But this ignores the millions dying under an oppressive regime in North Korea. Too difficult a battle? Then it also ignores the million dying in Africa that would require less money and less military to save.
If the cause is humanitarian, why Iraq? That makes no sense. It's not the easiest battle, it's not the cheapest battle and it's not the most needy cause. Needy? Yes. Most needy? No. Best ROI? No. For the people? Evidently not, unless Iraqi people are considered better than Africans.
You'll admit this wasn't for WMD. The humanitarian cause could have been partially fixed with intelligent sanctions, leaving only a political crisis to deal with. The numbers dying in the past few years from the political situation are probably no greater than China, per capita. So, why the fuss? Why do you celebrate Iraqi liberation in the face of African, Asian and other Mid Eastern oppression?
Well, jeez-louise, bunge. Do I ignore the good so I can go wallow in the misery with you, der Kopf and sammi jo? What the hell kind of post or reasoning is that? Did I, in any way, act like just because things might be better in Iraq that everyone, everywhere was doing swell?
No.
But I can - and will - be happy in this instance.
My gosh, you make it sound like it has to be all or nothing: "we fight and free everyone or we don't do it for anybody!". That's just goofy.
I'm not in the administration. I don't know why we're not doing stuff elsewhere. Ask THEM. We probably should. And if certain people and groups would shut up and get out of the way a little more, we might. You just never know.
Hell, this one was hard enough to get going. Might be a while before we do one again because getting to this point was a colossal pain-in-the-balls, thanks to some people.
And stop mangling my words or twisting my meanings (you've done it three separate times today): I never "admitted it wasn't for WOMD". I don't know WHAT, down to the nth degree, it was "for". Probably several things: weapons, terrorism links, his flaunting of the U.N., humanitarian grounds, etc. ANY of which, by itself, is valid, IMO. Taken all together? Certainly...of course! A no brainer.
I SAID that it didn't bother me that we helped those people and that WOMD (which DO exist and WILL be found...care to make a wager? Your side seems to be doing quite piss poor in the "I think we've got it all figured out" category as of late) being found is nice "icing on the cake". The administration has played up the WOMD angle more, going in to this. I simply said "yeah, fine. Get them too. But rid that country of that asshole Hussein!"
Yes. Although in the variation that they sing the word gore is not capitalized. Of course, since this is strictly spoken word it is hard to imagine how anyone would know the difference. But we like to assume that our audience is strict deconstructionists and so we let them figure out for themselves what the fück is going on. Is it a glorification of the paternalistic Warrior archetype or is it a an emblematic affirmation of the characteristically mainstream pseudo-corporate party overlaps which are persistently denied and recast as political dichotomies for purposes of the perpetuation of the United States' narrow political spectrum? Who the fück knows? Not me.
Anyway, I'm not sure they would want to be associated with a hawk like myself. Although I am always willing to give out smores to anyone who will join me at my campfire. When my latent benevolent tendencies are activated by marshmellows I become an incurable socialist.
OK, I've been out of AO for months now, and I guess I've finally been pulled back in \
Firstly, I am honestly thrilled that the war is over. I was (and still am) a critic of this war, and I have seen numerous references to the 'moving of the goalposts'. This is an absolutely rediculous statement. Simply because there was not an outspoken cry for humanitarian aid before doesn't mean that the US shouldn't do this. See this yahoo article about it.
Secondly, I'm learning Dvorak, and this is taking forever, so there is no secondly
disappointed that the US/UK/AU actions made so many people happy and grateful.
I guess you'd be more correct if you said that the anti-war movement is still grieving over the thousands of lives taken by the army. Again, this war went totally as planned, nobody will contend that point, but the price that has been paid is the thing driving apart the pro and anti camp. No point in indulging in a gloating 'told-you-so' stance, for the knife really DOES cut both ways.
