Ready for a laugh?...Here comes "Liberal" talk radio!!! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 06-23-2003, 08:58 PM

NOW IT’S AL GORE COMING OUT WITH A LIBERAL TALK RADIO NETWORK

Isn’t this getting just a bit tiring? First we had those leftist millionaires who donated $10 million to the cause of starting a liberal talk radio network. Now we have rumors that Al Gore might be pursuing a similar venture.

OK … enough talk. Let’s see some action here. Let’s see you trot out your leftist talk radio hero to save the day for socialism and the Democratic Party. Bring us your big-government, big-spender to tell us how wonderful it is to show compassion with someone else’s money.

Tell me where I can tune in to hear this wonderful liberal talk show host tell us that income is “distributed,” not earned. Then we’ll all sit around a listen with rapt attention as this liberal savior defends the position that it is perfectly appropriate for some people to use the government as an instrument of plunder; taking money from those who have it in order to give it to those who don’t.

For the second hour his topic can cover the leftist war on individuality. He can explain why Teddy Kennedy acknowledged that we are currently at war with the concept of individuality. He can explain why Hillary Clinton said that “we need to stop worrying about the rights of individuals.

During hour three your left-wing raconteur can explain Bill Clinton’s oft-stated assertion that our rights are given us by government. Many of us, you see, thought that we enjoyed our rights to life, liberty and property simply by virtue of our existence, and that we formed governments to protect those rights, not to give them to us! That third hour should be a hum-dinger. (NOT!)

Oh yeah … this is sure to be a ratings success.

www.boortz.com

Mike

#2 06-23-2003, 09:22 PM

I'm very liberal (socialism - yay!

) but I dont think this is going to work. But then again I dont see how conservative radio is popular either, its just a bunch of angry repubs confirming to each other that they are very angry about something.

The last thing I need is Al Gore trying to pretend that he's angry!

mikemover · #3 06-23-2003, 09:43 PM

Liberal talk radio has never worked because the liberal mouthpieces cannot back up their absurd positions on various subjects, and when backed into a corner they either attempt to "sling mud", or they just clam up altogether. If a talk radio host can't legitimately hold his own against "hostile" callers, he will fail miserably, as almost all liberally-oriented talk radio has.

Libertarians and many conservatives have had huge success in radio because they are willing to be confronted "out in the open" by their opponents and can reinforce their stated position on issues with facts.

Mike

blackmercedes · #4 06-23-2003, 09:45 PM

Once again the "left" is lumped into together without real understanding of how people really feel/think. Gore's agenda is his own, and has little to do with how most "liberal" people really feel.

My "left" friends believe in:

1. Strong individual rights pertaining to privacy, religion, abortion, and so on.

2. Strong municipal governments and the rights to democratically chart a communities path. "Free Trade" is the antithesis of this.

3. Federal gov't intervention with respect to national defence and national unity.

mikemover · #5 06-23-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Once again the "left" is lumped into together without real understanding of how people really feel/think. Gore's agenda is his own, and has little to do with how most "liberal" people really feel.

My "left" friends believe in:

1. Strong individual rights pertaining to privacy, religion, abortion, and so on.

2. Strong municipal governments and the rights to democratically chart a communities path. "Free Trade" is the antithesis of this.

3. Federal gov't intervention with respect to national defence and national unity.

If this is the case, then why do ALMOST ALL of the most visible and audible liberal talking heads, at least in the US, continually and repeatedly put their feet in their mouths concerning these issues? If their extreme viewpoints don't represent the sentiments of "Joe Liberal", then for Pete's sake VOTE THEM OUT!

Mike

blackmercedes · #6 06-23-2003, 11:35 PM

The same could be said of the closed-minded freakish right-wingers thumping us over the heads with their bibles while breaking all the commandments.

Most neo-liberals (the right) use their agenda to centralize power for themselves, just like the "liberal" politicians. 99.99% of politicians use some sort of label simply to gain votes, and it has nothing to do with ideology. How did Clinton differ from Bush? In Canada, our "Liberal" government did not even change lanes from the previous "Conservative" government.

Check Clintons record. He blew smoke up the "Bab's crowd" a$$. Try to find anything he did "liberal." Universal health care was a smoke screen to keep the Hollywood types voting for him. The list goes on.

The reason the US 2000 election was so close was that few people could tell Gore and Bush apart. Why would it matter which one was elected? Gore was all "environmental" during the election, but what was the record of his government? Even Bush II is tlaking about raising CAFE standards and even the possiblity of applying it to SUV's. Clinton/Gore was the first administration not to raise CAFE standards. And so on. They are all liars and cheats.

mikemover · #7 06-24-2003, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes

Most neo-liberals (the right) use their agenda to centralize power for themselves, just like the "liberal" politicians.

Where do you get this term "neo-liberals", anyway? Must be a Canadian thing, because I NEVER hear it or read it here in the states...

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
They are all liars and cheats.

That is something I can't argue with...and it's also another reason I almost always vote Libertarian...I have to have faith that SOMEONE can bail us out of this mess, and the libertarian platform (read: minimal government meddling) seems to be the most appealing option.

Mike

#8 06-24-2003, 11:52 AM

I'll agree that most politicians are in it for themselves and their own agenda. However I DONT think that means that they are all the same or that the parties are the same. There is no way that a demo would have passed any of these crazy tax cuts nor appointed power abusers like Rummy and especially Ashcroft.

