I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Anonymous

And I was responding to 1Athena1's claim that it is fine to bash Palin and Bachman in this forum because they are public figures.

floralgal

delete

BarbaraA

Yes, floralgal. Interesting. But so is this:

http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/2011/02/09/rush-limbaugh-tops-talk-radio-rankings-for-fifth-year-in-a-row/?cxntfid=blogs_radio_tv_talk

shokk

Actually floralgal this very topic has been discussed at real political sites......the reason for the drop is because of the Nov. elections......us on the right can at least start breathing again because the left has been stopped......like Canada........we are free to start planting in our gardens again.....

we are stepping away a bit from the talk radio and right prime time shows because we won and the left lost.....now don't think we aren't still fighting.......us on the right are not happy with the old school GOP.....so our fight continues but it is not through our talking heads (Beck,Hannity, Rush) but it is with our checkbooks and whom we are now supporting........but you guys on the left don't really understand.......our current fight is internal within the Republican party.......but it is not public.......

but I know you gals on the left are concern..........don't worry........when this Nov. rolls around our number one priority will be to defeat Soetoro and all the ratings for the right talking heads will sky rocket......Shokk 

Bren-2007

Interesting article Floral.  I thought the demographics were interesting as well.

Now I need to check Barbara's link.

copied this para from the link Barbara posted:

The rankings are not scientific or based on any poll. Rather, it's the magazine's editors who decide how the top 100 works, based in no particular order: courage, effort, impact, longevity, potential, ratings, recognition, revenue, service, talent and uniqueness. The magazine said it's as much "art as science and that the results are arguable."

shokk

Well Alpal and PatMom that snide comment went right past me......Patmom never misses anything.....(glad she is on the right)........shokk

floralgal

delete

konakat

"Personally, I think that there's a great vacuum out there for non-partisan objective political commentary," said Michael Harrison of Talkers Magazine. "I think it'd be good for the industry and it has to be good for the country."

Ya think?  One of those big duh moments -- might even evolve into reporting the news without the constant biased commentary -- could it be possible for people to think on their own or am I too optimistic?

Anonymous

I'd love to have a news outlet that consistently delivered facts and not opinion.  Maybe if facts were viewed without the commentary, there would be more agreement on both sides and less need to dismiss things that aren't coming from the "correct" sources. 

annettek

aww konakat- there are enough of us who want to think on our own but that doesn't sell ads..left or right to either extreme makes me realize that they are actually the same, just swapped clothing. I can't talk about how I really feel with any extremist, I always just want to pat them on the back and have them deprogrammed somewhere. and it really ticks people off if I say I believe in some of this and some of that, I can't follow a line. A dear friend (well, not so much anymore) became insane when demanding I state what I am! I said, "me." It really pissed her off. This is an educated woman. Then she tried to say I was avoiding answering to so I wouldn't be embarrassed. I said no, I am avoiding answering because I am a little of many things. That I don't listen to any tv or radio personality without buckets of salt. Same with news media of any kind. Left, right or in between. Salt, lots of salt. Because if the time ever comes where I have to make a decision of great importance, I don't want to blindly get in line for the koolaid. That really sent her over the top. She said I called her Jim Jones. ! I said no, never did, just have to keep my own brain intact so I can make my own choices. She is a raving maniac. Demanded to know who I vote for. I said all kinds of people, all kinds of mistakes, all political parties. That took her right over the top. Said wishywashes like me should not be allowed to vote. I asked if she read mein kampf. And maybe she should layoff the neitchze <and i like some of his stuff, dark as it is> and go for some chicken soup for the soul for awhile....YIKES! it is almost too easy to piss her off so now that i have little feeling for her after numerous assaults on my character all I feel is pity or worse, indifference. And to me, indifference is the worst possible thing to have.  Right up there with bored.

Medigal

Shokk:  Your posts where you keep calling Obama "Soetoro" is giving me a laugh.  If you want to defeat "Soetoro" let's hope none of your group are a bit senile and get confused when they pull the level for someone called "Obama".  Better train them which name to really look for on the ballot cause I don't think they are going to find this "Soetoro" listed.  Could happen that you end up putting Obama back in office just out of spite from not using the name "he" preferes to go by.  Many of us would not recognize a lot of Hollywood movie stars by their given names but we still respect and enjoy their movies even with their stage names.  "It's not what's in a Name",  "It's how you play the Game".

pip57

Annettek, well said. I certainly have some definite opinions on some issues but I do not follow a party line.  Furthermore, I do not expect to agree with ALL the positions of the people I choose to vote for.  

