2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So we have busloads of people from out of state coming to volunteer at our campaign office over the next 7 days. Things are getting crazy. Virginia hinges on this region.....no pressure.....
 
Lettuce analyze just one question, because I'm a former Journalism student and a current English student I can see something really really fucking weird about this question.

Now, you recently said, "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it's not going to be apparent initially that he's right. NON SEQUITUR WARNING Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world-leading power are over?

..."nothing will be done": Who the hell thinks that Obama will crap his pants should a second 9/11 will occur? Does George W. Bush hold some sort of mystifying trump card on all national tragedies? Wouldn't every President do what he did following the initial days of the attack? Throw an opening pitch at a baseball game? Denounce terrorists? What exactly is this question getting at?? Why is it that Bush considered to be heaven-sent on his 9/11 reaction?
IF that is the case, then what does it say about that as he now has an extremely low approval rating, due in part to his failure to capture Osama Bin Laden like he promised to seven years ago? Isn't that a more relevant part of the issue at hand?

Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world-leading power are over?

Hot diggity dog, even the non sequitur has a non sequitur. Quite a feat.

I've got a question for Mr. Biden now: Is it true, Senator Biden, that Barack Obama was simply cloned from a proven sample of Karl Marx hair mixed with the blood of a Kenyan shaman with a thirst for Christian blood?
 
So we have busloads of people from out of state coming to volunteer at our campaign office over the next 7 days. Things are getting crazy. Virginia hinges on this region.....no pressure.....

I keep getting emails about hauling my legal ass down to Philly.
 
John%20Elway.jpg
[/IMG]


Curt.Schilling.jpg


2 celeberities for McCain.

<>
 
That's why Rush and Oscar are the only people talking about it... they fear losing their choir.

The liberals have radio talkshows, and they don't do so well because it's not really hard to know what the liberal point of view is. It's saturated out there. If there is a demand for ideas you have to compete. It's weak to have government force them off the air.

Anyways, this kind of martyrdom will just create more sympathy.
 
http://www.sjgonline.com/sfl/graphics/John%20Elway.jpg


[]http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Curt.Schilling.jpg

2 celeberities for McCain.

<>

Oh yeah, now THERE are some smart insightful people who know about Government, forget a Colin Powell, what we need is the opinion of some ex-jocks.....
 
The liberals have radio talkshows, and they don't do so well because it's not really hard to know what the liberal point of view is. It's saturated out there. If there is a demand for ideas you have to compete. It's weak to have government force them off the air.

Anyways, this kind of martyrdom will just create more sympathy.

The reason they don't work is that most left leaning folks don't need a preaching to the choir environment, in fact we fear it...

Who said anything about forcing them off the air?

I'm not sure who you think is being a martyr...
 
I think it comes down to commuting methods and durations.

Well I'm in my car all day and I listen to NPR or right radio most of the time. One to get informed and one to know the enemy. :wink: When I lived in Chicago, that market actually had Air America, I listened a few times but found myself bored, now that I'm back in Texas I don't even have access to it, I think it's illegal here. :lol:
 
It was a smug assertion, and having watched people who question a leftist consensus get tarred as racists, homophobes and misogynists I think that "the left" is just as prone to conformity as the right.

Not to mention the tedium of listening to people agree about how GWB is the worst president ever, that global warming is all his fault, Iraq was a land of chocolate rivers before 2003 and that conservatives (unlike progressives) are all a bunch of religious know-nothings who believe in censorship, enforcing their social values on society and attacking social welfare programs (it's all only partly true).
 
It was a smug assertion, and having watched people who question a leftist consensus get tarred as racists, homophobes and misogynists I think that "the left" is just as prone to conformity as the right.

Fair enough. Yes, all "sides" have those that need the safe haven of "these people think like me", I've just noticed that those that listen to Rush, Hannity and the like seem to need that pat themselves on the back-we're the true Americans, we're the moral ones, science isn't always right, etc etc than most people do. And I'm not saying it's a conservative thing or even a Republican thing, it' just that small part of America that listen to Rush as their only outlet for information.
 