From my point of view: anti-bush (NO - I'm anti-idiotic-leaders. Bush just happens to be one,) anti-us (NO - I'm very much pro-US, pro-constitution, pro-freedom, pro-advancement) pro-UN process (YES - and if that means reform and reorganization so be it,) pro-saddam (HELL NO!) / arabist (wtf is "Arabist"? If you mean Pro-Arab, then YES I am, the same as I'm pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, pro-Chinese, pro-INPUT ANY WELL-MEANING RELIGIOUS OR ETHNIC GROUP HERE. Of course I wish for peace among all of them and that translates as "pro".) / islamist (see above) general worry about the outcome (well, yes. I think we will see retributions for our continued arrogance)
Thanks for this Tonton. I am especially disturbed by Scott's use of "Arabist" and "Islamist". Could these be statements of racism and religious intolerance? Scott, should retract, clarify or stay off of these boards.
They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American.
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
Give me a break. First of all, that simply isn't true. Second, you are oversimplying the American political scene. There are Republicans who are economically conservative but socially liberal (and vice versa); same goes for Democrats. Third, an American liberal would be confused with a conservative in many parts of the world.
History doesn't disagree with me. Historically, sanctions have failed in Iraq, not because they were weak or unintelligent (as any sanctions can be), but because they were able to be manipulated by Saddam.
There is a historical precedent for intelligent sanctions working in Iraq. Go get that link from groverat, he'll show you.
My gosh, you make it sound like it has to be all or nothing: "we fight and free everyone or we don't do it for anybody!". That's just goofy.
THat's certainly not how I feel. But I would feel a hell of a lot better about this supposed humanitarian endeavor if Bush, the U.S. or the U.N. had laid out a global plan rather than such a short sighted mess.
Afghanistan was a one shot deal, but the region is still turning into crap. Iraq could go the same way.
That's absolutely not worth celebrating.
If the U.S. were to commit to fixing humanitarian crisises rather than cutting aid to Afghanistan out of the Federal Budget, I might have more faith in the administration.
As it stands, yesterday I still felt more excitement about the possibilities in the Mid-East than I have in years.
What?!? Let me guess: are they too high-minded and dignified? Bullcrap...they'd LOVE to have someone who came on everyday for three hours and played soundclips of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Charlton Heston, etc. saying silly things and responding to it! Hell, they could devote an entire hour to Bush mangling words or sentences. You people LOVE that stuff! Someone passionate and articulate who defends and promotes liberal values and principles and "sticks it to" various blowhard right-wingers and conservatives, pointing out conservative hypocrisy and stuff like that? Someone like Al Franken, only funny? Horseshit, Shawn. Liberals would eat it up! I don't know what you're talking about. In any case, do you suddenly speak for all Leftists? How do you know what they would or wouldn't accept? If you think a liberal talk show host or network would succeed with a bunch of stuffy, tweed jacket-wearing, beard-scratching intellectuals sitting around acting all dour, bitter and "serious" (quoting Senate bills and reading op-ed pieces from the Boston Globe and New York Times) and deriding/mocking the institutions and traditions that most Americans believe in and hold dear, you're more delusional than I thought.
I'm saying that, in my opinion, I don't believe liberals would accept someone like Rush Limbaugh or something like the entire conservative "talk radio" format. First, because there is no market for it. If liberals wanted that shit, there would certainly be a market for it. Let's be reasonable here. Second, because they instead want something a bit more substantive and a bit less purely ideological. Liberals read the New York Times and listen to National Public Radio. They don't necessarily want to be bombarded with ideology as much as substance. If that were not true, then a market of liberal Rush Limbaugh's would exist. Everyone likes a good blood-letting, but you have to be kidding me to say that liberals want the carnage associated with Rush Limbaugh. I don't believe they do.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Oh, Daschle, Pelosi, Kennedy, Begalla, Hollywood, etc. AREN'T in need of a sense of humor and a "lighten up" pill? We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Everyone needs a good lightening up. And a pretty girl. A house on the beach would be nice.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Didn't they pretty much have Congress up until 1994? Wasn't that why the "Republican revolution" of that year was such a big story? I seem to remember that was the case. Several high-profile (and popular) Democrat Presidents too, of course. As far as the country getting "increasingly conservative", maybe. The plain folk. "Flyover country" denizens, I guess. The ones who can't afford to go join protest rallies and boycott marches at the drop of a hat, I guess. Don't tell me you think Hollywood and the universities have gone all right-wing! Please.
