TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Wednesday, June 15, 2005

    Liberal VS Conservative Radio

    I have wondered why there are more conservative radio stations than liberal ones. I notice that television media seems to be dominated with liberal views but not radio. Could this be because radio is the "poor mans" communication tool? There are more wealthy democrats - that's just a matter of record.
    Although most news has that obvious liberal slant I also notice that if someone tries to have their own television program and that programming is totally liberal then that program won't last long (Couple of times Jessie Jackson tried, many others, etc.…). I have noticed a big difference between the extremes of liberal and conservative radio (also goes for television as well):
    Liberals target people in attempted character assassinations. This is actually a tactic that is taught in any early college logic class or debate class - if you can't support your position then attempt to destroy the message of your opponent (however true it might be) by destroying the messenger. There is a lack of ideas, solutions to problems, or hope that comes from their programming. Liberals are very good at this.
    On the other hand conservatives tend to target issues and problems, offering solutions, ideas, and hope. Yeah, even I disagree with some of the stuff that comes over the channels but at least there is an effort given. Conservatives (including conservative Democrats) are far more patriotic as well - so obvious.
    Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarian, etc. can only absorb so much negative waves. Unfortunately this is platform of the Liberal - Negative Waves. Some quotes from the front page of the Air America Radio web page: "Is this sick presidency - the vile usurpation of power by George W. Bush - unraveling?", "The question is how long can the Bush Crime Family continue…", "America is tired of the lies and incompetency and removes them from office", etc. Listening to these people it becomes obvious their goal is not to unite but to divide. First it was individuals that were targeted; now they have no problems attacking entire classes of people.
    To those that have taken up the cause of division and hatred I quote to you from Oddball to Moriarty in Kelly's Heroes - Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

    20 comments:

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    There are more wealthy democrats - that's just a matter of record.

    Gosh, you make a lot of silly statements. Here's a classic example. You generally ask me for facts to back up my assertions, so let's see some facts here.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Liberals target people in attempted character assassinations. This is actually a tactic that is taught in any early college logic class or debate class - if you can't support your position then attempt to destroy the message of your opponent (however true it might be) by destroying the messenger.

    Aah, yes. Those LIBERAL swift boat people. That LIBERAL George Bush. That LIBERAL Strom Thurmond. That LIBERAL Dick Cheney.

    By the way, where did YOU go to college? I've never heard of a "Logic" class. And, in Debate class, they teach the precise opposite of what you state above. They teach you how to out-research and out-prepare the other side. Formal debates (unlike political debates) are judged SOLELY on which team can present the most facts to back up their position.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    On the other hand conservatives tend to target issues and problems, offering solutions, ideas, and hope.

    What planet do you live on? Again, let's see some substantive data here...I know it will certainly be hard for you to find!

    Van Helsing said...

    Hey Trey, why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Can't think of anything? Didn't think so.

    Van Helsing
    Moonbattery

    : JustaDog said...

    LOL, good suggestion van helsing. Poor trey is absorbed with trying to tell eveyone how much a better person he is because he (thinks) he is a Taoist. His passtime is bashing all religion while claiming Taoism is not a religion. I just let him spew - his motivations are obvious and his core liberalisms are as well. I use to leave some comments at his site but not anymore - like why waste my time? I'd rather pursue people with intellect.

    Now trey does have a shiny side - he sometimes gives a buck to a homeless (by choice) lazy bumm - makes him feel all cozy inside.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Liberals target people in attempted character assassinations. This is actually a tactic that is taught in any early college logic class or debate class - if you can't support your position then attempt to destroy the message of your opponent (however true it might be) by destroying the messenger. There is a lack of ideas, solutions to problems, or hope that comes from their programming. Liberals are very good at this.

    JustaCanine & Van Helsing just proved one of two things: a) Both of them are liberals because, rather than debate substance, they have chosen to attack my character or b) The above citation meant to say "CONSERVATIVES target people..."

    Dogman, I'm still waiting for you to provide some factual documentation to back up your assertions.

    : JustaDog said...

    Trey, please don't attack my guests. For Van Helsing to suggest that you try to thing good thoughts is hardly attacking your character.

    As for me attacking your character - I can not attack something that is not there.

    Kate said...

    Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as Republican. From http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=124

    It's pretty old, though, but I'll start with that as I say: You're simply wrong that there are more wealthy Democrats than wealthy Republicans.

    Anonymous said...

    Here, this is a lot more recent:

    From http://usconservatives.about.com/od/politics/a/GOPDemDemo.htm.

    People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent [compared to Democrats].


    So, can you put some facts where your mouth is instead of just spewing crap that Ann Coulter told you?

    Kate said...

    Obviously, that last comment was from me.

    : JustaDog said...

    The poorest regions of the United States by and large trend Republican. That trend's been growing over the last few decades. I guess the term rich is relative to someone that makes more than someone else. If you ask someone that makes $30,000 if they consider themselves rich I doubt very much if they would agree with you.

    You can go to this site and check the last election donations: Open Secrets. It will show GW Bush received more money than Kerry, but that is simply because he collected more from the less rich. Check out the details of the donors over $1,000 and you will find more rich people gave to Kerry (rich Republicans? - doubt it).

