Where I am there's the standard conservative talk and until recently there was also a 'progressive' talk station. The progressive talk station recently became an ESPN soprts talk station. God, the uproar was ridiculous. Every bluebell around here was crying foul. That this was some right-wing power move.

If they bothered to look into it, or at least have listened to the station they were so sorry to see go, they would have noticed that both the conservative station and the liberal station were owned by the same people, have been for years, had the same station managers, the same program managers, the same sponsers, the only difference between the two was that on one you had Rush and on the other you had Franken.

Nobody listened to the station with Frnaken. Week after week I'd hear more bumper music and less advertisements on that station until one day it was gone. The format, or just the hosts, were not attracting enough listeners to sell enough ad time to make the station profitable, thats all it is.

Imagine Burger King and McDonalds are ownwed by the same people. Is it some grand Ronald-wing conspiracy if the King goes out of business?

Any attempt to censor or regulate free market driven media is unConstitutional, un-American and traditional unconservative. It's supposed to be traditional unliberal as well but I guess when there's an agenda to push core values of your ideology just dont matter. You idiot political fanboys keep trying to stick it to the other guy and before you know it none of us will have any rights left. This kind of crap is pushing me and my guns further and further out into the woods.

Blue Triangle, how is it comedy to make fun of someone with Parkinson's (MIchael J. Fox). how is it comedy to talk about murdering an entire group of people just because of their political stance? Sounds more like fascism and genocide to me.

Now here's an interesting item, right from your own quoted source:

"The ICCS medal was awarded for 90 days service with the Commission between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973. The 1,160 personnel of the commission were from Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland and their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam as per the Paris Peace Conference. The Commission arranged the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war."

THey didn't fight IN the war, they were there for 90 days to ensure that the peace accord held. That's called diplomacy, not fighting. You're trying to spin it into something it's not. Anne Coulter insisted that Canada fought in the Vietnam War (the comment we're talking about) She's still wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

Liberal media? You mean like Rupert Murdoch? Who do you think owns the TV media? Mostly conservatives, like Murdoch, since the majority of wealthy people are usually Republicans/conservatives.

jsobecky and others- Way back on the first page of this, I wrote a comment, it was sarcasm towards both sides of this I thought. Then I became busy elsewhere and failed to realize that my statements would be taken as seriously as they were.

First, I am not a liberal, or a conservative, or any other label. The minute you start identifying with a group, accepting that groups viewpoint, you start to lose your concept of self. I hated the war in Vietnam and I hated Jane Fonda equally. I've been outside a long time.

I may have picked on the conservatives too much in that comment, but I meant it as a statement on thinking for one's self. And the stance taken in the comments before mine WERE conservative self congratulatory over the gains in talk radio, hence they caught more flack.

And Rush is just TOO easy. He's a cartoon of himself, just like Paris H. And I used both in the same way, to show that being a follower only makes you smell like the wind these idiots pass.

While sides are being taken here on this thread, with offense and defense, so many of you are not thinking about how you are cementing yourselves to a "group position", thereby allowing someone else to think for you. I know, it's just a little at a time, but they are all so many slow steps on the road to being "with" one side or the other.

To deny Ignorance is NOT to blindly march in lockstep solidarity with any group, because groups go off course. And if you become too emotionally bound to that group, you too go off course. I had thought that the intelligence of people here would have seen that in what I wrote.

The same thing happens in so many ares of life. Look at the "killtown" episode. Here was a smart person that became too welded to a position to be rational, or civil. And there are debunkers and believers in the UFO community that are the same way. Being a fanatic is for religion, and 90% of them are nuts.

So go ahead and bash me for the things I say, but at least look a little below the surface to the meaning, to the idea. I seldom spell things out because I want people to think about not just what is said, but what saying it implys about the actions.

I need a satire button.

Originally posted by forestlady
Blue Triangle, how is it comedy to make fun of someone with Parkinson's (MIchael J. Fox).

not comedy, fact. Reread my post. Anybody who's seen Mr. Fox outside of that venue should know without a doubt that he's not normally like that.

Originally posted by forestlady
how is it comedy to talk about murdering an entire group of people just because of their political stance? Sounds more like fascism and genocide to me.

It's called a joke. You don't really think that anybody would want to kill all the liberals in the country do you? If you do, you've heard to many liberal news stations on TV demonize conservatives. We don't want to kill you guys. In fact, I'll fight for your right to say what you want even though I think it's complete crap.

