Posted on 05/15/2006 5:36:17 AM PDT by Quilla
Or, as Rush said so eloquently years ago, "it takes work, and time, to turn a rational child into a liberal." With arguments for abortion that, while abortion kills a baby, the birth of a baby "kills" the dreams of the young teenage mother, so it's really about which killing is more appropriate.
Only if you're intellectually dishonest, which is the case for the entire enterprise of schools of journalism.
I asked why shouldn't we subject the democRATS to the same scrutiny? Why should they get a pass? Why should they be allowed to remain vague and contradictory?
In response, you send me to your post #49? Why? What does your post #49 have to do with my question?
It's not a bash of Sean, it's that he's not Rush in terms of intelluctually being able to break down an issue and put it on a shelf that all can reach.
Sean's addition is his Q factor, largely due to his Hannity Fox exposure. As for Reagan and North, No comment?
I didn't say you were bashing Hannity. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim.
Levin is funny in small doses, but I don't think I could take 3-4 hours a day of him. I've never heard Savage, but I've heard the horror stories, so I'll pass. As for Hannity, he's okay, but nowhere close to being in Rush or Laura Ingraham's league.
It seems the only questions Sean knows how to ask are "So you hate the President" and "why do you hate America".
He was talking to Gingrich the other day on the TV show and wasn't even responding to the response Newt had given in the interview. It was purely the talking points.
Hey, I'm no fan of Newt, but Sean missed the target on that interview.
The reality is, most people are conservative. Those with longer memories remember when there were three (3) stations to watch on TV, that was it. Many folks lives were considerably complicated by being certain to have parked their kiester in front of the tube at a given time, or miss Lawrence Welk entirely. In any case it was possible for almost 50 years to convince Americans their views were a minority, and made to feel guilty about them to boot.
Huh?
God, I love this man! Rush has put it all together for a long time and when he's good, he exposes a whole Congress full of critters for what they really are, smelly politicians!
With all due respect you do not know what you are talking about.
I was listening to Rush when he was a local talk show host in Sacramento. He was doing the one thing that local radio management did not want done, talk nationally. He refused to discuss local matters.
At the time Rush went National, the only national talk shows were late at night. None were during the day.
When Rush went national, no one believed in him, not even the stations he managed to sign up. The original deal was he had to do a local three hour show (in New York) before they allowed him to do his national three hours show, so in the beginning he was doing six hours a day.
On top of that, he wasn't getting paid. If I remember the situation, that was why he had the weekly RUSH TO EXCELLENT TOURS, this is where he earned the money to pay his bills.
Rush openned up a whole new world of talk radio, and sure it looks inevitable today, but not when he started.
>>
An excellent point. I had no idea that's how Prof. Walter Williams became a guest host.
<<
I don't have any special insight. I am only surmising how it came about based on bits and pieces of what has been said over the years. I think I heard the first time that Dr. Williams was on, and he was sure as green as any summer intern that AM broadcast stations sometimes use in the early morning hours where they can get experience when nobody is listening.
Admittedly my #49 does not say that liberal politicians should get a pass from journalism - only that it is inevitable that they will. Journalists report bad news - inevitably. Liberals propose impractical solutions which reaffirm that the journalists are right to point out the problem. One hand washes the other, and the only people who get criticized are those who actually are responsible for getting things done.Are oil prices high? Blame the people who, by producing oil and bringing it to market, are preventing the price from being even higher. And blame freedom, which allows people to buy cars and SUVs which use gasoline and allows people to go to the gas station and voluntarily pay the high price for gasoline. Do not blame the politicians who prevented ANWR drilling and offshore drilling, and nuclear power and the construction of new refineries.
The criticism is always on the responsible middle class, never of the rich who promote attacks on the middle class in the name of the poor and call it "liberalism." The rich in question being limosine liberals, including newspaper publishers.
What I don't understand is why would someone want to use lies to get power?? Once obtained, what do you have?....only lies.
Truth is much better.
I apologize if you misunderstood my posts. My only point, there was, and is, 50 years of pent-up general cussedness at conservative thought - which is the majority of Americans, being excluded from the national debate. So, it wasn't surprising that a good talk show host cleaned up. Not to me anyway. Consider that he capitalized on AM radio - a moribund medium before Rush came along if there was one, and caused much consternation amongst "liberals", even though they had/have a lock on major television outlets, academia, hollywood, local and state governments, etc. etc.
The President will speak more on that in his speach tonight..
I want to add two points I noticed when trying to give liberal radio a fair shot.
1. The liberal/Democratic base is significantly younger than the conservative/Republican group. Getting talk radio to look "cool" to a bunch of liberal 20-somethings is a losing battle, methinks.
2. They had NO content. The few times I flipped over, intending to listen and give it a chance I heard: A) Dead air, B) A gardening show (twice) and C) Two hosts talking about uninteresting events in the life of a celebrity I'm not familiar with.
Socialism is defined as "government ownership of the means of production." The fallacy in that is that it takes what is produced as well as how it is produced as a given. If it is a given, it "was inevitable."Such an analysis cannot survive any understanding of the real world, where nothing is quite as inevitable in prospect as present reality always seems in hindsight.
If socialism had been allowed to freeze "the means of production" - and what was produced - back in Karl Marx's day, we would all be wielding the hammers and sickles which seemed so properly emblematic of work in the nineteenth century rather than mostly working in air conditioned offices to which we commute in air conditioned automobiles. And we would be dying by age 55.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.