those bombers whose families he supported are & were fighting an occupation by Israel. While abhorrent, and they ARE AND WERE abhorrent, they no more horrible than what Israel does on a daily basis in Gasa & the West Bank. And the US supports Israel unconditionally.
>>Will you support Obama if he orders troops back in after he pulls them out?
That all depends on the context. If Iraq attacks us or 1 of our allies, then probably. If not, the absolutely not - especially if he uses trumped up reasons like W did.
Yes, I am surprised we're still in Germany and Japan, two countries that we're supposed to be on relatively good terms with. They really should re-consider our presence on their soil. There's no need for us to be there...waste of our time and money.
At the rate we're going, we'll have bases in every nation in this world in about 750 years. But, at least we won't be far away from a McDonald's...
So would you agree with Obama that we would go back in if the situation went from bad to worse after the US left?
Define bad...or worse. Isn't it already bad? And what would make it worse? It's a nation that was in turmoil before we invaded because of one dictator, it's in turmoil now, and for the forseeable future, will be in turmoil.
What will our presence do? Will it bring total calm, while installing democracy? How long will that take? al-Quada presence has increased since we've been there...it will grow a lot more in the coming years, just to fight the US.
On this point I disagree with Obama..I would withdraw all troops over the next 18-24 months, and let the country fend and learn for themselves. We did the job Bush wanted...we rid the country of a dictator. Now...lets move on, and get out.
We can't save the world, no matter how admirable and desirable it may be.