Talk radio changed my views
 

I drive for my job. A lot. So after a while, i got tired of listening to music and started scanning through the AM stations. Before listening to these stations, I had liberal views and I hated Bush and I watched Sicko and I thought nationalized healthcare would be a good thing for our country. So, out of curiosity, I listened to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage on and off. I would scoff at some of the things they were saying, and I was mostly listening for my amusement.

Now, I listen every day that I work and I consider my views to be conservative, I think Bush was not all that bad and I even respect him a little, and I think nationalized healthcare would ruin this country. Have I been brainwashed? I want to listen to a liberal station, but I haven't found any.

Funny, I was a conservative until I started watching Fox News.

A professor once told me, "If your values and opinions can not stand up to the strength of opposing arguments or viewpoints you must re-educate yourself. Research the the road which brought you to your original viewpoint, ensure those opposing arguments are factual, and then start anew."

It's not brainwashing unless you don't research the facts. I'm very conservative myself, but much of what Rush/etc are factually incorrect. On the left, Air America, radio stations are pretty much equally incorrect.

We must have our political opinions forged in the crucible of open discussion and arguments, and refined in the truth.

Holy shit.

Seaver is no slouch.

Bobnick, sounds like "They" hooked you in....from now on try listening to National Public Radio (NPR) as often as you can to get some balance.

/blush

Brainwashing isn't a cut and dry kinda thing. To a certain extent, we're all brainwashed in one way or another. Is it possible you've been brainwashed? Maybe, but the fact that you're questioning it is a good sign that even if you are you won't be for long. I'd say that the ability to question and test your own ideals and principles is a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty. Keep it up.

All that said, if you're nodding your head while listening to Hannity, there might be something wrong. I don't begrudge him his political ideologies, but his consistent dishonesty, cronyism and cruelty are unforgivable.

Corporate Bailouts? Tax code changes? Strife in Darfur? The dynamics of any issue don't really matter to Rush and co, only the outrage that it's happening at all. It's all evidence that "THEY" are ruining things for "YOU" and you have a right to be angry.

Ask yourself if these shows have really given you a broader perspective on how the world works or if they've just tapped into a dormant part of your psyche.

For a less emotionally involved conservative take, I recommend the Economist magazine. They definitely have a market based lens on the world but without need to furiously bend every outrage back to the usual suspects or wail that the sky is falling.

As a test, take a one or two week break Talk Radio, play CDs while commuting and read newsmagazines over coffee instead. Turn Rush and Co. back on after the week is over and see if you're still as supportive.

My general feeling on American politics is this:

Each component of the two-party system is cut from the same cloth; however, over time, they've determined their own ways to uphold their values, and in some cases values have shifted, albeit slightly. They view one another as opposing forces, yet they aren't opposite in a binary sense.

The shift from American liberalism to American conservatism doesn't require many steps.

You don't disagree with all the core values; you disagree with the means by which they are upheld.

Then there are the ancillary values, which tend to get in the way of what really matters.

Talk radio changed my views as well. Except I was listening to Alex Jones. Talk about eye opening...

Anyway I do listen to Hannity, Rush, Beck Savage, and some left wingers occasionally.. These guys are very good at what they do and very deceiving. I can almost feel myself nodding in agreement after awhile if I don't actively listen and engage my brain. They pound out the same thing over and over until it's cemented in your head. The other technique they use is concentrating on issue that don't really matter one bit so you can ignore the elephant in the room.

I'd rather listen to Neal Boortz than the others...I've lost count of how many years I've been listening to him.....I hear Hannity and I just want somebody to give him ritalin lol

Hannity/Savage/Limbaugh are entertainers using politics (I use that word loosely) as their vehicle for making $$$$

talk radio seems to me a form of entertainment that traffics mostly in snippiness and uses political questions as a pretext to do it.

there's a pretty good academic analysis of how some of this works here:

Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition
DIANA C. MUTZ
American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 4 November 2007

i just happened to be looking at it this morning while i was doing something else. you can get it via cambridge up's database if you have access to it, or at a library.

this is the epigraph:

and then it tries to explain how this comes about.
personally, i really think it's a form of entertainment for folk, who like identifying in one way or another and hating everyone who is of the opposite camp, a crude little bloodsport that can be seductive if you shut your critical thinking off and just go for the ride.