I think the country in general and college students in particular have gotten increasingly conservative.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I think Ms. Pelosi herself is helping orchestrate such a strategy. Check your playsheet and notes. Where, exactly, is this bunch of "pro-war" Democrats? Not the party leadership. Not the ones with true power and status that everyone sees. Yes, they may - after the fact and after it's started - "come on board" and show their support for the good of the troops or whatever. But they all made it quite clear where they stood. Jumping on the gravy train when things are going good (after denouncing and hindering said gravy train for months) rings a bit hollow to most rational people. Maybe some schmo from Idaho or something that no one knows. And don't toss in that "allegiance pledging" thing, as if to pre-empt a strike by me implying that somehow Democrats aren't "patriotic". Nobody, least of all me, never said they weren't. And I'd be willing to bet a handsome sum that Mr. Dean is about the ONLY prominent Democrat who has those particular qualms. Hardly representative of the party as a whole. Kind of like saying some well-known Republican was against tax cuts and making it sound like he represents the GOP viewpoint.
I meant that Howard Dean is pretty out there in left field, and he's still wary about gun control. To me, that says something about the party when one of its most liberal Presidential candidates isn't really that liberal. Democrats in general have been PATHETIC lately with their blank check war support and allegiance pledging nonsense. They're trying really really hard to appeal to those elusive moderate swing voters. Personally, I think it sucks when the political debate is narrowed to just the center. But i would argue that the political debate today is more center-right in nature. Conservatives "done good!"
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Allow me to state a passionate "bullshit" right here. See number one above for a more detailed answer.
That would be a compassionate "bullshit" I hope.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Now you're just drunk, Shawn. Put the bottle down.
Okay, MAYBE in the past year or so, CNN and MSNBC have not liked getting their collective asses beaten by that Fox News whippersnapper. So they toss off that dinosaur Donahue in favor of Savage. But again, WHERE WAS THE AUDIENCE??? He's a legend, for crying out loud...he INVENTED the whole damn genre!!! Wasn't he supposed to come in and "show the others how it was done"? Yeah, he did a real bang-up job. Saying Donahue's show was #1 on MSNBC doesn't mean THAT much because it got about 1/3 or so of the audience O'Reilly does on any given night. That's like being the nicest smelling cow dropping in a field of cow droppings. Hardly matters. O'Reilly demolished Chung AND Donahue, both of have WAY more face-recognition and longstanding roots/ties in TV. Even I don't dig on Savage (he's a bitter, cranky fart-knocker), but that's not my call to make. Write MSNBC if you think it sucks.
So what's that...one year? You're honestly going to say that Fox, by itself, (and a few months of bandwagon-jumping by the other two networks) constitue a true huge "shift to the right"? What about the decades that CNN and others went unchallenged or had no alternative?
I'll say that the alternatives presented by the cable news networks are certainly better than what we had 30 years ago with just network news. I believe choice is always good. The trouble is that no one's really independent with large corporations now controlling the media. You have to go to the internet to find a wide range of independent sources now.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
You guys just don't like it because people respond to talk radio and Fox News. You don't have the grip and influence you've enjoyed for decades and you actually have to compete and go up against other voices which are, at the moment, quite popular and doing well in every measurable category.
haha. Personally, I'm quite envious of the audience for talk-radio and Fox News. But the kind of people that would listen to Rush Limbaugh and the deception of Fox News' "fair and balanced" premise- No, I would not be proud of the means by which they acquired such a large audience. It's kind of like "Joe Millionaire" vs. "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." You have to love the fact that Fox can bring in a huge audience... but come on! That's kind of a sleazy way to do it.
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Are you doing intern work for Eric Alterman? Research, "fact finding" and so forth? Is that where you got this notion?
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
Pretty boy actors and ivory tower academics don't rate as the vast majority.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
But this ignores the millions dying under an oppressive regime in North Korea. Too difficult a battle? Then it also ignores the million dying in Africa that would require less money and less military to save.
If the cause is humanitarian, why Iraq? That makes no sense. It's not the easiest battle, it's not the cheapest battle and it's not the most needy cause. Needy? Yes. Most needy? No. Best ROI? No. For the people? Evidently not, unless Iraqi people are considered better than Africans.
