Quote: correction *look*, since someone is bound to be a dickhead about it I shall help<
>
<
>
This should read:<
>
<
>
"Correction: "look." Someone is bound to be a dickhead about it, so I shall help."<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

And we have a winner, Thank you... dickhead <i></i>

Quote:It will be interesting to observe if there's suddenly a terror alert that coincides with the announcement of the results of all this.<
>
<
>
Bird flu hysteria.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Reading about this shit I really wish the left wasn't gloating so much. This is not your team winning the damn Super Bowl people. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

<
>
actually, I do sort of agree with Surcam.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

You are right, Surcum. This isn't about some team winning the superbowl; it's much more important. The Bush administration (particularly the VP and a number of staffers) has showed vitriolic partisan attitudes since the beginning of Pres. Bush's first term; just as at least one member of the Clinton Administration showed that same "attack dog" attitude. That would be relatively unimportant if Pres. Bush was a firm leader and manager, and able to keep his hounds at bay, but it seems to be the other way around. At the minimum, the result affects bipartisanship and useful dialogue (read that, makes for an ineffective presidency). At worst, it involves deliberate flaunting of the spirit (and possibly letter) of the law. <
>
<
>
Rush Limbaugh is funny to listen to, but the thought of folks who really ACT that way in the White House is frankly frightening. I am not gloating, I am sighing a possible sigh of relief that there might be the tiniest chance that Pres. Bush will figure out what's going wrong here. At the least, it might reduce the long-term political effectiveness of some really vicious men. Hopefully, they will succomb to the lure of cashola, and earn big bucks in the private sector providing entertainment, instead of being a part of a President's team. <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Neither side should be allowed to call the other partisan with a straight face; nor can they accuse the other of failure to control fire
ands. Why should we be surprised when someone acts that way as President, when we have encouraged it from Congress for decades?<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:Neither side should be allowed to call the other partisan with a straight faceThere are a number of politicians who are willing to cooperate with the other side in a constructive fashion, just as there are a number of politicians who seem unable or unwilling to ever work with anyone who deviates from their personal beliefs by a hair. Besides, no one is calling either side partisan - just members of the various factions.Quote:nor can they accuse the other of failure to control fire
andsI most certainly can. So should you. If the president is unable to control his own employees, then it's entirely his fault. We aren't talking about using party whips to attempt to influence peers, we are talking about the President who claims that he entered office to usher in an era of multi-party cooperation (remember that whole focus from his tour as Governor?). His staff is about as closed-minded as they come nowadays, and he seems to get his direction from them, instead of the other way around.<
>
<i></i>

There wouldn't be such gloating if it weren't for the attitude of the Republican party since 2000. <i></i>

Bullshit. <i></i>

Gonna have to agree with Jateki.<
>
<
>
Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

The factions control their respective parties.<
>
<
>
Sure, party cooperation was part of the Bush campaign platform, but how long did it take before both sides eagerly jumped in to shit slinging? It didn't even wait until he had taken office. His staff is no different, they just forget to add the smile and the kind word.<
>
<
>
It's all a huge PR game, and the only thing that comes out of it is what everyone should have figured out about our political process for themselves in the first place. <
>
<
>
It is no longer about governing, it is about winning.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:Reading about this shit I really wish the left wasn't gloating so much. This is not your team winning the damn Super Bowl people.<
>
<
>
The "left" aren't even on the freaking playing field. the RIGHT controls Congress, the RIGHT controls the White House, and now the RIGHT controls the Supreme court. Exactly WTF are the "left" supposed to DO? They've been voted off the field, remember?<
>
<
>
Cutting off their hands, then blaming them for not saving the right wing fundamentalists doesn't sound like a very compelling argument, either.<
>
<
>
You want the left to do something? Go out and vote in 2006.<
>
<
>
It wasn't the left that was going to eliminate the filibuster because they didn't have enough power already.<
>
<
>
The right keeps saying "the people should receive the legislation and security they voted for during the elections".<
>
<
>
Well guess what, the people got exactly what they asked for. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Word. - joxur<i></i>

To clarify Sir. I was speaking of the left blogs. So I don't see how anything you said applies to what I'm saying.<
>
<
>
To me, this is a serious matter. As we now know, this is digging into this administration's twisting of the facts to make a case for war in Iraq. Extremely serious shit.<
>
<
>
And here I am reading people on the left talking about Fitzmas and making little songs about it. Fuck that. Your team didn't win the Super Bowl. We are all losing right now and this not a fucking time to gloat. That's how I see it anyway. <
>
<
>
Bush was supposed to be a uniter, not a divider. Remember that shit? Americans desparately need to realize that this is not my team vs your team. This is OUR team.<
>
<
>
Latest news flying around: Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak<
>
<
>
Quote:WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.<
>
<
>
"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this." <i></i>