You don't drive a Volvo? /snicker

uh....i don't have a nose piercing.

I want to second NPR. I listen to this daily and as far as I can tell its programs are very unbiased and neutral.

For my opinions regarding US politics, I refer you to post #10 by Mr. Baraka_Guru; I feel that sums up my opinion nicely. I add only this:

One absolutely crucial skill today, and one that seems to be sorely lacking through much of the general populace, is the ability to approach and deconstruct an argument critically. O'Reilly and his ilk depend on the absence of this facility, that they may sprinkle logical fallacies and outright fabrications throughout their diatribes, and have them remain largely unquestioned by the audience.

I suggest sharpening your critical thinking skills. Learn what makes an argument fallacious, and how to spot it. You may find yourself nodding in agreement much less often.

/points at MSNBC

Dude it's on both sides.

The majority of the talk radio addicts of my acquaintance are head bobbers who can't be bothered to read up on the issues for themselves. They are waiting to be told what their opinions should be. The folks that read, think and make informed decisions can't stand the talking heads from either camp.

There's no entertainment value in a centrist point of view. It won't draw listeners or sell advertising.

That's beside the point.

You'll find similar blowhards ranting for or against just about any issue you care to mention. All of them should be approached with the same skepticism.

Thanks for your views. I tried listening to Npr today, but it seems like the hosts have soothing voices comparable to a hypnotists. Maybe thats just in contrast to the conservative stations I've been listening to. Also, there were no call-ins from listeners to get their perspectives, which I like. Maybe I was just listening at a bad time. But, I will take a week or two break from listening to any political shows.

Everyone knows that centralized banking runs our countries anyways.

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

CBC radio one has some amazing podcasts. No offense to American media outlets but if you are looking for solid international and domestic news involving the US, you'd be better off looking to Canadian and British news. Check out the CBC and BBC.

I listen to NPR, myself. I can tell they're educated... they have European accents!

...

I used to be "Republican" until I decided I don't identify with either group due to my conflicting beliefs / hobbies / goals.

...

Volvos don't come with pintle mounts for .50 machine guns.

You didn't live in communist Romania.

my exact story bobnick - all that you said. I drove a breadtruck for 3 years after college and got so sick of FM, decided to listen to the AM people that I'd been taught to hate. As you said, purely for entertainment. Rush Limbaugh one way going up, and one the way back (i forget her name) one of those once popular on-air psychologists that liberals successfully shut-up by finding nude pictures of her and convincing people she was out to get gay people or black people, or someone...who knows. She's gone now.

I think more than realizing I was philosophically conservative, I resented liberals. And still do. Not that I'm hung up on my 4 years of college 15 years ago or so, that I still hear the democrat president complaining about Fox news, blaming the previous administration, playing the same record that was spun for me in my "higher education" years. The last 8 years solidified all of it for me. I honestly feel sorry for those that swallow their shit, and despise those that spout it.

Dr. Laura. She's still around.

It was gay people she 'hated'. Yeah, that got beyond silly. Not that conservatives don't have their own problems concerning this issue - they certainly have more problems in general - but it's depressingly less than widespread for my own anecdotal liberals to realize how silly it is to equate "it's a sin" with bigotry. That's the sort of simple-minded propaganda that I expect from someone like... oh... Limbaugh.