You said most left leaning folks don't need a preaching to the choir environment and that they actively oppose it. I think that most people of all political stripes don't need one (although the religious do) and that both mainstream left and right don't have any problems when there is consensus among their supporters, neither group opposes consensus.
 
It was a smug assertion, and having watched people who question a leftist consensus get tarred as racists, homophobes and misogynists I think that "the left" is just as prone to conformity as the right.

Not to mention the tedium of listening to people agree about how GWB is the worst president ever, that global warming is all his fault, Iraq was a land of chocolate rivers before 2003 and that conservatives (unlike progressives) are all a bunch of religious know-nothings who believe in censorship, enforcing their social values on society and attacking social welfare programs (it's all only partly true).



seems a bit smug and tedious to point out the smugness and tediousness of others.
 
The liberals have radio talkshows, and they don't do so well because it's not really hard to know what the liberal point of view is. It's saturated out there.
I'd say that the conservative version of what the liberal point of view is is saturated out there, if by "there" you mean AM talk radio. The actual liberal point of view, well that's another story.

On the political forum I run, it's VERY easy to pick out a conservative trying to be a liberal. It's because he preaches what he thinks the liheral point of view is, and that makes him stick out like a sore thumb.


The reason they don't work is that most left leaning folks don't need a preaching to the choir environment, in fact we fear it...
Another reason that liberal talk shows don't work is because radio stations accept corporate advertising. If you have a radio show that for example slams the credit card business, are MasterCard, Amex, and Visa going to buy commercials on that show? Probably not. Is Wal-Mart going to buy ad time on a show that slams them for their business practices? Probably not.

Radio shows want the programming that brings in the most bucks, and that ain't liberal talk radio.

Radio Pacifica accepts no corporate advertising, and they are one of my favorite stations. They have great segments, great guests, and a loyal following, but no corporate fat cats to piss off.
 
It's because conservative America is the true silent majority and radios and FOX news are the only legitimate places to get your news from.

You can't even trust the internet unless it comes in the form of an email from an insider Washington friend.
 
I think it comes down to commuting methods and durations.



Wrong. Take a look at DC, where the overwhelming majority of people are liberal, and the average commute by car is an hour or more. Like BVS, most of the politically-minded who make those commutes listen to NPR instead of saber-rattling doofuses.
 
I'd say that the conservative version of what the liberal point of view is is saturated out there, if by "there" you mean AM talk radio. The actual liberal point of view, well that's another story.

On the political forum I run, it's VERY easy to pick out a conservative trying to be a liberal. It's because he preaches what he thinks the liheral point of view is, and that makes him stick out like a sore thumb.



Another reason that liberal talk shows don't work is because radio stations accept corporate advertising. If you have a radio show that for example slams the credit card business, are MasterCard, Amex, and Visa going to buy commercials on that show? Probably not. Is Wal-Mart going to buy ad time on a show that slams them for their business practices? Probably not.

Radio shows want the programming that brings in the most bucks, and that ain't liberal talk radio.

Radio Pacifica accepts no corporate advertising, and they are one of my favorite stations. They have great segments, great guests, and a loyal following, but no corporate fat cats to piss off.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, music, school have plenty of saturation in liberal bias. Forcing talk radio to put more liberal opinions on is overkill. There's a hunger out there for conservative opinions because people want to see intellectuals who agree with them compete against liberals in the chattering classes. Nobody believes that the Fairness Doctrine is going to be used to force conservative opinions on Oprah.

The reason I know I'm right is that the forum thread here would celebrate if Rush and Hannity were off the air.
 
Movies and music have no obligation to be objective. It would be the same as criticizing books. Each is the property and opinion of the writer.
 
I think the point I'm trying to make is that TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, music, school have plenty of saturation in liberal bias.

Only if you're a conservative. If you're liberal then it's the other way around.

There's a hunger out there for conservative opinions because people want to see intellectuals who agree with them compete against liberals in the chattering classes. Nobody believes that the Fairness Doctrine is going to be used to force conservative opinions on Oprah.

The reason I know I'm right is that the forum thread here would celebrate if Rush and Hannity were off the air.

No, we'd celebrate if people didn't take them seriously, keep them on by all means ! You really ought to have learned by now not to tell us what other people think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom