RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and

RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

servantforuse -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:59:56 AM)
I think you should look to the 'left' as well. Do Kieth Oberman and Chris Mathews ever debate anything ? They give their one sided opinions every night without any debate...

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:01:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINALNorthernGent 'Fraid not, but in my defence I was watching a programme about Thomas Paine last night, quite interesting as it goes......so I am getting to grips with US politics.....slowly but surely, admittedly.......now there's an influential liberal! Don't feel bad, I'm only getting to grips with it myself, and I've had to deal with it all my life.

FullCircle -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:05:16 AM)
I don't really listen to famous commentators of any kind, I listen to the man in the street and he say: Taxiii.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:14:38 AM)
What I find so incredibly ironic - and amusing - in the whole liberal v. conservative discussion is that this country was founded by the ultimate in radical liberals. In the 1700's there was simply no such thing as a "president" or a "vote". The Founding Fathers' notion of democracy was as far from the mainstream as could be in their time. America is and always has been a liberal nation. Converatism, especially as fashioned today, is the single most destructive force in this country. ~Dave

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:15:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I think you should look to the 'left' as well. Do Kieth Oberman and Chris Mathews ever debate anything ? They give their one sided opinions every night without any debate... You know I agree, but what spawned this all was the shows like Limbaugh. Olbermann was the liberal answer to shows like Hannity and O'Reilly. Just like MSNBC is the liberal answer to FOX. Somewhere along the way people started believing that the "mainstream media" hated conservatives, and so Rupert Murdoch gave birth to conservative "news". I'm not really sure which started first though. Was it really a feeling of disenfranchisement among conservatives or was it a clever salesman who sold a gullible public on that feeling?

truckinslave -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:16:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: intenze Interesting OP. The problem I see is that there are so many people who take the "showmanship" of Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., and try to turn it into something more than it is. It's kind of like watching professional wrestling, not exactly food for the intellectual mind. If I were a conservative, those people would annoy the crap out of me. How many thinking conservatives out there cringe when they hear sound bites from Coulter or Limbaugh spouted like conservative dogma? Ugh. Hannity annoys me more often than Coulter or RL- I think he reads a lot of his stuff, and repeats it. Coulter is much more likely to go for the truly cringe-inducing soundbite, some of which I consider pretty over the top even when I agree with her. Anyone who confuses these three with a supposedly "unbiased" news show needs to "just say no" imo. Of course, I think that applies to NPR, MSNBC, CNN, etc, as well [:D]

truckinslave -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:17:43 AM)
No "chicken and egg" here imo, rule. Disenfranchisement first. Rush filled a void, and so did Murdoch.

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave No "chicken and egg" here imo, rule. Disenfranchisement first. Rush filled a void, and so did Murdoch. Maybe. I just never saw it. I would seriously like to know how you did though.

UncleNasty -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:27:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland Thanks for the reply MrRodgers, but my point/question was more to those that follow them rather than the actual "actors" themselves. Meaning doesn't it bother the general public, their fans and followers, that these people are not willing to put their ideals, egos and reputations out there, in front of a crowd, in a free exhange of ideas and conversation rather than just hide in their isolated protective studios? What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? VC, Your question brings to mind a quote of Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." To answer your question I offer this: Very few people are willing and able to think for themselves in free and independent ways. They unconsciously look to others to do their thinking for them. Many people also confuse feeling for thinking (which begs the question "Do people look to others to do their feeling for them also?"). The names you mentioned are quite adept at evoking emotional responses. It is my opinion that a fair amount of this is caused by deficiencies in our public education system/s, though I'm certain there are myriad other causes and factors. Those systems seem to be much better at grinding out drones like link sausages than they are at teaching students anything that resembles critical or independent thinking. Uncle Nasty

StrangerThan -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland For the people that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time viewing their shows and reading their blogs, do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate? I am asking a serious question and not trying to inflame the usual partisian verbiage and retorts. Its like on one side, you have endless political posturing, sound bites, be "right back after this commercial". The other side is people that are willing to get on a stage, debate certain issues, no clock, no "cutting off mics", no judges other than a moderator and an audience. Do you ever wonder why the Dobsons, Limbaughs, Hannity's, Coulters are not willing to debate other people in public? Does that not bother anyone that certain people only spew their vitriol and misguided notions from a one sided, safe and secure, no rebuttal possible, recording station? I enjoy both sides to an extent - that extend being somewhere around the point where nausea starts to set in. With all the experts around, seems like we could find one who could run the country, create harmony, reassure Wall Street and make golden futures for us all. And besides, most commentators do exactly the same thing. Having a lectern, an audience and not allowing much debate is nothing new. But to answer your question in another way. I don't think they generate the kind of discord and division most people think they do. I think they tap into it.

