http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/NATION/110040047/1002 The bet wetters are upset that they can't get a stranglehold on radio like they have with TV, movies, and music. Boo hoo.
Maybe if the right started talking about issues, instead of talking about talking about them, people wouldn't need to pull them up. There is nothing constructive about saying protesters should starve themselves to death or that soldiers against the war are phony. it's a common tactic by the right. Because they can't discuss things logically and rationally they instead attack the people opposing them and question their motives.
Maybe if the left talk radio would actually talk about facts, people would listen to them. Instead, as we have seen, all they spit is extreme biased lies, and like Air America, the ship goes down sinking fast.
See what i mean? You are doing the exact thing i was just accusing you people of. Thanks for proving my point with exquisite idiocy and completely no self-awareness.
Facts are facts...why isn't Air America making it? Why is Rush, Boortz, Hannity, etc. growing everyday? Because they actually talk about the problems. The issue here is that the libs are the problems.
Rush was talking about a specific individual who was in fact a fake soldier who made up stories about what was happening in Iraq. This is why conservative radio succeeds and liberal radio fails. Don't feel bad, even some idiot Democrat leaders keep peddling the same MediaMatters lies. Liberal radio fails because the demographic would rather listen to Hip Hop and the Top 40 than the high pitched squeal of liberal host.
Non-sequitur. it's like saying; "Why is Mc Donalds so popular? It's because it's good for you". Their popularity is no reflection on anything other than the amount of people who agree and/or like watching them. It in no way suggests they "talk about the problems". In fact, From what i have seen of their shows they seem to do nothing but attack the left and completely ignore the actual issues.
so if they ignore the issues, then why do they make it? Face it, people don't want to listen to the B&M of the Liberals...so they don't. Stox, you really have no clue about this whole thing. Media Matters was set up by Hillary Clinton as a front to attack the right. Thats all they do...if you are going to say that all the right does is attack the left, they you obviously are walking around with blinders on.
The right like to watch "news entertainment", Which is what the right wing reporters provide. Their popularity is still no reflection on how correct they are or how much they tackle issues. Their popularity only reflect how popular they are. I have explained this to you a number of times now, Please, pay attention.
By issues you must mean impeaching Bush, getting out of Iraq, blaming America first etc. No, they don't waste their time on those "issues." Liberal radio does and that's why nobody listens.
we are talking about radio, not TV...last I checked, you cannot "watch radio"...but leave it to a good liberal like yourself to try and change the subject.
Of course it does. The radio and TV formats are identical. Shouting, putting the left down and questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with the government. That's what the right like and that's why the show are popular.
Paranoid dellusions only get viewers for movies. That kind of lunatic raving doesn't get listeners or viewers for news programs. Fixed that quote for you. They're called Nazis and they've already been marginalized.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-go-after-limbaugh-2007-10-01.html Who calls who unpatriotic again? I think that protesters on a "starvation protest" should actually, be, you know starving themselves to make a point, don't you? And for the second part, you'd have a good point if that what was said, but it wasn't. Have you actually heard the comment, in context?
One guy on the left and the vast majority of the right. I don't think hunger strikes are particularly productive.
One guy? Or are you just relying on one statement from one guy to make that conclusion. If you actually pay attention; it goes something like this: Some right wing guy makes a valid point about some leftie's position. Leftie guy says right wing guy calls him unpatriotic. Leftie guy calls him unpatriotic instead. I suggest you pay attention a little more. Might help. I agree. But that's not the point is it? If you are going to go out there and claim moral authority by saying "I'm going on a hunger strike that won't stop until this policy changes" you shouldn't be going to mcdonald's in the next hour then claim that same moral authority at the next press conference. Dont you agree? Let's take this example from Sheehan's hunger strike: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3794/1/198/ ... ... Now that's a hunger strike. One should not be gaining weight while "starving" themselves