And schadenfreude sucks, no matter the target.

what's curious about the talk show inoculation process is less the progress into the system unfolded by the soma than the sense of vindication on the one hand and legitimation on the other that seem, somehow, to accompany it. what the talkingheads do basically is structure resentment. they get to that, it is said (muntz makes this point in a remarkably dry way, but still) is through the aggressiveness of presentation, be it aurally or visually. it's not that different from the explanation given by a jewish guy who thought he was eichmann and who stood trail as eichmann in the play "the man in the glass booth" for why fascism appealed so: "he told us what it was that we were afraid of."

there is something quite disconcerting about the existing top-down media apparatus, the various commercially sanctioned modes of generating brand allegiance that "conservative" and "liberal" are brands that one identifies with because one likes the flavor of resentment they help structure, likes the trajectories these structures enable, the way they help organize the world into an endless tunnel of Persecuting Agents that one "resists" by being pissy in the same way as one's imaginary comrades in an imaginary Conflict that you get to participate in by sitting in a chair and having someone narrate it for you.

we live in a space defined around a wholesale collapse of politics and consumption that relies on the circulation of officially sanctioned Products in a wide enough range that certain illusions of Choice are presented, one can be oneself by assembling this little collages of signifiers that you breath into and that help you locate the Persecuting Agents of your choice while at the same time the system that generates these signifiers is placed out of debate and is necessarily legitimate and coherent because it enables this Articulations of Selves because that system *is* all the tedious fantasylands that, taken together, constitute the realm of pseudo-politics.

i keep having these conversations with folk--do you think we're living through the collapse of capitalism--and i say no, what i think we're living through is the collapse of the american empire and that one of the defining characteristics of the collapse of empire (historically speaking) is that those who scuttle about within it do not and cannot see the collapse. rather than think about rome, it is perhaps better to think about the end of the hapsburgs.

structures of resentment pull the world close to you and enable you to imagine that you have some plausible control.
this basically therapeutic situation comes at a price.
but you're hardly likely to know that if the therapeutic situation becomes the center of repetitions so that it's narratives become your narrative.
not seeing can be fun and exciting, i guess. a full-time job.

These two tables from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press are interesting.
Rush's audience tends to be more educated than that of CNN and MSNBC. His audience also follows more hard news than any other media surveyed.
News Audiences Increasingly Politicized: IV. Attitudes Toward the News - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

(off topic)

My wife did ;) are you Romanian?

did anyone follow this bullshit? i'm not sure if I should respond to this, because I'm not entirely sure you were necessarily talking to me (matter of fact, I think you only ever really talk to yourself) so I'll keep it short and sweet, but there was nothing anyone ever said that "structured" my resentment. It was exactly as I said, just a reflection of my college years, and a first hand experience of the reaction of the left when a differing viewpoint is offered. Tolerance it was not.

My political leanings are not therapy, or a full-time job. Which brings me to my next question. What do you do again roachboy? And in your sparetime? I think it's too late for you to consider a political viewpoint opposite your own, so protecting it in language that noone can really follow (or care to try), is exactly the type of therapy your accusing me of.

Limbaugh's popularity and being around so long is due to the fact he will take a point of view that sounds reasonable. He then slowly takes it to the extreme all the while convincing you that his point A to point B makes logical sense. He uses emotion well to get his views across. He's good at what he does, quite possibly the best. He provides great entertainment.

He's a blowhard, he's self righteous with a huge ego. But here's the key, he gets people to listen to him on a regular basis and they think.

In the end I go back to what my father says about him, "He makes good points, provides good entertainment but if he truly believes all that he says, the guy is nuts and belongs in a psyche unit."

matthew---so you know, i am not concerned enough about your particular views or anything else to waste the time on trying to figure out why you hold them. and it is simply not the case that all political viewpoints are equivalent. they aren't.
it is also self-evident that logic and descriptive power with respect to the world aren't really criteria that alot of nice little consumers apply real hard when they're out chopping for ready-to-wear political viewpoints.

and if your narcissism did not prevent you from actually reading the post, you'd perhaps have noticed that i wasn't in particular talking about conservatives.

and whether you follow what i write really isn't big on my list of concerns either.

and it is really none of your business what i do in 3-d. nor am i under any obligation, rhetorical or otherwise, to take seriously your political viewpoint. i don't. trust me on that one.