Originally posted by forestlady
Now here's an interesting item, right from your own quoted source:

"The ICCS medal was awarded for 90 days service with the Commission between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973. The 1,160 personnel of the commission were from Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland and their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam as per the Paris Peace Conference. The Commission arranged the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war."

THey didn't fight IN the war, they were there for 90 days to ensure that the peace accord held. That's called diplomacy, not fighting. You're trying to spin it into something it's not. Anne Coulter insisted that Canada fought in the Vietnam War (the comment we're talking about) She's still wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't have to spin anything. The facts are that during the vietnam war canada sent troops to vietnam. Regardless of whether or not canada officially declared war or joined the effort, they had soldiers wounded and killed in firefights and had members of their military taken prisoner. It seems like you're the one spinning here.

Originally posted by forestlady
Liberal media? You mean like Rupert Murdoch? Who do you think owns the TV media? Mostly conservatives, like Murdoch, since the majority of wealthy people are usually Republicans/conservatives.

Just stop and ask yourself this question "When was the last time I heard any major news outlet say anything nice about Bush?" Hmm...you really have to go back, eh? Bush gets slammed daily by every news station, including Fox News. Certainly sounds like they have conservative bias to me.

NGC2736

Originally posted by NGC2736
jsobecky and others- Way back on the first page of this, I wrote a comment, it was sarcasm towards both sides of this I thought. Then I became busy elsewhere and failed to realize that my statements would be taken as seriously as they were.

Well, if you read the first sentence of my response to your post, you'll understand why I approached you the way I did:

Originally posted by jsobecky

I didn't see any /sarcasm tags in your post, so I'll have to assume you were serious. Given that, let me respond:

I don't know you; I'm not familiar with your posting style, and you are a fairly new member, so you can't expect me to know that you were being sarcastic.

First, I am not a liberal, or a conservative, or any other label. The minute you start identifying with a group, accepting that groups viewpoint, you start to lose your concept of self. I hated the war in Vietnam and I hated Jane Fonda equally. I've been outside a long time.

< snip >

While sides are being taken here on this thread, with offense and defense, so many of you are not thinking about how you are cementing yourselves to a "group position", thereby allowing someone else to think for you. I know, it's just a little at a time, but they are all so many slow steps on the road to being "with" one side or the other.

To deny Ignorance is NOT to blindly march in lockstep solidarity with any group, because groups go off course. And if you become too emotionally bound to that group, you too go off course. I had thought that the intelligence of people here would have seen that in what I wrote.

You have misinterpreted what the point of this thread is. Just because people agree with the basic premise of this thread does not mean that they are conservative. Not at all.

It means that they understand the economics of radio. It means that they realize that any attempt to implement any type of "Fairness Doctrine" is unjust and unconstitutional.

It means that they realize the value of the First Amendment.

It does not mean that they are dittoheads that worship Rush Limbaugh.

Any "lockstep solidarity" present is merely an embrace of the points listed above. It is not a political stance.

OK dg, just for you:

Thank you, Jsobecky- that made my evening

Off i go.

In case anyone failed to notice the largest radio conglomerate out there is clear channel and they are pretty right wing so that in itself highlights the need for greater diversity of ownership.... in fact where I live ALL and I do mean ALL of the radio stations in the area are either owned by clear channel or its number one rival.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by grover]

Right wing radio has a less farther reach then the left wing media/tv!!!!

Of coarse the want it gone.........It spreads truth, something liberals hate!!!

BULLHOOEY!!! Plain and simple. You really have bought if hook, line and sinker if you actually believe that.

Originally posted by forestlady
Blue Triangle, how is it comedy to make fun of someone with Parkinson's (MIchael J. Fox). how is it comedy to talk about murdering an entire group of people just because of their political stance? Sounds more like fascism and genocide to me.

Now here's an interesting item, right from your own quoted source:

"The ICCS medal was awarded for 90 days service with the Commission between 28 January 1973 and 31 July 1973. The 1,160 personnel of the commission were from Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland and their role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam as per the Paris Peace Conference. The Commission arranged the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war."

THey didn't fight IN the war, they were there for 90 days to ensure that the peace accord held. That's called diplomacy, not fighting. You're trying to spin it into something it's not. Anne Coulter insisted that Canada fought in the Vietnam War (the comment we're talking about) She's still wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

Liberal media? You mean like Rupert Murdoch? Who do you think owns the TV media? Mostly conservatives, like Murdoch, since the majority of wealthy people are usually Republicans/conservatives.

