Replies

What do you call Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, FR, etc. Just because the "major" news outlets are left leaning doesn't mean that there is no conservative opportunities.

I repeat, the market has failed to create any broadcast TV network with a conservative or even moderate news organization, despite a manifest need.

There are plenty of scenarios where the market will not cater to a widespread consumer desire.

I just did. If you haven't got the intelligence to read what's written here, I certainly don't have the time to argue with you further.

If you are so concerned that a non-smoking bar doesn't exist in Lincoln, then open one. Of course, earlier you admitted that you were to lazy to do so and that you preferred the government do your bidding.

You are untruthful as well as slow on the uptake. You join Protagoras on the ignore list. Bye!

"I repeat, the market has failed to create any broadcast TV network with a conservative or even moderate news organization, despite a manifest need."

How about Fox News? You wouldn't call them "moderate"? Actually the market is working. The alternative sources that conservatives use are very successful. The "broadcast news" is continually losing market share to the alternate offerings. Your own example is a good example of the market at work.

"I just did. If you haven't got the intelligence to read what's written here, I certainly don't have the time to argue with you further."

I did read what you typed and I responded. However, you failed to address the outlets that are meeting the market demand for conservative views. Your blanket statement that the market is not being met is false. Conservatives tend to get their news from alternative sources and the necessity of a "broadcast news station" catering to the conservative base is a false premise. Conservatives aren't clamoring for a conservative broadcast news station because they turn elsewhere, therefore the market is working.

"You are untruthful as well as slow on the uptake. You join Protagoras on the ignore list. Bye!"

What you specifically typed in post #375:

"Yep. It's not social engineering. It's eradication of an evil. Conservatives (right-wingers, if you like) favor all sorts of simiilar measures - laws against prostitution, drugs, sodomy, strip-clubs, even pornography. In the past some of us supported prohibition of alcohol."

If that isn't a statement of support for the prohibition of alcohol, then I don't know what it is. You stated "some of us" as an inclusive statement. If you are going to call me a liar, you should certainly do a better job of figuring out what you posted. The same arguments are used in the eradication of religion from our society.

"That's an idiotic assumption. Based on CSM's use of it, I deduce he's an idiot."

What is idiotic? You openly support the tyranny of the majority, you openly praise it as meeting some fictitious demand. I show you a case where that same tyranny has been used against religion. Do you now admit that the tyranny of the majority is not such a good thing? Which is it, good or bad? It can't be good sometimes and bad others, either it is a philosophy you support or it isn't.

Whenever tyranny of the majority is the default, it can and WILL be used against something you cherish. That is precisely why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

"I never posted any support of the prohibition of alcohol. Once again, CSM has resorted to crass falsehood to try to make his case."

Reference post #375. You prove yourself wrong.

I did take a look at the thread again and you are correct, you never stated you were to lazy to start or invest in a non-smoking bar. I had you confused with another poster from another thread. What you did do was continually complain that the option did not exist. Joe has provided you with a couple of locations, one you didn't like and the other you haven't responded to.

How about it, are you willing to open up a non-smoking bar? How about investing in one?