I followed it and I think it was spot on. It wasn't that hard to follow. He's not speaking spanish.

If you do take the time to read it you'll see that he was referring to people who subscribe to liberal or conservative branding, liberal/conservative fanboys- people who are embrace superficial notions of liberalism/conservatism because of how it makes them feel. These are the type of people that Limbaugh/Olbermann speak to.

The fact that you both misunderstood it and took offense seems to be a classic dittohead move.

The problem with relying on words and logic to persuade is that pretty much anything can be gussied up in the right hands to sound reasonable and logical. What's more, people who for whatever reason are inclined to agree with a speaker will usually not see the holes in the argument. I argue for a living -- I'm a litigation attorney -- so I see this all the time. I can argue pretty much any side of a dispute, do it convincingly, and then turn around and do the other side with equal passion and conviction, and be just as persuasive.

So what do I find persuasive if not logic? Data. Facts. Experience. Testing. Science. But that's a lot of work (which is why I don't pretend to be an authority on very much, even though I do read a lot and try to formulate reasoned views). The guys on talk radio are doing argument, and argument is much easier. Limbaugh, for example, is a very talented showman and has found a very successful "schtick" but I wouldn't rely on him for sound policy prescription or political advice.

Yes, and it is remarkably erudite, clear and concise.

The man took time to explain a point of view outside of your conservative vs liberal sphere, and rather than try to follow it and respond, you chose to deride. You've clearly learned more than talking points from Talk Radio.

There's remarkably little terminology or narrative in there that might require thought to understand, let alone specialist knowledge.

Just download the Real Time with Bill Maher podcast.

It's good to listen to various sources for the news. But you need to figure out what is the truth and what they are saying to make people angry. There is a lot of nitpicking and stupid things that they talk about.

Figure out what you care about, where you stand on the issues, and what you want your life to look like in a strong country.

I'm at a distinct disadvantage because I obviously don't have drones of folks willing to defend me when someone challenges me, but oh well.....

Yes, roache's post (especially his last paragraph) was as clear and concise as one of Jerry Springer's final thoughts (tell me that's not what you thought when you read that).

....and the man takes alot of time explaining to this board what he thinks "conservativeland" is all about. He was reacting to me, and entertaining you with his psychoanalysis of my position. I appreciated it, and felt obligated to return the favor.

And this here is a conservative vs liberal sphere, and we all know where roach stands. Please don't try to paint it what it's not because he casually threw in "liberal" as if it was unbiased analysis of political thought in general.


My apologies for reviving this, I was travelling in San Francisco the last two days and couldn't connect to the internet, because I've gotten viruses on my computer the last time I connected in the hotel. 10 dollars for that heartache. I'm pretty sure the city knows who I am and waits for me.

You're probably so oppressed because you're a conservative white male. Oh when oh when will the white man be allowed to get ahead?

I'd would say that'd be the stupidest response I've ever read on here, if it weren't for the fact that I'm pretty sure I've read that exact same statement from you a half dozen times over the last couple years on multiple threads.



what was that you were saying about liberal/conservative superficial notions, something or other.....

I'm sorry. I had been listening to Rush Limbaugh, and I guess I got so caught up in his message that I responded in a way that I though would make Rush proud of me.

Back on topic, I find it fascinating just how GOOD these AM radio guys are at spreading their message. On a lark, I decided to read Neal Boortz's FairTax book, and it's like a transcript of his radio show, full of exclamation points and propaganda, "us vs. them" diatribes, etc. It's easy to see how a lot of people would read this and be easily convinced that it's the greatest idea ever, while conveniently talking around any of the cons. I imagine Mr. Boortz is very persuasive during his radio shows....

How about we cool off on the personal arguments and get back to arguing about political philosophies now?




I find it interesting that liberal and conservative talk show hosts are being glommed into the same boat so consistently in this thread. While I think anyone who exclusively gets their news from talk shows on either side of the aisle is begging for ignorance, I think there is a fundamental difference between the two.

I've heard left-wing firebrands like Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, and Ed Schultz blast Obama several times already, and we're less than a year into his presidency. I don't recall ever hearing Limbaugh blast Bush. Ever. Only now, that the Republicans have imploded, is Limbaugh finally starting to criticize his party - and not over philosophical issues, but over the fact that they aren't good enough at tricking people into voting for them anymore.

I'm not saying the 3 liberals I mentioned are always, or even often, right. But I do think that they tend to be more willing to crucify anyone, Republican/Democrat/or other, if they think it's deserved.

I think that points to the fundamental difference in philosophy between left and right wing radio/TV hosts. The right wing tends to have a philosophy of "get him elected and keep him there as long as possible no matter what." The left tends to slant more toward "find the guy who will do what we think should be done and then keep on him after he gets elected to make sure he actually does it."

They've actually been getting pretty pissed off at Obama for not getting rid of "don't ask/don't tell," and for not trying to push through state-run/single payer healthcare, and for not prosecuting Bush & co. for war crimes.

It's also interesting to note that rightwing hosts tend to be in lockstep with the Republicans, while leftwing hosts tend to be more liberal than the "liberal" candidates. This, of course, is easy to understand when one realizes that this country does not have a left wing. The republicans are far to the right, and the democrats aren't quite as far out to the right.

The problem is that regardless of what he believes, many of his listeners do accept everything he says at face value, same as with Hannity or Beck. A coworker of my wife is a sweet old lady, but firmly believes that the democrats are going to outlaw Christianity, hand out abortions like candy, and that Obama is a Muslim/the Antichrist. She's also very afraid of terrorists (in suburban Atlanta,) swine flu, and wouldn't turn her computer on for several days when the last computer virus hype came through. She is otherwise educated, smart, and very nice, but listens exclusively to conservative radio/news and watches mostly religious programing.

I'd consider myself a political moderate, but many of the conservative voices are polarizing the country and promoting a culture of fear and ignorance. And people let them.

There is certainly a healthy amount of "telling the listeners what they want to hear" on some of these shows

These shows could be classified as "alarmist radio."

They fill a niche in the entertainment spectrum.

Limbaugh On The Sanford Affair: It's Obama's Fault! | TPMDC

Rush is amazing. I'm surprised he hasn't drilled himself into the ground with all the spinning

i seem to be having a j.g. ballard afternoon.
this is germaine:

Mississippi Review, 1991

my opinion?

(damn, what am i doing in this god-forsaken forum?)

limbaugh, hannity, coulter, and others of that ilk are fomenters of hate - not differing opinions, hate. "let's see who we can get at each other's throats today, fellow am hosts?"

it is sad to hear of and know in real life supposedly educated individuals hanging by every word these wanna-be goebbels' spew forth...

I'm a fan of Limbaugh's drug habit--I wish I could afford that!

I heard that today and was amazed that he somehow managed to blame Obama. I didn't think it was possible.

I wonder why he went to Hawaii instead of Mexico (or the Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Jamaica,...) to escape Obama.

And he talked about how Obama's answer last night was to give patients pain pills when extra surgery would just prolong suffering and make the quality of life worse. It is the one thing Rush might have some credibility on since he knows a thing or two about that topic.

He also wants them to be the party of NO! They do have NO new ideas, NO way to fix the problems we face, NO compassion, and NO leaders left. It sounds about right.

I hear you guys talk about all the hate coming from the AM radio hosts and yet all I hear is hate coming from you guys towards them and anyone that isn't on the far left as the majority of you guys seem to be.

No, I don't subscribe to every spin I hear coming from the Golden Microphone but neither do I put my trust in the man that seems to think any change is good change. In a country where the vocal majority lean left I don't think there's much harm in the rantings of a couple right wing lunatics throwing out counter thoughts. I have to admit, I hear a lot of people counter their claims with "they are just full of hate" than I do with reasonable counter arguments. Always seems like a cop out.