I understand what you say about having to distance yourself from people like your "friend".  When someone is using rhetoric repeated from the press or uses name calling, I know that there is little of their own self in their beliefs that they feel so 'passionate' about.  It is no use getting worked about about it as there is nothing we can do to change that type of attitude.  IMHO 

otter

 Wow.  Just stopped by to see who was still here, and recent posts hit two nerves:

1) "...there's a great vacuum out there for non-partisan objective political commentary...".  That is so true that it's almost an axiom.  My dh and I have been contemplating dropping back on our DISH Network subscription.  We can't get cable here, so satellite is the only option for non-OTA channels.  We looked at a low-level plan that would save us about $45/month, but we would lose lots of channels... including both MSNBC and FOX.  (The plan does include CNN.)  "Hmmm...", we said to each other...."How much do we really need MSNBC and FOX anymore, considering where they've gone?"  We are both wishing for "non-partisan objective political commentary" but haven't found it yet.

2) annettek's "friend" said "...wishywashes like me should not be allowed to vote."  Yeah, that attitude really p*sses me off, too.  I heard Rush say something like that once.  He declared that conscientious voters cannot be "independent".  They just can't.  They have to take a political stand, one way or the other, and they can't pick-and-choose among the issues.  They have to side with one political party or the other, no matter what.  There is no such thing as a "moderate", or an "independent".  (He also excludes all "-INO's", too.  They're especially disgraceful.)  If you say you are "moderate" or "independent," it's because you don't give a d*mn and therefore you don't deserve the privilege of voting.  Or something like that, only he wasn't quite that polite.  I do try to give him a chance, as I do all talk-show people, but sometimes it's hard.

shokk, I don't mind your sig line (of course); but I'm afraid Canada isn't going anywhere so there's no point trying to stop it.  Maybe that's just as well.  There aren't very many countries I'd rather have perched up there north of us than Canada.  Don't tell anyone I said that, or they'll think I've been won over. 

otter

BarbaraA

"Personally, I think that there's a great vacuum out there for non-partisan objective political commentary," said Michael Harrison of Talkers Magazine. "I think it'd be good for the industry and it has to be good for the country."

I could not agree more whole-heartedly. So why isn't there more of it?

ananda8

I read the National Review (conservative), the Christian Science Monitor (slight conservative lean), the New York Times (liberal)  Sojourner Magazine (slight liberal lean), Rolling Stone (investigative reporting of hypocrisy and incompetence in politics and government) and other online newspapers including BBC News and Al Jazeera.  I have yet to see any publication or news channel that is absolutely neutral have never met a person who is absolutely neutral.  However, if one wants to form opinions about any situation, one needs to make an effort to read or listen to all sides.

I highly recommend the News Hour on PBS.  Its news reporting is factual and its opinion sections are well balanced with commentators from all sides.  People who think the News Hour is biased have never watched it.  If one were to watch it every night for a month, one would be surprised on how much better one understands the complexity of the issues facing the world.  

BarbaraA

notsself, I also agree that the News Hour on PBS is very good. I also like Shepherd Smith on The Fox News Report. He is a balanced (IMO) reporter and pretty much sticks to the facts.

ananda8

Here is a snip from an article on the Salon Magazine (very liberal) about how Americans of good will on both sides of the aisle can protect our civil liberties.

There is precedent for this type of alliance on this and other issues.  Early on in the Bush years, a bill to repeal Patriot Act abuses was co-sponsored by Kucinich and Ron Paul, and supported by the ACLU.  A bill to audit the Federal Reserve was opposed by most of official Washington but enacted by a left-right alliance.  Some of the earliest and most outspoken opposition to Bush civil liberties radicalism -- and the war in Iraq -- came jointly from the Left and from the Cato Institute.  Religious Right groups scared of federal government oppression have long joined with the ACLU and others in opposing some civil liberties incursions, such as the Patriot Act.   Controversy over things like TSA patdowns and the corrupt way the Wall Street bailout was manufactured came from both the Right and the Left.  The fact that it's Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul willing to question the value of American financial and military assistance to other nations (including to Israel) -- while Democrats attack him for that brave position -- further underscores the potential here.  And in other nations -- such as Britain -- one finds a genuine left-right alliance against the political establishment's relentless assaults on civil liberties. 

Both liberal and conservative ideology can and should sustain popular opposition to ongoing reductions in civil liberties.  It's the political establishment -- regardless of the party to which it belongs -- that is incentivized to seize always-greater levels of power in the name of Security.  So many (though not all) of our most consequential political disputes are far more about insider v. outsider than they are Democrat v. GOP:  a simplistic dichotomy used to keep the populace divided over trivial disputes and thus too fractured to resist the corruption and repression of the bipartisan ruling class.  That's why I've long written and spoken about the need for such an alliance as a bulwark against further civil liberties abuses (for the crux of my argument, see the third question and answer in my 2010 interview with The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf).  

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/09/tea_party

Here is the link to the artilce in The Atlantic (conservative). http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/ideas/archive/2010/06/an-interview-with-glenn-greenwald/57976/ The bold is mine.

