My kid asked me about politics last year: "Which side should I take?" Coming from a non English speaking background I don't take things for granted. I explained to him: "Look at the start: English is a very easy to understand language. It even tells you: you can be on the RIGHT side of politics or you can be on the LEFT side of politics." He started smiling: "Oh yes. I get it. The RIGHT side, as in the proper side." I think there is no debate here. It's a fairly easy one to communicate.
I'm not expecting anything from you. You made this point earlier: When, in reality, what was being said is that: If you are going to promise to starve yourself to make a point and invoke aboslute moral authority on your little issue; don't go to mcdonald's 10 minutes later and woof down a big mac. Then come back and still claim that moral authority.
His problem wasn't with thier conviction to the cause at all. What he said was; "Let them fast until they starve to death; then that solves the problem." Presumably the problems that they are causing with thier protest.
Do you even know why the GOP is called the right side and liberals the left? Furthermore, lets get back on subject...as I previously said (and you denied) TV and Radio are not the same. While some people may watch TV shows for entertainment (such as O'Reilly), I hardly doubt Radio is the same. If people want entertainment, what do they do? They put in a CD or change the channel. As previously said, the liberal radio is so far of based that that is the reason it cannot survive, hence the fairness doctrine. (which is not fair at all).
Ah ha. I looked up that quote. Savage said that. Figures I'll take your sheehan stance here. He's a nut. I've only heard him 2-3 times on the radio, but his tone came across as only slightly belligerant. From him, that wouldn't surprise me at all.