I really hope that a more independent candidate comes out of the democratic primary, because the last thing we need is Dick Gephardt as Bush's replacement!

tabasco85331 · #9 06-24-2003, 01:39 PM

I have always found it curious that ''liberals'' never wanted to make any comments publicly to explain , define , defend or even discuss the Democratic point of view on their own radio talk shows . Do I think this is strange ? No . The party as a whole is not unified enough for any single person to argue for , define , defend or explain exactly what the party stands for and why . Republicans welcome discussion on ''all'' topics political and are willing to dissect why we support our party . Talk radio is a kind of barrometer for how the public thinks government is doing and putting things in the ''public eye'' helps insure more honesty . Secrecy hides dishonesty ! Why am I a Republican ? I want a small ''federal government'' and more power given to individual states . Our huge federal government is so out of touch , that it survives and decides laws to feed it's own wasteful existance . More state power gives the people of that state what ''they'' want and need ''. It's fine with me if California wants to decriminalize marijuana . If Connecticut wants to recognize ''gay marriges'' legally , the people of that state voted it in and should have that right . States power = peoples choices . Federal power = politicians choices . I , like most Republicans want Welfare and all government assistance cut ''in half'' and would like to be able to vote on it in Arizona . Our Welfare now just fosters dependance and waste my money at the tune of almost 40% of my paycheck . I want less government and less taxes . Democrats think that I'm rich and that is a good enough reason to ''steal'' my money because I have been successful and worked my ass off . Not F***ING OFF . Some people need assistance , about half of what we now enable . We are ''enablers'' and that hurts everybody involved .

DieselHead · #10 06-24-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

I have always found it curious that ''liberals'' never wanted to make any comments publicly to explain , define , defend or even discuss the Democratic point of view on their own radio talk shows . Do I think this is strange ? No . The party as a whole is not unified enough for any single person to argue for , define , defend or explain exactly what the party stands for and why

Yes, it is unfortunate, but understandable. The success of the republican party has been due to its financial backing and strong party unification. The republicans act as a unit, while it seems that the democrats seem to always be caught up in in-fighting and disagreement. The lack of liberal radio isn't the result of any desire to hide anything, it's simply the result of a) not having a solid platform and views stance, and b) not having the money that people like Murdoch and Scaff give to the conservatives to fund media projects.

Quote:

it's own wasteful existance

The federal government is hardly a wasteful existance. You may not agree with welfare and social service, or the department of education, but we need the federal government to create and sustain foreign treaties, provide for defense, safeguard the environment, stabilize our economy (the government is a huge investor in the economy), preserve our forests and parks, maintain interstate transportation, and set regulations for off shore navigation. Too many people take the federal government for granted and are too willing to spit on it and call it corrupt because of a few small things that they think are wrong. Yeah, welfare is a relatively small portion of the budget, but I also think it needs to be reformed. I believe in welfare, I just think our particular system is so entirely wasteful.

Alex

tabasco85331 · #11 06-24-2003, 04:11 PM

You stated that ''The federal government is hardly a wasteful existance''. You have to be kidding ... Remember the real example of the ''$800.00 toilet seat ? This is not the exception but the rule . Another example was the federal governments study on ''the velocity of catsup'' ? Thousands of these examples exist . Why should they care about waste ? It's not their money .

#12 06-24-2003, 04:56 PM

tabasco, you seem to be confused. Based on what you said, you shoudl definately be with Mike in the libertarian camp! If you want "less federal power", then voting for George Bush is the antithesis of your goal. He wants to expand executive power and John Ashcroft wants to be able to do whatever the h*ll he wants! With republicans you may pay less taxes, and there will be fewer services, but that does NOT mean less federal power.

blackmercedes · #13 06-24-2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
The USA has one of the most free, open societies the world has ever seen. We also have one of the most free and open markets.

Not true. There are plenty of countries with more open markets than yours. The US often places government restrictions on the market. This includes things like standards applying to weights and measures, health and safety, and transportation.

How? Well, what about false advertising? How about food safety regulations? Airlines? The FAA regulates the airline industry with respect to safety regs and securities. Even your stock markets are heavily regulated with respect to trading rules, fairness, and honesty.

This is one reason why North American markets work so well. Our consumers can buy a steak with a reasonable expectation of not dying of food poisioning. The list is very long.

Your "free" society is actually one of the most highly regulated and structured markets in the world. And it's why our respective economies are the envy of the rest of the world.

tabasco85331 · #14 06-25-2003, 12:13 PM

Andrew ; I do agree with some Libertarian philsophy but the U.S. will NEVER elect one for president . Libertarian philosophy is only therory that has never been tested . The ''neutral'' stance Libertarians take on our military and military action is also just plain scary . The U.S. is definitley not ready or willing to be neutral like Canada , France , Germany or Switzerland as far as world wide terrorist and protecting our oil rescorces are involved . Every Libertarian that cast a presidential vote knows that he is only making a ''statement'' , not a real decision on who will really be president . So , not giving my suooort to the Republican candidate strengthens the Democrats by one less vote against them . See ... The U.S. is still only a two party system in reality . But , Libertarian philosophy may change the ''big two'' parties into a more ''people conscious'' and less extreme choice than we have now . Cool ...

#15 06-25-2003, 02:21 PM

I see your point tabasco, I guess if the green party had taken a similar approach in the 2000 election we wouldnt have Bush in office!