I hear a lot of hate on the radio for sure. But I hear just as much every day from liberals on the forums.

Is this your vision of the US? Because it sure seems like it


|------------FAR LEFT---------------------------CENTER----------------FAR RIGHT------|
|-Media---TFP--*Fake Americans-------------*Real Americans---RUSH----------------|

*Fake and Real are defined according to Sarah Palin.

If I ever hear Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter say what they think with a calm, reasonable approach, then I might be willing to listen. Instead they always seem to be ranting, i.e. bellowing out, appealing to emotion rather than reason. If there are any on the left who come across this way, I am not aware of it.

I don't trust "ranters". It has been my experience that, if you have a solid, logical argument, you don't need to rant in order to get people to believe you.

\YES !!
try listening to NPR on and off. actually, just leave it on. I just find it appealing to listen to people talk calmly about the issues of the day. I can't stand the yelling. it comes off as childish I feel like I'm being "bated" into listening (not that I've listened to Rush on the radio) I mean come on man he's a lying sack of shit.

Rush has reached a whole new level of class with him speeding up the voices of the Democrats. Way to actually come up with better ideas instead of being the equivalent of a junior high school bully.

Don't choose entertainment over accuracy. The vast majority of talk radio is not designed to be an accurate purveyor of news. Rather, it exists to entertain and reinforce particular worldviews. NPR is soothing (read: not abrasive and full of high emotions) and has infrequent listener call ins because their goal is not to entertain or spin, but to inform.This is an absolutely worthwhile post to read again, and it is why I have a higher tolerance for liberal "commentators" than the conservative ones.

When I was in high school and very early on in college, I used to love watching Bill O'Reilly. He seemed so... common sense! I bought into the "no spin zone" for a bit and thought "here's a place I can get straight-forward news from someone who tells it like it is." The most important point is that he was entertaining!

Then I started to pay more attention... partly because I started to actually study political science, partly because of the situation our country was getting into, and partly just because I was growing older and more critical of where I get my news. What's fairly easy to discover, if you take the time to look just below the surface, is that much of what is said is simply not true. I enjoy Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and it is important to realize that they are the closest "liberal" equivalent to O'Reilly and Hannity... except they're not. Yes, their shows are more accurately described as entertaining opinion shows than news shows, but there is a dishonesty that professional commentators on the right have that many on the left do not. You do not frequently hear Olbermann or Maddow yelling at guests to "SHUT UP!" or hear about guests complaining that their interview was dishonestly edited (and those are just two examples).

It's like that classic Colbert line: "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Olbermann and Maddow, like O'Reilly and Hannity, are entertainers first and foremost. In the case of Olbermann and Maddow, though, there is a far greater willingness to find entertainment within the actual facts and news, where O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbauch, Beck, etc all frequently feel the need to misrepresent the facts in order to serve their entertainment and predetermined message. You're not getting the full story from either source, but only one makes a habit of being downright deceptive.

I forget who it was further up in the thread that made the observation that Limbaugh (and the others) start out at an almost reasonable point A and then gradually take the listener over to point B such that it doesn't seem so crazy... except it is! There are far too many examples to list, but how about two of the most recent topics: Obama may not be a natural-born American citizen (debunked MONTHS ago) and Obama's health care plan will secretly euthanize the elderly population (Aside for the obvious reasons why this is a paranoid conspiracy, if you listen to "liberal" commentators you'd know Obama doesn't even HAVE a health care plan - they've been criticizing his lack of specifics for awhile now).So, to bring this back to NPR....

Seriously, ditch the talk radio that serves to entertain, and let NPR be your source for news on the radio. Think about what you said earlier: you had a hard time listening to NPR because it was too soothing and did not spend a large amount of time providing a soapbox to the general public instead of doing actual reporting. Should the priority of a news source be to entertain or to inform?

I remember when I stumbled upon NPR years ago. It did take some getting used to, not being consistently entertained by the radio. Now, I pretty much leave NPR on and never change the station while driving. It was a gradual process to get there, but I not only found myself appreciating their reporting, I also slowly started listening to programs and topics I initially had no interest in.