Quote:The factions control their respective parties.There is no 1 faction; that's a good thing about the two-party system. This is especially true of the Republican party, where we have libertarians and authoritarians in the same fold, along with fundamental Christians, Monetarists, advocates of big business, you name it. The Dems are a similar coalition of interests.Quote:His staff is no different, they just forget to add the smile and the kind word.His staff is entirely different. They won't even pass the time with the opposition party - heck, they vilify members of their own party if it goes against their own personal agendas. They refuse to compromise, even one inch, and
and anyone a traitor who does not agree with them. A big part of politics is the smile and the kind word, by the way.Quote:It is no longer about governing, it is about winning.Then I feel sorry for you and other Americans who feel this way. If you choose to place the bar here, then you (and, sadly, I) will get the government you ask for. <i></i>

I don’t know about the rest of you partisan hacks, but I’m finding myself wishing for a viable 3rd party more and more everyday. Where the hell is the middle class party? <i></i>

Quote:I don’t know about the rest of you partisan hacks, but I’m finding myself wishing for a viable 3rd party more and more everyday. Where the hell is the middle class party?<
>
<
>
I'd settle for a viable candidate, on EITHER side. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

I just hope we come to terms with the fact that our system of government needs to be reworked before people internally start becoming violent about it on a large scale. <i></i>

Hence, factions being plural. <
>
<
>
Quote:His staff is entirely different. They won't even pass the time with the opposition party <
>
<
>
That is the way things are portrayed, but again that is a PR game. Accomplishing anything without coordination and compromise is impossible, regardless of whether or not you are the majority party. The boards they sit on are not solely comprised of members of their own party.<
>
<
>
As folks have shown here before, the decisions that are demonized are stamped by members of both parties. Name calling aside, the democratic legislature is not bending to the will of some overlord because he questions their patriotism. They picked a fight over that very issue in fact.<
>
<
>
Quote:A big part of politics is the smile and the kind word, by the way.<
>
<
>
That is why I
ought it up. <
>
<
>
Quote:Then I feel sorry for you and other Americans who feel this way.<
>
<
>
I did not portray this as a good thing. It is something seriously wrong that needs to be fixed. When you have a group of individuals fighting bills that they in part authored because they were put forward by the opposition party the process is fucked.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:Latest news flying around: Bush whacked Rove on CIA leakSo Bush knew? He knew when he said this in September 2003?<
>
Quote:THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.He knew when he also said this?<
>
Quote:"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.<
>
<
>
"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.<
>
<
>
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."<
>
<
>
He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." - joxur<i></i>

Quote: Hence, factions being plural.Then your statement is meaningless. You are saying that the parties are controlled by the members of the parties. That's rather like saying that the definition of red is things that are red. Each faction within a given party has its own vital interests that it champions, and works with others on the rest. That's how humans coexist peacably. We usually call that Politics.Quote:-------------------------------<
>
His staff is entirely different. They won't even pass the time with the opposition party <
>
-------------------------------<
>
That is the way things are portrayed, but again that is a PR game. That's more than "the way things are protrayed". That's the truth. Folks like Rove, VP Cheney, Rumstead are not consensus builders. Public and private remarks from them and other members of Pres. Bush's administration show that they don't play well with others. You seem to have misunderstood me, by the way - I did not say that President Bush's goal was to be partisan. I pointed out that a large number of his staffers are, and that those staffers seem to be allowed to run amok, historically. That might be changing - we will see. <i></i>

Quote:Bush was supposed to be a uniter, not a divider. Remember that shit? Americans desparately need to realize that this is not my team vs your team. This is OUR team.Give me a fucking
eak.<
>
<
>
All of the people "gloating" were people who did not back Bush and who have been saying all these things that mainstream republicans are finally realizing. So, yeah, we get a little bit of an "I told you so".<
>
<
>
Bush is reaping what he sowed. - joxur<i></i>