You'll admit this wasn't for WMD. The humanitarian cause could have been partially fixed with intelligent sanctions, leaving only a political crisis to deal with. The numbers dying in the past few years from the political situation are probably no greater than China, per capita. So, why the fuss? Why do you celebrate Iraqi liberation in the face of African, Asian and other Mid Eastern oppression?
Well, jeez-louise, bunge. Do I ignore the good so I can go wallow in the misery with you, der Kopf and sammi jo? What the hell kind of post or reasoning is that? Did I, in any way, act like just because things might be better in Iraq that everyone, everywhere was doing swell?
No.
But I can - and will - be happy in this instance.
My gosh, you make it sound like it has to be all or nothing: "we fight and free everyone or we don't do it for anybody!". That's just goofy.
I'm not in the administration. I don't know why we're not doing stuff elsewhere. Ask THEM. We probably should. And if certain people and groups would shut up and get out of the way a little more, we might. You just never know.
Hell, this one was hard enough to get going. Might be a while before we do one again because getting to this point was a colossal pain-in-the-balls, thanks to some people.
And stop mangling my words or twisting my meanings (you've done it three separate times today): I never "admitted it wasn't for WOMD". I don't know WHAT, down to the nth degree, it was "for". Probably several things: weapons, terrorism links, his flaunting of the U.N., humanitarian grounds, etc. ANY of which, by itself, is valid, IMO. Taken all together? Certainly...of course! A no brainer.
I SAID that it didn't bother me that we helped those people and that WOMD (which DO exist and WILL be found...care to make a wager? Your side seems to be doing quite piss poor in the "I think we've got it all figured out" category as of late) being found is nice "icing on the cake". The administration has played up the WOMD angle more, going in to this. I simply said "yeah, fine. Get them too. But rid that country of that asshole Hussein!"
Kum ba yah, Mr. Moore, Kum ba yah!
Kum ba yah, Mr. Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh Moore! Kum ba yah!
Hear Iraqis dying, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Iraqis dying, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Iraqis dying, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh Moore! Kum ba yah!
Hear Bush drilling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Bush drilling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Bush drilling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh Moore! Kum ba yah!
Hear Chalabi embezzling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Chalabi embezzling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Hear Chalabi embezzling, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh Moore! Kum ba yah!
Oh I need Gore, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh I need Gore, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh I need Gore, Moore, Kum ba yah!
Oh Moore! Kum ba yah
Fellows
Anyway, I'm not sure they would want to be associated with a hawk like myself. Although I am always willing to give out smores to anyone who will join me at my campfire. When my latent benevolent tendencies are activated by marshmellows I become an incurable socialist.
Firstly, I am honestly thrilled that the war is over. I was (and still am) a critic of this war, and I have seen numerous references to the 'moving of the goalposts'. This is an absolutely rediculous statement. Simply because there was not an outspoken cry for humanitarian aid before doesn't mean that the US shouldn't do this. See this yahoo article about it.
Secondly, I'm learning Dvorak, and this is taking forever, so there is no secondly
Originally posted by der Kopf
I could settle for that. Don't you like it?
I do.
Originally posted by Scott
disappointed that the US/UK/AU actions made so many people happy and grateful.
I guess you'd be more correct if you said that the anti-war movement is still grieving over the thousands of lives taken by the army. Again, this war went totally as planned, nobody will contend that point, but the price that has been paid is the thing driving apart the pro and anti camp. No point in indulging in a gloating 'told-you-so' stance, for the knife really DOES cut both ways.
Originally posted by pscates
Ah, they wouldn't come...your campfire smoke is damaging the ozone. You're endangering ALL of us, you heartless bastard!
Though I guess your conservative reptile skin agrees very well with a bit of fire.
From my point of view: anti-bush (NO - I'm anti-idiotic-leaders. Bush just happens to be one,)
anti-us (NO - I'm very much pro-US, pro-constitution, pro-freedom, pro-advancement)
pro-UN process (YES - and if that means reform and reorganization so be it,)
pro-saddam (HELL NO!) / arabist (wtf is "Arabist"? If you mean Pro-Arab, then YES I am, the same as I'm pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, pro-Chinese, pro-INPUT ANY WELL-MEANING RELIGIOUS OR ETHNIC GROUP HERE. Of course I wish for peace among all of them and that translates as "pro".) / islamist (see above)
general worry about the outcome (well, yes. I think we will see retributions for our continued arrogance)
Thanks for this Tonton. I am especially disturbed by Scott's use of "Arabist" and "Islamist". Could these be statements of racism and religious intolerance? Scott, should retract, clarify or stay off of these boards.