Not all public radio is created equal: I'm fortunate to be in the Chicago Public Radio market, which is seen as one of the best in the country. That said, while driving to Iowa a few weeks ago I listened to the various public radio stations along the way and they were each informative and interesting. NPR programs get a lot of play obviously, as do PRI, APM, etc, so there is overlap but there is often local, original programming too. Here's a tip on finding the public radio station wherever you go: I don't remember the exact number, but all public radio stations are below the FM frequency of 94 or something like that (I think it's actually 92 or 93, but I said 94 to be sure).

If public radio is not enough for you - if you still feel the need to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc - then balance it out. Public radio does not take the time to debunk those guys, instead taking the "ignore them and they'll go away" approach. So if you're going to listen to them, start downloading the audio podcasts to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. You'll find them here: Podcasts on MSNBC.com- msnbc.com

And one last thing: I'll second (or third?) the recommendation to read The Economist for a more reasonable, informed conservative viewpoint.

I used to listen to conservative talk radio as I drove around all day every day. I finally got fed up enough that I quit cold-turkey after the BUsh Kerry election and started listening to sports talk. (In Dallas, the ticket or espn radio -Michael Irvin during the lunch hour- he has great guests but there's a guy that can't use the English language.)

Then last month, with training camps still weeks away and nothing to talk about on sports talk except Michael Vick and the tour de France... I switched to country music again for the 1st time in a long time. I swear there's more wisdom in those lyrics than comes from the mouths of the talk show hosts.

p.s. just to drive everyone else nuts... NPR drives me nuts with the foreign accents and pretentious instrumental interludes, and Bill O'Reilly I have no respect for because I think he's a pervert.

Forget about Rush etc. Think of the Utopians and their dreams...Marx, Nietzsche,etc. and their practical manifestations...Communism & Naziism. And realize that when Utopian political leaders fail, they start to remove the "bad" citizens that prevent Utopia. Ultimately they believe society and human nature can be changed ...even if it involves selective culling and breeding.

What a well-reasoned argument, displaying a clear handling of the facts. :rolleyes:

I won't bother addressing the "Utopian" elements of the post, because frankly they're not worth the time. Here's a quick clue: if you have to resort to name-calling and generalizations, you're probably not making a very good argument ;) This is, in fact, one of the primary problems of talk radio: too much time spent pointing fingers and "framing" the issues, and not enough time actually discussing the issues.

The one thing I will address... Have you ever read Nietzsche? He wasn't a Nazi. The Nazi's liked to pick and choose from his writings, but he was definitely not a Nazi. In fact, his opposition to such ideas is what caused a rift between him and his good friend, Richard Wagner, who was an early example of fascist/Nazi thought. If you don't feel like actually reading what Nietzsche wrote, at least read here and here so that you can learn a little bit about why equating Nietzsche with Nazism is a mistake.

I seem to have missed this thread. *whew*

What? No mention of Ayn Rand's Objectivist utopia? Maybe it's because it hasn't really been attempted on a large enough scale. Perhaps we should be grateful for that.

It's interesting, though, because I'm assuming conservative talk radio either consciously or subconsciously subscribes to such a thing, at least in some capacity--mainly the worshiping laissez-faire capitalism bit. I don't mind being told I'm wrong. I actually hope I am, and this is why: I fear that Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) would do as much to capitalism's influence on society as Lenin's philosophy (Leninism) did to Marxism's influence on society.

Wouldn't that be fun?

Rand's Utopia wouldn't work because it's a WORK OF FICTION

At least someone gets it....

When in fact the real US looks more like this:
|FAR LEFT-----------------------------------------CENTER-----------------------------------------FAR RIGHT|
|----------------------------TFP------Left Wing Media----Average Americans-------------------Bush Conservatives-------Hannity, ORLY-----Rush, Beck------------------------------------------Birthers-|