The distinction was made between sides and factions, and the context was defined as being one of the dissenting groups that get heard. The paper drink um
ella lobby is part of it, but two or three groups on each side hold the majority sway and do so loudly. It's where the man-slap fights that we all know and love come from.<
>
<
>
Public and private comments aired as responses to the other side's equivalents do not set the norm. They are Type-A to be sure, but there is not quite the air of uncooperativeness that is being alluded to. The verbal sparring is going both ways. Agree with it or not, it is the party strategy.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:And here I am reading people on the left talking about Fitzmas and making little songs about it. Fuck that. Your team didn't win the Super Bowl. We are all losing right now and this not a fucking time to gloat. That's how I see it anyway. <
>
<
>
Hmm let me see if I can explain it. Bush ran on how he was going to clean up the corruption and mess of the Clinton administration. It was emphasised how he was a good christian, and would
ing the government back from its debauchery. This image was further reinforced by stories spread about how the Clintons had trashed the whitehouse on their way out. <
>
<
>
In the past four years, the pundits have worked on trashing the word liberal. The growing concern of many people was protrayed as shrill whining at best, as treasonous at worst. Liberals have been the fault of everything wrong in the world, thank god we have a president who can stop these evil people and stand against them!<
>
<
>
So here we are at the eve of 2006, and it's found that both sides are corrupt as hell, and you can choose to wallow in the mud with one party, or wallow in the mud with the other party. And all we've all been doing for the past few decades is wallowing in pig shit.<
>
<
>
The emperor has no clothing. Forgive the whipping boys a bit of time to snicker and point.
<i></i>

Mono on point. <i></i>

Sarissa, your discussions would be germaine if we were looking at Congress - but we are not. You cannot apply the same principles to a group of peers and a heirarchical structure like the Executive Branch. If we were discussing, say, the Tom DeLay issue, your statements would be on point, but this is about a group of rabid dogs without a master, when there *should* be one. <i></i>

Quote:this is about a group of rabid dogs without a master, when there *should* be one.<
>
Actually...there were several "masters" who kept them focused on the latest target while they yelled "attack!"<
>
<
>
Both of them are probably going down, though we don't know to what extent. (Rove, Cheney)<
>
<
>
So now, the rabid dogs are lost. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Who is to say there isn't a master? It is only assumed as such because some folks are inclined to believe the person that is supposed to fill that roll is a garden variety moron.<
>
<
>
In any case, I don't see what your point is other than people having to kowtow to a mean boss. Either they are interacting with Congress, which they have been accused of on numerous occasions, or they are interacting with their subordinates. Manipulating what they say is one thing, and should be investigated, but it is technically their job to determine what direction is taken in what they do.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Hey guys, it's me again.<
>
<
>
Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry<
>
<
>
Quote:Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.<
>
<
>
It's getting closer.... <i></i>

Interesting post by Lawrence O'Donnell @ The Huffington Post discussing something I had never considered about D.C. grand juries.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
Will Fitzgerald issue indictments? Washington and cable news care about nothing else these days. The answer is: No, he won’t. The most Fitzgerald will do is ask his grand jury to issue indictments. It’s really all up to them. Which raises the question: who are they? A federal grand jury has 23 members.<
>
A typical Washington, D.C. grand jury is about 75% African American. Fitzgerald’s is slightly more than that. This is not the kind of group Karl Rove feels at home with. He has no professional experience trying to appeal to a group like this. He has been so unsuccessful at it that his boss’s job approval rating with African Americans is now 2%, which, factoring in the margin of error, could actually be zero. To make matters statistically and demographically much worse for Rove and Scooter Libby, only 12 of the 23 grand jurors have to agree to indict them.<
>
<
>
I learned here on these boards that it's racist to think black people generally have different perceptions than white people. So what's this O'Donnell guy talking about?<
>
<
>
Sarcasm aside, it is funny to try and picture these guys testifying in front a majority black grand jury from D.C. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Oh, in case you missed the memo. Perjury isn't a big deal any more. It's just a technicality.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.<
>
<
>
I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.<
>
<
>
MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.<
>
<
>
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that. <
>
<
>
Crooks and Liars has the video of Senator KB Hutchison on Meet The Press here.<
>
<
>
While she thought it was a big deal when she voted to impeach Clinton, it's just a technicality now.<
>
<
>
Let the hypocrisy games begin! <
>
<
>
I'm sure Democrats will be caught in this web as well. Downplaying perjury back then, and now calling for heads. Perjury is a big deal either way, but I think Republicans downplaying perjury now says something. It's a big deal when it's about adultery in the White House, but not when it's about national security, leaking classified information.<
>
<
>
Just as Clinton stood in front of the American people and lied about having sexual relations in the White House, Bush lied to us about his boys being involved in this leak. You should be just as angry now as you were back then. <i></i>