But clearly, the people on the Right genuinely devoted to civil liberties and restraining executive power are (as is true for Democrats) only a minority.  The problem is partisan tribalism.  Most people care about restraining executive power and fighting for civil liberties only when their party is out of power.  When their party is in power, they place blind trust in political leaders and believe they will do Good without any need for checks and restraints, because they are Good.  That's why conservatives who spent the 1990s shrieking about the tyrannical FISA court (it issued warrants for the Government to eavesdrop on Americans in secret!) suddenly favored warrantless eavesdropping (and every other unchecked power) when a Republican was President, and it's why so many Democrats who spent the last decade pretending to be so upset about Bush's Terrorism policies and expanded powers are perfectly content now that it's Barack Obama wielding them.

That said, I think the citizenry is becoming less and less defined by loyalty to one of the two parties, and these partisan divisions are breaking down, becoming much less clean.  We saw that with opposition to TARP, the general anger toward corporatist control of Washington, discomfort with our policy of endless wars, and the widespread disgust with incumbent power.  Far more important than Right v. Left is insider v. outsider (or politically powerful v. powerless).  That fact is becoming more crystallized, and the more that happens, the more the artificial barriers that divide citizens (Right and Left) will erode, the more apparent will be the commonalities.  The political establishment (both parties) benefits from keeping citizens divided against one another based on trivial distractions and tribal loyalties, which has the effect of strengthening the political establishment.  That's been the impediment to having citizens across the ideological spectrum join together to combat abuses of power in Washington, and I think it's eroding.  That, I think, is what Washington elites fear most.

iodine

I've read the discussion of the left and right and thought I'd throw in a Middle;  The No Labels will be having a march on Tues. March 1.  I thought we'd all watch and see what each of the media outlets has to say, if anything. 

LOL, there are very few things I would actually march for, but I do believe this would be one: to insist that our reps begin bipartisan WORK in our names, instead of their parties.

Except for the BBC, I find that my opinion of the media outlets to be left and right, but not all that much moderate.  NPR is the closest I can find other than the brits.

Beesie

I'm a Middle person too.  That's not a perspective that we see much in the media, or around here!

otter, don't worry, we won't tell that you've been won over. Oh, right.  You haven't been.  

bluedahlia

Count me in as a middle person too.  I am pro-life no matter how old the subject is.

Beesie, your avatar is so cool.  How'd you do that?

Anonymous

Geez, I can't catch up.  I'm finished reading page 112 FINALLY. 

I just have a couple of observations.  Very few of you ladies are "without sin"....meaning, look who's talking.  Go back many pages and reread your posts.  Someone tries to educate you about a religion and you take it all out of context and accuse (and hurt) that person for being insensitive to the Muslim women on this site...AND NO, I DID NOT DELETE ANYONE'S POST!  You think a tag line is really hurtful?  REALLY?  It's been explained to you over and over that it's a joke.  Can you not take a joke?  It seems like the joke is on us...the U.S....Americans.  It's okay to bash our country, our health care system, our freedom of speech which Canadians do not like...you know..no hate speech.....  I wonder how Palin would be treated in Canada...with open arms?  You are very tolerant, right?  None of the feminist here has commented on FGM when it was brought up...only commented on the hateful post which was not hateful.  Would you like me to post stories on honor killings IN THIS country?  Or, post some UTubes on women being stoned.  Yes, there are Muslims who are not radical, but face it, there are many that are.  And now France, the UK, and Germany are speaking out.  I'm tired of the Christian bashing.  Are Christians the only ones who are supposed to be tolerant?  Someone asked for articles or proof on Mosque bombings...as if such horrid crimes are running rampant here.  It's simply not true and I would think that in Canada this hateful lie would not be allowed under your laws.  And don't forget, Christians have feelings too.  I don't see you making fun of Islam.

I don't believe this thread is what Melissa envisioned.  I'll stop rambling and get off of here.  I have "stuff" to do.

ananda8

The country is best when the middle runs things and the left and right are listened to for creative solutions to problems.  The Civil Rights movement had the creative idea; it was the bipartisan middle that passed the legislation.  Social Security and Medicare were the creative ideas; it was the bipartisan middle that passed the legislation.  Welfare Reform was the creative idea; it was the bipartisan middle that passed the legislation.

I for one miss the bipartisan middle.

pip57

Beesie...I love the avatar!

BarbaraA

Wow notself! I totally agree with you. And am kinda astounded.

rosemary-b

So true, not self, so true.

pip57

Wow Shirley...you are wound up pretty tight.  I think you are adding a lot of your own emotions when reading some of the discussions here.  I really don't recall US or christian bashing!?

ananda8

This is a link to 45 Egyptian protest signs and their translation.  Fascinating Stuff.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/translated-egyptian-protest-signs

konakat

Shirley -- have you ever actually met and spoke to someone of the Muslim faith?

ananda8

My oncologist is a Muslim.  He is a kind and compassionate man who answers every question and calms every fear.  For complicated reasons, I am going to have to change oncologist.  I am really going to miss him.

pip57

I have only known one Muslim family.  They were absolutely the gentlest, nicest neighbours you could hope for.  

Please note...that statement does NOT mean to infer anything negative about my christian friends and neighbours. However, I suspect some people will make that inference anyways.  Sigh.