truckinslave -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:42:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave No "chicken and egg" here imo, rule. Disenfranchisement first. Rush filled a void, and so did Murdoch. Maybe. I just never saw it. I would seriously like to know how you did though. That's an xlent q. Dunno, really; may have been the gun-control uproars of the late 60s. I was quite incensed when, at age 17, I was suddenly prevented from buying rifle/shotgun/pistol ammo- something I'd been doing foe several years. I was a confirmed hawk before I entered the Army in '71... I cannot remember ever not seeing the bias.

truckinslave -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:47:41 AM)
Stranger- There is a longing for some period of political agreement that rarely if ever existed. Political discord is nothing new. Nor are media bias or yellow journalism, of course. Jefferson died relatively bitter towards the free press he so championed. "But to answer your question in another way. I don't think they generate the kind of discord and division most people think they do. I think they tap into it". Perfect.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 8:50:38 AM)
Richard Dawkins is unbiased? Have you read his latest book? I'm an atheist; I can't stand Fox News; and I think Dawkins's latest book was pure crap. quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland For the people that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time viewing their shows and reading their blogs, do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate?

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 9:00:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave That's an xlent q. Dunno, really; may have been the gun-control uproars of the late 60s. I was quite incensed when, at age 17, I was suddenly prevented from buying rifle/shotgun/pistol ammo- something I'd been doing foe several years. I was a confirmed hawk before I entered the Army in '71... I cannot remember ever not seeing the bias. No, I was asking specifically about your feelings on the media disenfranchisement issue.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 9:04:16 AM)
"Liberal media bias" Um, right. Obviously, all of the AM band on the radio is devoted to exposing the flaws and gaffes of the conservatives. (all currently owned by one of three radio conglomerates, all in turn, owned by republicans.) FOX NEWS slammed Bush and Cheany at every turn for the last 8 years, right? (Owned by republicans) Murdock's newspapers are well know for pushing progressive policies on every page. (Owned by Rupert, arch republican) In fact, almost ALL the media outlets are controlled by multi-nationals who support the GOP, since the GOP is their friend, being willing to look the other way at abuses and reporting that is not in the public's interest, but that definitely supports their agenda. Think about it... once the mission in Iraq was declared "accomplished" by President Rainman, how many reports did we get from "embedded" reporters, during our then and current occupation of that country? Answer: a tiny fraction of what it was when the tanks were rolling into Bagdad. Is it that the country is now MORE dangerous than when we first got there? Or is it that American audiances might see things going on over there that might turn them against our continued presence there? When AbuGrahib broke, it was because one American serviceman smuggled a CD out of the country. On it were all the images that we are now all familliar with. And the rumor is that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Liberal bias... yeah, right.

servantforuse -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 9:11:03 AM)
The liberals have 'air america' on the AM band. Oh I forgot. they went bankrupt because they had no sponsers and no listeners...

MarsBonfire -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 9:14:48 AM)
Okay... I suggest an experiment. We each listen to Limbaugh for a week, and also tune in to "Countdown" for a week. We all follow one story that appears on both shows. (We shouldn't have to wait long... the media cycle loves to focus on whatever's "hot") We then take that story and check the "reporting" against various "fact check" websites, and we see who has the more accurate take on the event... I'm secure in knowing that Olbermann will come out of this smelling like a rose, while Limbaugh.... won't. (Because I've done this experiment several times on my own.) The level of fact bending going on behind Rush's mike is pretty frackin' obvious, in fact. Of course, it won't change a damn thing on these boards, even if we had 100% participation in this suggested experiment. Once some people make up their minds, one way or another, there's no shifting it. It's a mental process like racisim.

Owner59 -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 11:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Very much off topic, but I'm curious to know: who are Forbes? and what was the criteria that constituted the vote? He is absolutely nowhere near the top 25,000 most influential liberals, never mind the top 25. And he`s no liberal. Perhaps being an atheist makes conservatives automatically pigeon-hole him as liberal.He`s not. Forbes is however ,very right-wing and his mag reflects that. As part of the conservative press and supposedly a business journal,they`re (along with most any other financial news outfit) as much to blame for the current financial mess,as neo-cons and Wall Street are.

DomKen -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 12:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? That's some funny shit.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 2:54:28 PM)
Actual it was the idea of a republic that our founding fathers believed in, which is not liberalism. Popular vote for President is still not a thing that is done today, so I am not sure what that points out. To the OP, on occasion I will listen to Neal Boortz, but if he is on one of his socialism rants I switch it. His government outrage segment is usually pretty good, and he also says that the Republicans deserve to be a thing of the past because of their broken promises and hypocricy. Edited to add: I watch Glenn Beck on occasion, and he seems pretty balanced. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 What I find so incredibly ironic - and amusing - in the whole liberal v. conservative discussion is that this country was founded by the ultimate in radical liberals. In the 1700's there was simply no such thing as a "president" or a "vote". The Founding Fathers' notion of democracy was as far from the mainstream as could be in their time. America is and always has been a liberal nation. Converatism, especially as fashioned today, is the single most destructive force in this country. ~Dave

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125