Quote:Just as Clinton stood in front of the American people and lied about having sexual relations in the White House, Bush lied to us about his boys being involved in this leak. You should be just as angry now as you were back then. <
>
<
>
No, I'm angrier now because leaking the name of an agent is huge. Clinton lied about a private matter and wasn't anyone's business to begin with. That comparison is weak and I haven't heard of any Republicans making it. It seems the people on this board that can't forget about Bill get his dick sucked in the Oval office are the liberals on this board because it's the libs that keep
inging it up.<
>
<i></i>

I think you see it come up because of how angry Republican leadership was about that lie, and how they've downplayed this one. <
>
<
>
I'm not comparing the two saying they're equal. I think it's obvious I think this is a bigger deal. I'm comparing the two because I'm arguing against the new talking point that perjury is a technicality. It wasn't a technicality when we were impeaching Clinton. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Ah, but wasn’t it Clinton that established the precedent that perjury is a technicality? Just kidding.<
>
<
>
I understand your point, and I agree. It just rubs me the wrong way whenever I see these two completely different situations compared in any way. Obviously you see the difference between lying about a bj, and lying to cover up criminal activity.<
>
<i></i>

Even worse when you realize this ALL circles back to...why the fuck did we go into Iraq in the first place, and that the invasion of Iraq was pre-planned and intelligence was molded to fit those plans.<
>
<
>
Now, that's a big fucking deal.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

I'm so fucking pissed at Toby Ziegler! I knew it was gonna be him! Hate to see one of my favorite characters go down like this. Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Quote:Even worse when you realize this ALL circles back to...why the fuck did we go into Iraq in the first place, and that the invasion of Iraq was pre-planned and intelligence was molded to fit those plans.<
>
<
>
Except that that is a complete fa
ication by groups of people who desperately need to believe it. Wilson's investigations were a joke, he talked to a few government officials and came to the conclusion that there was no connection to Iraq. He did no investigating whatsoever. He is a political hack. His wife was NOT undercover. Nobody had any reason to believe she was. <
>
<
>
And after years of trying their hardest and misrepresenting data as such, there is still no evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration lied about WMDs or fa
icated anything at all. In the end we only found a bunch of stockpiles of chemical precursors, a couple nerve agent artillery shells, and the infrastructure to resume producing chemical weapons on short notice. No danger there.<
>
<
>
I'd like to suggest that you liberals refocus your attacks on the ACTUAL fuck-ups of the current administration, like weak border security and runaway government spending thanks to totally foresaking veto power on some the most wasteful pork filled spending bills ever. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Except that that is a complete fa
ication by groups of people who desperately need to believe it. Wilson's investigations were a joke, he talked to a few government officials and came to the conclusion that there was no connection to Iraq. He did no investigating whatsoever. He is a political hack. His wife was NOT undercover. Nobody had any reason to believe she was.<
>
<
>
Obviously there was enough concern that there was a move to discredit him by outting his wife. And yes, she was covert, sorry. You'll have to keep up, the "but she wasn't even covert!!1111" defensive cry ended months ago.<
>
<
>
Quote:And after years of trying their hardest and misrepresenting data as such, there is still no evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration lied about WMDs or fa
icated anything at all.<
>
<
>
Downing Street Memo for the win! Of course your definition of 'lie' is rather different. It ignores the fact that intelligence stating he HAD no WMD, and wasn't a threat was ignored, and lousy intelligence which supported a position they had already decided (see: Downing Street Memo for the win) was what they looked at.<
>
<
>
The analogy here would be you want to convict Bob of a crime. So you ignore Bob's alibi. You ignore the other evidence which points to other people. Instead you focus in on a few less than credible things, and make your case out of that. That MIGHT be viable...if those other things didn't exist which steered it away from Bob.<
>
<
>
Or do we forget the numerous statements about Iraq being behind 9/11 (since retracted, though polling showed for an extensive period of time beyond that most Americans STILL believed it) when the majority of the hijackers were...ding ding ding: Saudi. <
>
<
>
In fact there's more terrorism support out of Saudi than there EVER was out of Iraq. <
>
<
>
Quote:I'd like to suggest that you liberals refocus your attacks on the ACTUAL fuck-ups of the current administration, like weak border security and runaway government spending thanks to totally foresaking veto power on some the most wasteful pork filled spending bills ever.<
>
<
>
And I'm not a liberal. Stop parrotting the political hacks and fucking think for yourself. Not everyone critical on these issues automatically falls under "liberal". Making it a partisan issue is fucking hackery at it's worst.<
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Stop parrotting the political hacks and fucking think for yourself.I imagine it's somewhat addictive to parrot. A person doesn't have to think and is able to sound like they have knowledge, even of the profound variety. "I am not a ranger, but I have played <
>
one on the internet."<i></i>