You won't convince them forest lady... they are not called the right for nothing right in their own minds that is. Thats one of the differences between those on the hard right, they spew hate and either try and hide behind the first amendment or wonder why we (those on the left) have no sense of humor and laugh at their comedy. Thing is we know better... hate is hate no matter what you call it.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by grover]

Thanks, Grover, for the reminder, you're right of course. hate is hate.

grover

Originally posted by grover
In case anyone failed to notice the largest radio conglomerate out there is clear channel and they are pretty right wing so that in itself highlights the need for greater diversity of ownership.... in fact where I live ALL and I do mean ALL of the radio stations in the area are either owned by clear channel or its number one rival.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by grover]

When you say diversity of ownership, what do you mean? By race? Politics? Geography?

And please tell me why diversity is so desirable? You know, the colleges and universities are overwhelmingly staffed by liberals. Would you apply this same diversity goal to them?

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by forestlady
Anne Coulter insisted that Canada fought in the Vietnam War (the comment we're talking about) She's still wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

Liberal media? You mean like Rupert Murdoch? Who do you think owns the TV media? Mostly conservatives, like Murdoch, since the majority of wealthy people are usually Republicans/conservatives.

You won't convince them forest lady... they are not called the right for nothing right in their own minds that is. Thats one of the differences between those on the hard right, they spew hate and either try and hide behind the first amendment or wonder why we (those on the left) have no sense of humor and laugh at their comedy. Thing is we know better... hate is hate no matter what you call it.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by grover]

I saw Ann Coulter on TV, it must have been the very first time she was called out as wrong on the Vietnam thing. She made an honest mistake, it was obvious. She was wrong.

So what? What does that prove? Absolutely nothing at all.

Also, the point about wealthy people being conservative is irrelevant. You could also say that most wealthy people are smart, since it takes intelligence to be successful in business.

And part of that intelligence is knowing when to separate your personal politics from your business politics. If liberal politics were a hot ticket, then you can guarantee that is what Murdoch would be selling. But he isn't, which should tell you something.

One final point: you talk of hate, but the only hate I see here is the hate being shown for certain radio and TV personalities. And I think we all know who is spewing that hate.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by jsobecky]

Let's face it and call it what it really is....

Liberals want to control what is said on the radio..

Read every post and it is clear...

No blindness, not "following" anyone, just plain simple control of what someone is saying on the radio...

We can debate all the semantics, all the psycho babble all day and all night and it just boils down to that....


YOU, (Liberals) want to control any and all speech that does not fit your opinion... Exactly like you want to control what people own, watch...WHATS NEXT...

BOOK BURNING...

Oh yeah, how far away is it before you demand the public burning of Hannity's book? It is perfectly logical following YOUR logic. YOU want to shut them up on the radio, so why not shut them up in print as well?

JEEEZE you people are over the top and so close to Fascism ....


Semper

Originally posted by grover
You won't convince them forest lady... they are not called the right for nothing right in their own minds that is. Thats one of the differences between those on the hard right, they spew hate and either try and hide behind the first amendment or wonder why we (those on the left) have no sense of humor and laugh at their comedy. Thing is we know better... hate is hate no matter what you call it.

Funny, I've never seen any uproar over Jon Stewart and he has the same type of show. He's far left...and has a ton of viewers. Every descriptive term that has been used in this thread to attack Rush and others equally applies to Jon Stewart. Bill Maher fits the description as well. I guess it's ok in this case because they're on your side...right? Funny how conservatives aren't trying to get laws passed to take both of them off the air since they're obviously of the liberal persuasion and not shy about it on the air.

Loam,

Pardon me, but a Free Speech Zone is a FAR cry from the LAW, YES A LAW, the Liberals want to silence Conservatives...

Speech is already limited in many ways...

Try screaming FIRE in a crowded building...

But if the Liberals get their way, the word Conservative will become banned, then the books then ... well who knows....

Semper

The reason talk radio is successful is there is a demand for it. Some liberal stations fail because there is not a demand for them. There are plenty of other places that a liberal can get what they want to hear. If a liberal wants to hear a liberals opinion all they have to do is turn on the news or get a copy of the New York Times or any other news paper. All we have is fox and talk radio and just because they don't control something doesn't mean they should deny people that want to hear Hannity or Rush talk even if you think these people are bigots or war mongers.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by spinstopshere]