eh liberal media is on public radio and tv. in some restraint.. believe me its a hard sell to corporate sponsorship as its viewed *risky* to be apart of something considered far left at times. i wish there was a better moderate liberal outlet myself.
I can't remember what the secretary of press said on CNN awhile back but it implied pretty much that extreme leftists, and liberals have utterly destroyed the democrats message.
Your post is a party to the kind of framing that has America so tilted to the right. What were considered "moderate to conservative" Democrats just a few short years ago are now branded "liberal". Liberals have become "extreme leftists", and genuine progressives are some species of arch-fiend lunatic, not spoken of in polite company.
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
Still no one really answered the psychology of a "dittohead" question yet. Rush is unquestionably a charismatic leader.
There are several studies looking at follower behavior when it comes to their fearless leader. I won't get into details, but I'll just talk about a one of them here.
Frame alignment (Snow, et al 1986): basically charismatic leaders are able to make their followers believe that they have similar ideologic perspectives. Rush does an exceptionally good job of this by keeping things simple.
From Fiol, C.M., Harris, D., House, R. (1999), "Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change":
Quote:
Shamir et al. (1993) specified communicative techniques that charismatic leaders employ to effect frame alignment and mobilize followers to action. They link present behaviors to past events by citing historical examples (Willner, 1984). They articulate an ideology clearly, often using labels and slogans. They provide a vivid and positive image of the future. Further, they amplify certain values and identities and suggest linkages between expected behaviors, amplified values and identities, and their vision of the future.
Basically, Rush (or any other charismatic leader - MLK, JFK, Hitler, Jones, etc) is playing mind-games with his followers. He'll be intentionally vague so that people who like him will interpret his sayings as entirely consistent with their beliefs making him more loved, etc, etc. Rush is really good at it so he's very successful. The followers don't do a whole lot of thinking for themselves (on the particular issues he's discussing, at least), so they hang on his every word. They're not a particularly hard group of people to understand...
Your post is a party to the kind of framing that has America so tilted to the right. What were considered "moderate to conservative" Democrats just a few short years ago are now branded "liberal". Liberals have become "extreme leftists", and genuine progressives are some species of arch-fiend lunatic, not spoken of in polite company.
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
And what are you doing? Franken is just as insane as Rush no question. I'm not saying Franken is worse then RUsh they're both equal retards. How can you side with one and bash the other? Then you're just supporting the same thing you claim to hate.
Quote:
The only major difference between Al and Rush is popularity. They're both slander artists with way off-center views. You identify with Franken, so obviously you disagree.
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
How I agree with this.
When I was in france and saw all the people driving practical smaller cars than the tanks we americans drive I thought to myself...
"In america if americans drove such cars like mini-coopers and "smart cars" many would say ohh,,,that's gay.
Why is it gay?
I thought to myself that americans are the weak ones thinking they have to "drive the biggest thing on the road" to "keep up with the jonses" where in Paris the true people of sound mind are those who do things in a practical way instead of the most loud and obnoxious ways.
This ties into the point you make addabox. I think the French are no so imprisoned by what others think.
And what are you doing? Franken is just as insane as Rush no question. I'm not saying Franken is worse then RUsh they're both equal retards. How can you side with one and bash the other? Then you're just supporting the same thing you claim to hate.
The whole world is not made of symetrical tit for tat. The United States has moved decidedly to the right in recent years. While the range of liberal opinion that is considered "rational" has shrunk, conservative to reactionary opinion that was once considered the provinence of the exteme right has entered the mainstream.
By the way, my post said nothing about Franken, made no claims of hating anything, and didn't "bash" anybody.
If Al Franken were on the air for three-hours a day, five days a week, along with three or four of his ideological brothers spewing forth the good word, then a Franken vs. Limbaugh argument would be valid. He doesn't. Rush does.
I love how conservatives love to throw Al Franken at you when they hear a hint of criticism about their AM radio influence. It's like comparing watermelons to grapes and saying their proportions are equal (Rush is the watermelon by the way).
And to those of you who argue that we should just ignore Rush, Hannity, Coulter and their followers, you couldn't be more wrong. The influence these individuals peddle on a daily basis is exactly why Democrats are losing seat after seat, year after year. Ignoring them strengthens them.
Most self-professed liberals are fed up because some talking head told them to be, and they listened.
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your precedent.
Most self-professed liberals are fed up because some talking head told them to be, and they listened.
Which talking head? Whom is the clandestine talking head that convinced all liberals to be fed up?
Quote:
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your precedent.
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your preced
I love when people tell me why I think the way I do.
If you don't see the differences... that's your problem.
Tell me how Al Franken has slandered anyone?
With all the criticism his book has got from the middle and the right... no one has shown that he was making shit up or lying about... ANYTHING.
Al doesn't just go on diatribes.... bashing all that is conservative... he makes fun and satirizes specific points and falacies... his book is an answer to the kind of things Ann Coulter writes... not one upsmanship... he disassembles thier arguments...