Quote:I imagine it's somewhat addictive to parrot. A person doesn't have to think and is able to sound like they have knowledge, even of the profound variety.<
>
<
>
This is a generalized rant that follows, not a specific going off on a specific person. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
You know what drives me absolutely bonkers. I don't listen to any talk radio. I know a lot of people who do...I don't, I can't stand it. But I know what they say on talk radio, because I'll see the same "buzzwords", the same "catch phrases", the same ideas regurgitated. Sometimes I can even figure out just which yammerhead said it too. <
>
<
>
I wouldn't even mind it so much if there was a sense of some independant thought process between the ears and mouth. Or parrot the Daily Show or something if you don't want to think, at least that's funny. <
>
<
>
I also would mind it less if the people who have the propensity to do this constantly bothered to listened to more than one side of yammerheads. Instead they think they've weighed both sides of an issue because their favorite yammerhead created strawmen of the other side, preached it to the choir, then they demolish it screaming victory. <
>
<
>
I'd much rather listen to someone present ideas, even if they're ultimately wrong, even if (especially if, actually) I don't agree with them, but it's stuff they have thought about and they're presenting essentially their conclusions they've arrived at from more than one source, and more than one side. <
>
<
>
Just all too often I want to shake people and scream at them "THINK DAMN YOU". <
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

I absolutely agree with you. I have a buddy that listens to that fat ass drug addict, can't think of his name and watches O'reilly religiously.<
>
I used to like the Sunday morning shows, but they have just turned into buzzword drivel. Russert on "Meet the Press" does attempt to
ing up the hard questions, and will go after his guests for saying stupid shit, but he still ends up backing down without demanding a real answer. Both sides, Repub and Democrat, its all 'blah blah blah'. Melman (sic) has got to be the worse. I've heard him on NPR and its the same shit lol.<
>
<
>
The only conservative in media imo that still has *any* credibility who I like to listen to and read in Newsweek is George Will. "This Week"'s round table discussion with George Will, the middle eastern dude from Newsweek and Cokie Roberts is about the only unbiased true discussion I have been able to find on TV besides of course C-span.<
>
<
>
I miss David Brinkley and the spirited discussions with Cokie, George and Sam Donaldson. <i></i>

I've found a few radio programs that I enjoy listening to, and I won't judge them for their entertainment value solely on whether they lean conservative or liberal. Radio talk shows aren't exactly meant to profoundly educate you, they're more or less the radio version of today's common TV "infotainment". Still, I find some of them intriguing. I think if you listen to both conservative and liberal talk show hosts you can sometimes glean something out of it, even if it's nothing major. Even if the talk show is a whackjob that rarely thinks for him/herself and constantly spouts the same catchphrases, occasionally you'll have someone call in that can really slam a point down before they get hung up on. <
>
<
>
Unfortunately I think part of the problem is that there's very little original independant thought in regard to politics, and radio is simply no exception. The key when listening to radio is to find a host that actually makes YOU think about something once in a while, whether intentionally or not. Even if they manage to
ing up a topic that's worth thinking about. If they say something completely stupid, but at the same time provocative enough that it gets you off your butt to go research it, then radio has done it's job. <i></i>

Quote: I think if you listen to both conservative and liberal talk show hosts<
>
<
>
I just can't anymore. Its akin to listening to my Mom or my Ex, it just bleeds into sounding like the adults did on The Peanuts, it becomes just annoying white noise. <i></i>