Originally posted by pscates
They're a) pissed off about Bush winning the Presidency, they're b) pissed off over the recent fall elections, that c) they didn't get their way on this war. The only way they'll get power back is if everything good kinda falls apart. Think about it: if the war goes good, they're toast. If the economy swings up and kicks in, they're toast. The perpetually-indignant, always-looking-to-be-offended-or-outraged wing of your party are the ones routinely spewing out speech that, if not "hate", at least very bitter, mean-spirited and below the belt.
Shawn, they've got just as much access, visibility and voice as anyone. They've got the bulk of Hollywood and the musicial community on their side. They've got many entrenched, tenured university professors who agree with them. They've got - on balance - many, many in the newsrooms and studios of the bulk of our news media companies.
They're not deprived, they're not without representation. They're not without voice.
Could it simply be that they, more than they'd ever want to admit, make up a much smaller chunk of the population and that perhaps nobody really wants to hear them? They've enjoyed a 40-year-run of unimpeded power, influence and prestige. They're finally being challenged and are fighting for their existence in many instances.
I don't think they represent the average American.
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
Originally posted by Chinney
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
Give me a break. First of all, that simply isn't true. Second, you are oversimplying the American political scene. There are Republicans who are economically conservative but socially liberal (and vice versa); same goes for Democrats. Third, an American liberal would be confused with a conservative in many parts of the world.
Originally posted by Tulkas
History doesn't disagree with me. Historically, sanctions have failed in Iraq, not because they were weak or unintelligent (as any sanctions can be), but because they were able to be manipulated by Saddam.
There is a historical precedent for intelligent sanctions working in Iraq. Go get that link from groverat, he'll show you.
Originally posted by pscates
My gosh, you make it sound like it has to be all or nothing: "we fight and free everyone or we don't do it for anybody!". That's just goofy.
THat's certainly not how I feel. But I would feel a hell of a lot better about this supposed humanitarian endeavor if Bush, the U.S. or the U.N. had laid out a global plan rather than such a short sighted mess.
Afghanistan was a one shot deal, but the region is still turning into crap. Iraq could go the same way.
That's absolutely not worth celebrating.
If the U.S. were to commit to fixing humanitarian crisises rather than cutting aid to Afghanistan out of the Federal Budget, I might have more faith in the administration.
As it stands, yesterday I still felt more excitement about the possibilities in the Mid-East than I have in years.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wow it's funny how a happy thread about the end of a war has turned into a "why liberals suck" thread by pscates.
Originally posted by pscates
What?!? Let me guess: are they too high-minded and dignified? Bullcrap...they'd LOVE to have someone who came on everyday for three hours and played soundclips of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Charlton Heston, etc. saying silly things and responding to it! Hell, they could devote an entire hour to Bush mangling words or sentences. You people LOVE that stuff! Someone passionate and articulate who defends and promotes liberal values and principles and "sticks it to" various blowhard right-wingers and conservatives, pointing out conservative hypocrisy and stuff like that? Someone like Al Franken, only funny? Horseshit, Shawn. Liberals would eat it up! I don't know what you're talking about. In any case, do you suddenly speak for all Leftists? How do you know what they would or wouldn't accept? If you think a liberal talk show host or network would succeed with a bunch of stuffy, tweed jacket-wearing, beard-scratching intellectuals sitting around acting all dour, bitter and "serious" (quoting Senate bills and reading op-ed pieces from the Boston Globe and New York Times) and deriding/mocking the institutions and traditions that most Americans believe in and hold dear, you're more delusional than I thought.
I'm saying that, in my opinion, I don't believe liberals would accept someone like Rush Limbaugh or something like the entire conservative "talk radio" format. First, because there is no market for it. If liberals wanted that shit, there would certainly be a market for it. Let's be reasonable here. Second, because they instead want something a bit more substantive and a bit less purely ideological. Liberals read the New York Times and listen to National Public Radio. They don't necessarily want to be bombarded with ideology as much as substance. If that were not true, then a market of liberal Rush Limbaugh's would exist. Everyone likes a good blood-letting, but you have to be kidding me to say that liberals want the carnage associated with Rush Limbaugh. I don't believe they do.