Al is NOT calling anyone unpartiotic or unamerican., or perverse or demented or sick... LIARS yes... when they lie.
If you haven't read his book... read Joe Conason's a more serious yet just as entertaining a read.
Why do you think Al's book is doing so well? Because he says we should be fed up and we all just decided he's right? Or maybe we we're fed up... and someone managed to voice what we (liberals) were feeling...
In the spirit of pointing out "dittohead" hypocrisy, I thought I'd provide a quote from Molly Ivens that pretty much sums up my amusement with conservative's short term memory:
Quote:
Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible President.
Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his forty-four years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similiar phenomenon.
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to--our last President. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts--all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.
And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater. After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every rightwinger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky, and who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden?
"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy." I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole Presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.
One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal--milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese--is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago--attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."
To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only President we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that.
I Wingnuts on the other hand love this country like a mother. Mother can do no wrong. She is perfect. How dare you say those things about "mother"
In others words a child like relationship.
Sir, that is the best description I've ever read about the ing Wingnuts.
Problem is, they won't acxept their mothers fallings even if presented with undisputed evidence. They have bigger problems. These, no good for nobody, shitheads would sell their mother for a cent if they could make a buck of it.
I'm paraphrasing what's in the latest al franken book. BTW to those less informed, al franken is nothing like those on hate radio. He points out lies and hypocrisy.
He does not make shite up.
Read his latest book and you will see for yourselves.
Or rest your brain and continue to believe the "liberal media" is the root of all the world's problems.
I'm paraphrasing what's in the latest al franken book. BTW to those less informed, al franken is nothing like those on hate radio. He points out lies and hypocrisy.
Eeep!
hate radio, lies and hypocrisy, berating pea-brained conservatives who blame the "liberal media."
Insipid words don't make you look any better than the ultra-conservatives who control the airwaves.
hate radio, lies and hypocrisy, berating pea-brained conservatives who blame the "liberal media."
A lot of you seem just as insipid as those you are fed up with.
When liberals do 10% of things like this:
Quote:
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to--our last President. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts--all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.
I'll start paying attention your comparisons of liberal/wingnuts.
Comments
Originally posted by kraig911
eh liberal media is on public radio and tv. in some restraint.. believe me its a hard sell to corporate sponsorship as its viewed *risky* to be apart of something considered far left at times. i wish there was a better moderate liberal outlet myself.
I can't remember what the secretary of press said on CNN awhile back but it implied pretty much that extreme leftists, and liberals have utterly destroyed the democrats message.
Your post is a party to the kind of framing that has America so tilted to the right. What were considered "moderate to conservative" Democrats just a few short years ago are now branded "liberal". Liberals have become "extreme leftists", and genuine progressives are some species of arch-fiend lunatic, not spoken of in polite company.
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
There are several studies looking at follower behavior when it comes to their fearless leader. I won't get into details, but I'll just talk about a one of them here.
Frame alignment (Snow, et al 1986): basically charismatic leaders are able to make their followers believe that they have similar ideologic perspectives. Rush does an exceptionally good job of this by keeping things simple.
From Fiol, C.M., Harris, D., House, R. (1999), "Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change":
Shamir et al. (1993) specified communicative techniques that charismatic leaders employ to effect frame alignment and mobilize followers to action. They link present behaviors to past events by citing historical examples (Willner, 1984). They articulate an ideology clearly, often using labels and slogans. They provide a vivid and positive image of the future. Further, they amplify certain values and identities and suggest linkages between expected behaviors, amplified values and identities, and their vision of the future.
Basically, Rush (or any other charismatic leader - MLK, JFK, Hitler, Jones, etc) is playing mind-games with his followers. He'll be intentionally vague so that people who like him will interpret his sayings as entirely consistent with their beliefs making him more loved, etc, etc. Rush is really good at it so he's very successful. The followers don't do a whole lot of thinking for themselves (on the particular issues he's discussing, at least), so they hang on his every word. They're not a particularly hard group of people to understand...
Social psychology is fun.
Originally posted by addabox
Your post is a party to the kind of framing that has America so tilted to the right. What were considered "moderate to conservative" Democrats just a few short years ago are now branded "liberal". Liberals have become "extreme leftists", and genuine progressives are some species of arch-fiend lunatic, not spoken of in polite company.
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
And what are you doing? Franken is just as insane as Rush no question. I'm not saying Franken is worse then RUsh they're both equal retards. How can you side with one and bash the other? Then you're just supporting the same thing you claim to hate.
The only major difference between Al and Rush is popularity. They're both slander artists with way off-center views. You identify with Franken, so obviously you disagree.
I agree 100%
Originally posted by Argento
I agree 100%
Maybe I should get my own show on the AM band.
What's on tap for tomorrow: A rant about web browser tabs, Asian-American male complexes, the best places to get a steak under $30.
Originally posted by addabox
It is a classic demagogic technique to lable ideas you don't like as "insane" . That way you don't have try any harder than making swirly motions with your index finger around your ear by way of "rebuttal". If you surround yourself with like minded people, after a while you can pretend that notions such as "economic justice" and "universal healthcare" are just the ravings of madmen with no bearing on "the real world".