<
>
I'm going to school, and I deliver pizza at night to pay for it.<
>
<
>
I
ing up pizza delivery, because this job gives me lots and lots of time to listen to the radio. I long ago quit listening to top 40s stations, in an effort to keep myself sane.<
>
<
>
Instead, I cruise talk radio stations. Sadly, there is no Air American
oadcast where I live, except for a very dimly received AM 1530, so I don't get the chance to "hear the other side" when it comes to talk radio. I do listen to NPR, but in spite of some people's bleating otherwise, NPR is actually very balanced, especially in comparison to the rest of talk radio (i.e. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Drudge).<
>
<
>
But, because I get bored, and because NPR news coverage ends at 7pm and I usually work till 1-4am, and because ESPN Radio is sometimes covered up by local sports programming I don't care about, I tune into the different conservative programs out there.<
>
<
>
Savage-- I start with him because I find him absolutely the worst of the radio hosts I hear regularly. His drivel is so off the wall, vindictive, and so far from reality that I rarely last more than a minute or two before I turn this man off in . Apparently everyone who disagrees with him is a Nazi fascist pig, and this gets tiring after a while. His arguments are simpleton at best, and rely on simply yelling down a caller with names everytime someone manages to get on the air with a point from the other side.<
>
<
>
Drudge-- I rarely hear him, as I believe his programming is generally on the weekends on the stations where I live. I can listen to him for a long time, as while I disagree with him often, he at least doesn't come off as the redneck asshole that Savage has perfected. Often he also presents stories that are not purely partisan driven, and I appreciate that.<
>
<
>
Rush-- I listen to this guy more then Savage, but less than Hannity. Rush has his favorite issues, and since he is incredibly popular among conservatives and is widely heard, often on these boards you can tell when someone is posting a Rush post. Dittoheads, indead. However, he's not *quite* as offensive as Savage, and allthough he's very careful to only take liberal calls from people who are stupid to make him look better, at least he's sometimes entertaining. The fact that millions of people take his words as gospel truth make me sad, however-- I think because of the
eadth of his influence and the fact that so many think he's telling the truth all the time, that he's ultimately the most damaging of the talk show hosts in terms of misleading people from reality.<
>
<
>
Hannity-- I have mixed feelings on Hannity. On the good side, he's willing to take real, thoughtful liberal calls as well as liberal guests. On the bad side, much of the time he wastes these opportunities by throwing slanted questions at them that have no good answers, and that often distort the truth of the situation. Then, if said guest points any of this out, he points at them and says, "see, those liberals won't even answer simple questions! But what you can you expect?" blah blah blah, and then as soon as said guest is off the air spends 20-30 minutes in a pointed character assassination with very little basis in truth. All that said, since he doesn't always spend his time liberal bashing (don't get me wrong, the liberal bashing and general mischaracterization of liberal views is pretty constant), and sometimes speaks of other topics, I can stomach this man more than any of the others. <
>
<
>
He has, however, developed in the last few months to a year a tradition for conservative callers who call in to call him a "Great American" and let him bask in the praise over and over and over and over again. This gets incredibly tiring, especially when immediately following the "omg we're all great Americans" comments is a diatribe of half truths and deliberately deceptive statements about those evil liberals.<
>
<
>
"Let freedom riiiiiiiing" indeed. Sometimes that over the top patriotic bullshit makes me want to puke.<
>
<
>
Anyway /shrug-- I do totally agree with Tarot that sometimes in posts on these boards and others, you can easily tell what radio host they are parroting .<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Yea, Savage is one host I am pretty much forced to turn off. He's just too stupid for words. I have never heard him even pretend to introduce an intelligent argument. It's really, really pathetic. I have come to believe that the only way he stays alive in the radio business is due to people listening to him just to laugh at how batshit insane he is for giggles. <i></i>

Interesting story from the post today about the man running this investigation at the The Washington Post.<
>
<
>
One person who we haven't heard much about at all in the speculation about this is Mr. Novak. He's been laying pretty low and he's the one that started this whole damn thing. Been wondering who his source was and what his involvement in this investigation has been.<
>
<
>
Quote:A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.<
>
<
>
So who was Novak's source? I've missed that in all my readings about this. <i></i>