    From that same reputable site check out donations to committees. The DNC's biggest contributor for the 2004 election year was John Kerry (think he's a Republican?) giving $23,633,000 dollars with the 2nd highest being the University of California giving $778,917 dollars (not sure how a public university gets away with giving California tax dollars away). Microsoft (Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world) gave $418,409 bucks. (Bill's always been a cheap-o).

    In contrast, the RNC's biggest contribution was Goldman Sachs giving a puny $553,608. You feel free to explore the facts and the actual data. If you look only at the total amounts given then you are ignoring the point I am making - like I said the GOP got more only because more of the little people gave, not the rich folks.

    Kate said...

    So you're dismissing the 75,000 figure? The first link did not include any figures higher than 30,000, which sounds ridiculous but that's the way it goes. But what about the About.com page? I've never heard of the page you're linking, so I'm skeptical.

    Kate said...

    Ok, I looked at your link. I hope you can tell the difference between people who give a lot of money to their cause and people who have a lot of money. Bill Gates is a great example. Judging by how much he gave, you'd expect that John Kerry has more money but we both know that isn't the case.

    If I donate $10,000 to the DNC and Donald Trump donates $1,000 to the RNC, that doesn't mean that I have more money. Also, the difference between donors of more than $200,000 is about 10,000 individuals/organizations. Considering our population of 200 million, I think that's a pretty punny sample. I think it's more important to judge this based on what we have rather than what we give.

    Kate said...

    punny=puny. Sorry.

    : JustaDog said...

    That's exactly right Kate. The wealth of some people is well known (like Trump, Gates, Kerry, etc) so those are easy. What I said in my post was "There are more wealthy democrats" - which I mean (as I posted it) those that represent the biggest, most wealthy, are democrats or favor democrat ideals (in case they call themselves independent or whatever). Heck, I didn't even mention George Soros, one of the world's richest men - who gave out of his own deep pockets over $15.5 MILLION to defeat Bush.

    So when you say I think it's more important to judge this based on what we have rather than what we give then you are on the very same train of thought as I am.

    No need to apologize Kate - unlike other bloggers or commenters I don't attack someones grammer or spell'n. Thank you for your intelligent comments. We can disagree, and that's ok. But if someone leaves a comment then I'd hope they have the intelligence to show they have a reasoning mind and not just leave names and accusations. Thanks again!

    Kate said...

    You certainly are quite polite. It's a shame you're a Republican. :)

    This seems like such an odd thing to agree to disagree on.

    : JustaDog said...

    LOL, well if it gives you peace know that I'm an independent. I'd like to think that no political party owns me - I've voted for Democrats and Republicans, trying to vote for who I think has a track record of performance. I rather not be told by any party or organization who I should vote for - I have a brain and am able to research people.

    Let's dig how beautiful it is out here!

    ;-)

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    There you go again with unfounded statements. To wit, you write to Kate,"I have a brain..."

    I don't know you personally, so I can't know for sure if this statement is true or false. Since I don't know you and you aren't sharing any documentation to back up this assertion, all I have to go on is the various words you type on this blog. Using this information as my sole source of information, I would venture to guess that the statement either is not true at all OR holds only the slightest sliver of truth.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    I've been trying to figure out the logic behind your moniker, Justadog. Could it be a cute abbreviation for Mr. Dogmatic?

    Just want you to know that I'm doing my part to send traffic to your blog. I wrote about you and your blog today and included the appropriate link.

    Kevin said...

    Justadog,

    Independent? That's no different then a person who chose to be Liberal or Conservative. Only difference is a independent hasn't discovered or accepted their core philosophy about life's defintions, past and future. Everyone in their core has a deep part of who they are, that will either attract them to Liberal or Conservative ideologies.

    This is why were seeing such a defide today. It's a silent war. Question is what will this lead too?

    I think the biggest concern of mine would be how religion is trying to push ideologies through policy. It just seems like their attraction is the Conservative party who represents traditional values. (I like that part of the Conservative Party).

    Isn't it funny how Republicans in the U.S will talk about liberty, peace and freedom, then behind the doors their shaking hands with the religious right who would take all that away. Religion will have us ignore the changes in society, killing it off in a sence, not revealing the realities of the world by changing what we watch, while controling how we live through government. Basically go back to the dark ages. Forget about that poverty, you don't need to know about that, that's just a part of life. There is no help, accept the fact that god will be there for them when they die.

    Back to my mention about "What will this lead too" More war can result?, wars of religions who try to be the one religions, under one world government? Maybe not.

    Liberty, peace and freedom could only be achieved by a party who will change tradition to reflect the changes in society. I'm probably sounding like a Liberal already. Accept the fact is I can't stand that the Liberal party has allowed such things as gay marriage and adoption. Yet I like how much the Liberal promise me to take care of things like poverty. And taking care of the out dated drug laws, that includes a substance that has more benefits then harm like many other substances/products on the market. I'm not sure if I'm gonna fall for their promises/lies again. I hope not. Hypocrisy in law for sure.

    Anyways back to our Liberty, peace and freedom. I think both parties have no idea how to give it to citizens without some how loosing power they want. So you have the Liberal party giving us enough to believe they will give us all of it, then you have the Conservatives honest enough to tell us they want to tell you straight out they will lie, just to get the power. So one is teasing you, and the other one is lying to you.

    Kevin
    P.S...I haven't found my core philosophy of life definitions of past and future. ;-)