The narrowing of "allowable" opinion has harmed our capacity to govern ourselves, because so much is off the table before the discussion even begins.
I "need" to "find a way" to "stop" using "so many" "quotation marks".
How I agree with this.
When I was in france and saw all the people driving practical smaller cars than the tanks we americans drive I thought to myself...
"In america if americans drove such cars like mini-coopers and "smart cars" many would say ohh,,,that's gay.
Why is it gay?
I thought to myself that americans are the weak ones thinking they have to "drive the biggest thing on the road" to "keep up with the jonses" where in Paris the true people of sound mind are those who do things in a practical way instead of the most loud and obnoxious ways.
This ties into the point you make addabox. I think the French are no so imprisoned by what others think.
Just more general thoughts. (not in every case)
Fellows
Originally posted by Argento
And what are you doing? Franken is just as insane as Rush no question. I'm not saying Franken is worse then RUsh they're both equal retards. How can you side with one and bash the other? Then you're just supporting the same thing you claim to hate.
The whole world is not made of symetrical tit for tat. The United States has moved decidedly to the right in recent years. While the range of liberal opinion that is considered "rational" has shrunk, conservative to reactionary opinion that was once considered the provinence of the exteme right has entered the mainstream.
By the way, my post said nothing about Franken, made no claims of hating anything, and didn't "bash" anybody.
I love how conservatives love to throw Al Franken at you when they hear a hint of criticism about their AM radio influence. It's like comparing watermelons to grapes and saying their proportions are equal (Rush is the watermelon by the way).
And to those of you who argue that we should just ignore Rush, Hannity, Coulter and their followers, you couldn't be more wrong. The influence these individuals peddle on a daily basis is exactly why Democrats are losing seat after seat, year after year. Ignoring them strengthens them.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And they wonder why liberals are fed up.
Most self-professed liberals are fed up because some talking head told them to be, and they listened.
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your precedent.
Originally posted by finboy
Most self-professed liberals are fed up because some talking head told them to be, and they listened.
Which talking head? Whom is the clandestine talking head that convinced all liberals to be fed up?
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your precedent.
Huh?
When you start talking about people following the media (Rush) and believing everything they hear, and the media having an agenda, you don't have to look at the so-called conservative press to find your preced
Double huh?
It's funny I didn't find that passage confusing at all.
If you don't see the differences... that's your problem.
Tell me how Al Franken has slandered anyone?
With all the criticism his book has got from the middle and the right... no one has shown that he was making shit up or lying about... ANYTHING.
Al doesn't just go on diatribes.... bashing all that is conservative... he makes fun and satirizes specific points and falacies... his book is an answer to the kind of things Ann Coulter writes... not one upsmanship... he disassembles thier arguments...
Al is NOT calling anyone unpartiotic or unamerican., or perverse or demented or sick... LIARS yes... when they lie.
If you haven't read his book... read Joe Conason's a more serious yet just as entertaining a read.
Why do you think Al's book is doing so well? Because he says we should be fed up and we all just decided he's right? Or maybe we we're fed up... and someone managed to voice what we (liberals) were feeling...
Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible President.
Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his forty-four years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similiar phenomenon.
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to--our last President. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts--all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.
And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater. After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every rightwinger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky, and who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden?
"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy." I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole Presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.
One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal--milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese--is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago--attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."
To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only President we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Wow. She nailed it.
But remember, we're supposed "to get over it".
Originally posted by Northgate
But remember, we're supposed "to get over it".
You mean like how bush JUNIOR "got over" the fact that there are "insidious" traitors in his white house?
Originally posted by keyboardf12 [/i]
I Wingnuts on the other hand love this country like a mother. Mother can do no wrong. She is perfect. How dare you say those things about "mother"
In others words a child like relationship.
Sir, that is the best description I've ever read about the
Problem is, they won't acxept their mothers fallings even if presented with undisputed evidence. They have bigger problems. These, no good for nobody, shitheads would sell their mother for a cent if they could make a buck of it.
Downstairs awaits...
He does not make shite up.
Read his latest book and you will see for yourselves.
Or rest your brain and continue to believe the "liberal media" is the root of all the world's problems.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
I'm paraphrasing what's in the latest al franken book. BTW to those less informed, al franken is nothing like those on hate radio. He points out lies and hypocrisy.
Eeep!
hate radio, lies and hypocrisy, berating pea-brained conservatives who blame the "liberal media."
Insipid words don't make you look any better than the ultra-conservatives who control the airwaves.
Originally posted by Eugene
Eeep!
hate radio, lies and hypocrisy, berating pea-brained conservatives who blame the "liberal media."
A lot of you seem just as insipid as those you are fed up with.
When liberals do 10% of things like this:
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to--our last President. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse. For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts--all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.
I'll start paying attention your comparisons of liberal/wingnuts.