Quote:Yea, Savage is one host I am pretty much forced to turn off. He's just too stupid for words. I have never heard him even pretend to introduce an intelligent argument. It's really, really pathetic. I have come to believe that the only way he stays alive in the radio business is due to people listening to him just to laugh at how batshit insane he is for giggles.<
>
<
>
I'm just waiting for him and anne coulter to bear the Anti-christ.<
>
<
>
Quote:One person who we haven't heard much about at all in the speculation about this is Mr. Novak. <
>
<
>
I was wondering why that sniveling little worm wasn't in prison with the rest of the reporters. That explains a lot. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:You know what drives me absolutely bonkers. I don't listen to any talk radio. I know a lot of people who do...I don't, I can't stand it. But I know what they say on talk radio, because I'll see the same "buzzwords", the same "catch phrases", the same ideas regurgitated. Sometimes I can even figure out just which yammerhead said it too.<
>
God, Tarot, I could not agree more. <
>
<
>
Although, it's a good bet that they are talking points originating in the White House. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I listen to talk radio for entertainment while I’m driving around or stuck here at work. I like listening to all them for different reasons.<
>
<
>
Savage – for shock value, there’s just no telling what this guy is going to say next. But his show is his own bully pulpit and he never has any guests on that challenge him. <
>
<
>
Alan Colmes – he has some good callers and some nut jobs calling, but he runs a good talk show.<
>
<
>
Rush – I’m so sick of him that I can barely stand 15 minutes of his show.<
>
<
>
Bill O’Reilly – This guy runs a good show and has some good guests.<
>
<
>
Hannity - This guy runs a good show and has some good guests.<
>
<
>
NPR – good for the most part but little entertainment or shock value.<
>
<
>
Howard Stern – Shock value and cheap entertainment.<
>
<
>
Jim Rome – Good sports show with some good interviews and sometimes pretty funny.<
>
<
>
There’s some more local sport and talk shows that I listen to as well, but probably not worth mentioning.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Downing Street Memo<
>
<
>
Just what did the downing street memo prove? It proved a guy wrote a memo to somone else the contents of which were entirely his own opinion. His opinion being that there wasn't enough evidence to justify the war. <
>
<
>
This has been argued to death before. The memo meant nothing. The media wanted it to mean something so they gave it meaning it didn't deserve. <
>
<
>
Quote:I'm not a liberal<
>
<
>
Ok, lets check the facts. You are consistently on the liberal side of the arguments here on the board. Your opinions are almost entirely left-justified so to speak. I don't know what title you wete expecting. Maybe long-winded, condescending bitch? <
>
<
>
You're a liberal, whether or not you like the title. Suck it up and stop trying to paint yourself as something else.<
>
<
>
<
>
Oh and I don't like Hannity much either. He asks loaded questions and just talks over the people who call in when they don't answer the question according to his point of view. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Lets get ready to ruuuuummmmmblllllllle!<
>
<
>
(plays eye of the tiger)<
>
<
>
Archimonde<
>
Surcam 60 Tauren Druid<
>
Willyo 51 Orc Warlock<
>
Caeldire 35 Troll Warrior<i></i>

Quote:Ok, lets check the facts. You are consistently on the liberal side of the arguments here on the board. Your opinions are almost entirely left-justified so to speak. I don't know what title you wete expecting. Maybe long-winded, condescending bitch?<
>
<
>
You're a liberal, whether or not you like the title. Suck it up and stop trying to paint yourself as something else.<
>
<
>
Give me a fucking
eak. You either don't read the boards carefully enough, or you have blinded yourself to reality. I don't think anyone here would call Tarot a liberal-- except apparently you. Criticizing the President for his incredible stupidity and deception doesn't automatically make someone a liberal.<
>
<
>
*I* am a liberal. Spew your hate my direction. Don't get all pissy because someone who's closer to your side of the fence called you out on your idiocy.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Ah I see, you've confused right wing wacko with republican. I do the same thing many times. It's an easy mistake to make, with the right wing wackos in power right now. Let me explain the difference:<
>
<
>
Republican: Small Government, Fiscal responsibility, Rights of the individual over government entity. Think libertarian without the pot <
>
<
>
Right wing wacko: Large Government full of pork, Fiscal irresponsibility, rights of the individual are squashed in interest of thought police and religion. Think McCarthy era for comparison. <
>
<
>
I would never accuse Tarot of being a right wing wacko, but she certainly qualifies as a Republican.
<i></i>

