i have to say im a little surprised at you locke. lately you have been much less objective in your political criticism, i dont know if its because the left wing has taken a huge hit in all of these scandals and that has you on the defensive? lately, your post have been implying that while both sides of the political spectrum are bad, that the right wing is far worse in their tactics. that just isnt true. conservatives own the radio, limbaugh, hannity, they are going to have their 3 hours a day to say whatever they want. when it comes to television, online and print, liberals by far own radical narrative.
How you can come to the conclusion that liberals listen more attentively to their sides analysts is pure speculation. I think it's fair to say that both sides listen to their interests and develop their opinions doing that. I do listen to what both sides have on issues but tune them out when they start villianizing the other side.
As for entertainment, try listening to Alan Combs radio show. It has been a couple years since I heard it but IMO it is/was the most "entertaining" show on talk radio. The large majority of his calls are from the extreme right and their views are far more unnerving then anything I have heard from the far left.
As for being fairly liberal, thank you but I would put myself in the middle. There are several issues I am strong to the conservative side and I think you'll see that over time.
While I think rush is nothing more than a gas bag entertainer, I did find it far more gross when roger goodell denied him the opportunity to be part owner of an nfl team, citing the reason as not wanting such a controversial personality involved with the league. Because if Michael Moore or Jesse Jackson tried the same thing, I'm sure the league would of acted in the same manner. And I think Bryan Burwell was nothing more than an agenda driven hack when he wrote an article for the saint Louis post dispatch using multiple made up quotes that Limbaugh never said. Of course he still has his job.
I'm not sure Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson are good opposite numbers for Limbaugh. Neither is as popular or as controversial, and neither have -- to my knowledge anyway -- made a statement about the thought processes of the league the way Limbaugh did with his Donovan McNabb bit. But I think Howard Stern might qualify. He's probably even richer than Rush but I doubt the league would want a controversial figure like him being part owner of a team. And I get that. And even if I don't get it, I think we do the right thing as a society in limiting the number of factors you're not allowed to consider when deciding whether to hire or fire or otherwise discriminate against someone.
---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------
I was once a normal kid
Till the Devil came down and flipped my lid
He gave me a switchblade and he gave me a muse
Then he vomited acid all over my shoes
Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Goodall didnt have the right to do it and that he should of been forced to allow Limbaugh to gain partial ownership. I'm saying that him utilizing that right is a gross use of that power. The westboro baptist church have the right to do their protests and as long as they are within their legal rights, shouldn't be prevented from doing it. But I will call them disgusting human beings for doing what they do. And in regards to what Limbaugh said about McNabb, he said that certain members of the media were rooting for McNabb because he was black. Well, Ive heard John Saunders, whos pretty respected, say on the sports reporters that he was rooting for Ty Willingham at Notre Dame because he was black. Do you honestly not believe that certain media members root for Tiger Woods in Golf or the Williams sisters in tennis because they are black? I think the opposite is more normal. Do you not think that Philipino Americans don't root naturally for Pacquiao in boxing. You don't think most white people were rooting for Gerry Cooney against Larry Holmes just because hes white? It was funny, no one in espn or on the set at the time had any issue with what Limbaugh said, the day that he said it. It was only until days later when liberal bloggers called attention to it and made It a big deal did ESPN suddenly say "oh, what he said was wrong"
I also think stern is allowed easily. I don't think goodalls decision was due to Limbaugh being controversial, but being controversial and on a certain side of the political spectrum
Last edited by swampdonkey; 06-20-2013 at 11:58 AM.