Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual?

    columnist suggests some big radio/TV names don't deliver the real goods:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opini ... .html?_r=2

  • #2
    Man, this thread is begging for a short shelf life.

    Doing my part: as long as the elephants are being driven by Rush and Beck the party will continue to shrink in size and influence. Scared white guys are a shrinking demographic . . .

    Comment


    • #3
      I offer no political preference in this thread (and indeed, I am quite moderate, with left or right-leaning tendencies for a few topics), except that this video is a great example of why we should ignore 99% of the verbal diarrhea:

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... -operation

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual

        Originally posted by gh
        columnist suggests some big radio/TV names don't deliver the real goods:
        Big-names, like little-names and no-names, are biased in their world-views, and surprise, surprise, they try and tell US what our world-view should be. That's why people like Jon Stewart (as in the video above) are our best source of information - they expose ALL the BS, and that's mostly what TV/radio people deliver. Even JS knows he hasn't a clue as to the real reality of what's going on - he just revels in the inanity of it ALL! :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual

          [quote="Marlow"][quote="gh"]. That's why people like Jon Stewart (as in the video above) are our best source of information - they expose ALL the BS, quote]

          Does he really go after everyone, i mean everyone. If never watched him so i dont know. If he does im gonna check him out.
          phsstt!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual

            Originally posted by gh
            columnist suggests some big radio/TV names don't deliver the real goods:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opini ... .html?_r=2
            They never have delivered the goods. But neither have the liberal media. Rush couldn't keep Clinton and Obama out of office and the liberal media couldn't keep the Bushes out. Can still see poor Peter Jennings choking up when Bush II was declared the winner.

            None of this means that either side is necessarily correct or incorrect. Sorry, I thought that was a bad column.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: could it be that the talk jocks are actually ineffectual

              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
              Does he really go after everyone, i mean everyone. If never watched him so i dont know. If he does im gonna check him out.
              He, himself, is obviously very liberal, but yes, he is an equal opportunity fun-of-maker!

              Comment


              • #8
                Uh... Of course? Who is suggesting all republicans are radicals? The problem with the party is that the radicals are coming to define it, either because the radial views they do have are becoming more prominent or because their moderate views are being perceived as just illusory. However, I think there are more factors in play than just the media people as the article suggests.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bad hammy
                  Man, this thread is begging for a short shelf life. .
                  The prudent thing for me to do would be to ignore this thread but WTF?
                  Presumably politics and religion are verboten on this forum and rightly so. Which prompts the question: Why would gh introduce a topic that cries out for rebuttal but will only tolerate agreement?
                  Debating conservatism vs. liberalism is as futile as debating creationism vs. evolution.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lonewolf
                    Debating conservatism vs. liberalism is as futile as debating creationism vs. evolution.
                    How 'bout this approach?
                    lonewolf, your conservative views are poppycock* . . . but I still love you, man! :-)

                    * from the Dutch pappekak, which literally means soft dung or diarrhea (from Dutch pap pap + kak dung)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      GH is having dinner tonight with the Pelosi's and felt the need to get "political".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As Kermit the Frog used to sing, "It ain't easy being green."
                        It ain't easy being an apparently distinct political minority on an ostensibly non-political forum.
                        Taking solace in the knowledge that I am right makes it possible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lonewolf
                          As Kermit the Frog used to sing, "It ain't easy being green."
                          It ain't easy being in an apparently distinct political minority, even on an ostensibly non-political forum
                          Lonewolf, I hope you're joking...If you aren't, then I truly feel sorry for you, but not for your perceived political minority status, but because you are whining about it as if it really bothers you...I don't give a rip what any posters' political idealogies are. It means nothing to me, and I would hope it would mean nothing to you what other posters' political idealogies are on a track and field message board.
                          If you're joking, then my post doesn't apply to you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 2 cents
                            [Lonewolf, I hope you're joking...If you aren't, then I truly feel sorry for you, but not for your perceived political minority status, but because you are whining about it as if it really bothers you...I don't give a rip what any posters' political idealogies are. It means nothing to me, and I would hope it would mean nothing to you what other posters' political idealogies are on a track and field message board.
                            If you're joking, then my post doesn't apply to you.
                            My point exactly. This is promulgted as a T&F forum with permissable discussion on other subjects, specifically excluding politics and religion.
                            No need to feel sorry for me. I am not "whining" because it bothers me to be in a minority. Minorities are frequently proven right. Just as you said, I don't care what other's political idealogies are; as long as they keep it to themselves in forum where it should be irrelevant.
                            What I resent are gratutious political comments that insult my opinions and the uneven tolerance by the moderators.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 2 cents
                              I don't give a rip what any posters' political idealogies are.
                              Originally posted by lonewolf
                              What I resent are gratutious political comments that insult my opinions and the uneven tolerance by the moderators.
                              You're too nice to admit it, lonewolf, but although you don't care what the ideologies of others are (and indeed none of us should), you DO care what others think of your opinions, because you actually ENJOY (gasp!) being in the community of man, and that entails the need to be 'accepted' by others - not in your ideology, but in your credibility as a rational man.

                              You have mentioned several times that these sorts of discussions bother you, lonewolf. That's because they are DIVISIVE, and you'd rather get along with others. That's a HORRIBLE weakness on your part. But be comforted - misery loves company - and there are many others of us here who share in the desire to LIKE our fellow man.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X