Quote:The memo meant nothing. The media wanted it to mean something so they gave it meaning it didn't deserve. <
>
<
>
Uh...right. So basically you have nothing to add to the discussion other than material you're vomiting from elsewhere. = The yammerheads dismissed it, so it's not worthy of discussion. <
>
<
>
I'd bet you real money you've never read the memo. That's not something for you to answer to, it's a rhetorical question since only you know the answer. But if you haven't, you might want to ask yourself WHY you've never bothered.<
>
<
>
Quote:Ok, lets check the facts. You are consistently on the liberal side of the arguments here on the board. Your opinions are almost entirely left-justified so to speak. I don't know what title you wete expecting. Maybe long-winded, condescending bitch?<
>
<
>
HAHAHA. You really need to flip off the radio or something. First off, your diatribe is partisan hackery at it's finest. U R TEH LIBERAL THEREFORE U R TEH SUX only wins in the world of partisan hackery where they're preaching to the choir. There personal attacks, and screaming labels and name calling seem to win, because they're talking to other morons who nod their heads and say "wow that's SO intelligent, they're SO right" because it's easier than having an independant thought.<
>
<
>
Quote:You're a liberal, whether or not you like the title. Suck it up and stop trying to paint yourself as something else.<
>
<
>
I really don't care if you or someone else thinks I'm a liberal. It's not like the word is eviiiiil filthy dirty. That's another partisan hackery game. It's akin to "PINKO COMMIE" at this point really.<
>
<
>
I just think it's sad you have no understanding of the terms you parrot. If you actually understood what "conservative" and "liberal" really meant, and paid half as much attention to my posts as you're claiming (since you claim to be able to pigeonhole me into a label) then you'd realize I'm a *social liberal* and in all other ways, conservative. Which puts me pretty square into conservative land (and well outside of Jesusland), which is why I'm still a Republican. Though my views lean more towards Libertarian on social issues.<
>
<
>
I'll dumb it down for you, it means I think homosexuals are human beings and I'm not real thrilled about the Jesus thing being shoved into public sectors, and I'm pro-choice, hence I am socially liberal. But I'm huge on state rights, fiscal conservation, among other things, which makes me...conservative.<
>
<
>
Unless you want to play the "no true scotsman" fallacy.<
>
<
>
But you've listened too long to the yammerheads. These labels don't really matter, except you use them as ad hominem attacks, because it's easier than addressing the issues when you run out of material to parrot. <
>
<
>
Whether or not I'm a long winded bitch is a matter of opinion, but frankly...it's better than being an ignorant parrot. <
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

10 <
>
20 goto 10 Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

The memo isn't irrelevant because of its content, but because people had already pre-conceived that content. So when it finally hit the street, it was old news and no one considered it for what it was.<
>
<
>
Opinion or no, it reveals more about the motive for military action than was televised. However, that doesn't mean it was not considered in the decision. In fact isn't the memo proof that it was discussed?<
>
<
>
As strong as anyone's opinion on the matter, the public did not vote to go to war. And those who did vote still know more of the picture than any of us. So I really want this thrice-damned investigation to move faster than it is.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

So do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, or are you going to just keep pulling the "conservative talkradio parrot" card? Seriously you usually come off as a person with at least above average mental faculties so your lack of any real substance here is surprising. <
>
<
>
Let's review my position on liberals. I don't dislike liberals because they are liberals. I dislike the liberal position on a lot of issues because, get this, I think it is bad for the country based on my knowledge of the circumstances. <
>
<
>
Quote:I'll dumb it down for you, it means I think homosexuals are human beings and I'm not real thrilled about the Jesus thing being shoved into public sectors, and I'm pro-choice, hence I am socially liberal. But I'm huge on state rights, fiscal conservation, among other things, which makes me...conservative.<
>
<
>
I think homosexuals are human beings and I would never advocate harming them or judging them based on their sexuality in any situation where their sexual preference is irrelevant. Jesus is not being shoved onto anyone, and the fact that you believe he is demonstrates a horrid understanding of current policy and constitutional law. But yeah you are a social liberal. <
>
<
>
But you are also a liberal on national defense, and as best I can tell probably a fiscal liberal too. Everyone always says they want more fiscal responsibility, only conservatives ever have solutions. As long as there are government programs performing X operation there will be government waste in X operation. <
>
<
>
That said, people have different definitions for words. You think you are a conservative. Hillary thinks she is a moderate. George W Bush thinks he is a conservative. None of the above are true as far as I'm concerned. I still think you are in denial over your political position. Basically it comes down to this: You have opposed most of the conservative things Bush has done on shaky grounds and ignored the non-conservative things. <
>
<
>
FYI, I don't listen to much talk radio, I don't watch much cable news. My favorite conservative media source is William F Buckley's National Review, a magazine that is anything if not witty, thoughtful, and provocative. I find I identify more with that magazine than most others. It is basically a publication for conservative intellectuals, if you are a conservative as you say you should probably try reading it. Small tip,
ing a dictionary along and prepare to have your vocabulary tested. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

<
>
Nice <i></i>