Originally posted by pscates
Oh, Daschle, Pelosi, Kennedy, Begalla, Hollywood, etc. AREN'T in need of a sense of humor and a "lighten up" pill? We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Everyone needs a good lightening up. And a pretty girl. A house on the beach would be nice.
Originally posted by pscates
Didn't they pretty much have Congress up until 1994? Wasn't that why the "Republican revolution" of that year was such a big story? I seem to remember that was the case. Several high-profile (and popular) Democrat Presidents too, of course. As far as the country getting "increasingly conservative", maybe. The plain folk. "Flyover country" denizens, I guess. The ones who can't afford to go join protest rallies and boycott marches at the drop of a hat, I guess. Don't tell me you think Hollywood and the universities have gone all right-wing! Please.
I think the country in general and college students in particular have gotten increasingly conservative.
Originally posted by pscates
I meant that Howard Dean is pretty out there in left field, and he's still wary about gun control. To me, that says something about the party when one of its most liberal Presidential candidates isn't really that liberal. Democrats in general have been PATHETIC lately with their blank check war support and allegiance pledging nonsense. They're trying really really hard to appeal to those elusive moderate swing voters. Personally, I think it sucks when the political debate is narrowed to just the center. But i would argue that the political debate today is more center-right in nature. Conservatives "done good!"
Originally posted by pscates
Allow me to state a passionate "bullshit" right here. See number one above for a more detailed answer.
That would be a compassionate "bullshit" I hope.
Originally posted by pscates
Now you're just drunk, Shawn. Put the bottle down.
Okay, MAYBE in the past year or so, CNN and MSNBC have not liked getting their collective asses beaten by that Fox News whippersnapper. So they toss off that dinosaur Donahue in favor of Savage. But again, WHERE WAS THE AUDIENCE??? He's a legend, for crying out loud...he INVENTED the whole damn genre!!! Wasn't he supposed to come in and "show the others how it was done"? Yeah, he did a real bang-up job. Saying Donahue's show was #1 on MSNBC doesn't mean THAT much because it got about 1/3 or so of the audience O'Reilly does on any given night. That's like being the nicest smelling cow dropping in a field of cow droppings. Hardly matters. O'Reilly demolished Chung AND Donahue, both of have WAY more face-recognition and longstanding roots/ties in TV. Even I don't dig on Savage (he's a bitter, cranky fart-knocker), but that's not my call to make. Write MSNBC if you think it sucks.
So what's that...one year? You're honestly going to say that Fox, by itself, (and a few months of bandwagon-jumping by the other two networks) constitue a true huge "shift to the right"? What about the decades that CNN and others went unchallenged or had no alternative?
I'll say that the alternatives presented by the cable news networks are certainly better than what we had 30 years ago with just network news. I believe choice is always good. The trouble is that no one's really independent with large corporations now controlling the media. You have to go to the internet to find a wide range of independent sources now.
Originally posted by pscates
You guys just don't like it because people respond to talk radio and Fox News. You don't have the grip and influence you've enjoyed for decades and you actually have to compete and go up against other voices which are, at the moment, quite popular and doing well in every measurable category.
haha. Personally, I'm quite envious of the audience for talk-radio and Fox News. But the kind of people that would listen to Rush Limbaugh and the deception of Fox News' "fair and balanced" premise- No, I would not be proud of the means by which they acquired such a large audience. It's kind of like "Joe Millionaire" vs. "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." You have to love the fact that Fox can bring in a huge audience... but come on! That's kind of a sleazy way to do it.
Originally posted by pscates
Are you doing intern work for Eric Alterman? Research, "fact finding" and so forth? Is that where you got this notion?
I LOVE Eric Alterman!
Originally posted by Chinney
And the reason that the right-wing is always so angry, even when they are in power, is that they know in their hearts that those of intelligence, talent and capability in most every field in the United States - those who have made the United States the great country that it is - are overwhelmingly liberals.
Pretty boy actors and ivory tower academics don't rate as the vast majority.