I realize that, even as OP, I have no real right to direct the debate.
Nonetheless.
The bulk of this thread seems to be about pointing fingers and continuing to describe the problem. Again and again and again.
Can we agree to take that as read and focus on suggested solutions?
Well, I don’t want to bore you with empty rhetoric, how about we listen to yours?
Is that snark, or sincere? I asked the question because I don’t know of a solution. Is that a requirement? Am I not allowed to ask a question unless I’m prepared with–zing!–the actual correct answer?
Eight years of Nixon? One of us didn’t pay enough attention in history class. Did you mean five years (as president) or thirteen (as vp and president)?
Anyway, I’m totally against silencing protestors, no matter who they are. Exercising the first ammendment is far more important when people disagree than when they agree with TPTB.
Isn’t Sam Stone Canadian? Do they let conservatives out there opt out of UHC and deal with for-profit insurers and insufferable, inept third party billers the way we have to down here? If they let allow it, in good conscience he has no other option.
See post #14.
See post #21. For a definition of “the bulk of” and its distinction from “all” search Google.
I gave you the answer you claim to be seeking. Not my fault you don’t like it and the libs can’t implement it. The loony left whines about right wing radio, and then they whine because their drivel doesn’t sell. All it takes is something worth saying and somebody good to say it.
Dude, chill. My point is that you gave a constructive answer and thus was not included in my “the bulk of.”
Chill.
edit: posted in wrong thread
You have a curious dynamic in the US of a section of the media underpinning and pandering to a particular demographic. The purpose of that section of the media is not to present news and information in a relatively impartial manner, instead it is to further a very clear ideologically driven agenda. From outside, the idea of a news channel with a clear ideological agenda is very weird.
Murdoch owns media in all kinds of countries, none let him hijack the mainstream political discourse as the US does.
Nonsense. It wouldn’t matter how popular a left winger got; the media would never give him or her the same share as someone like Limbaugh. The media is overwhelmingly owned by large right wing organizations who don’t want any left wing messages to get out.
I don’t have any pat solutions to the problem that would not violate what I believe is an immutable rule allowing free speech, but will comment that one of the main reasons the Limbaughs and Becks have flourished is because at this time, there is no direct, real-time means to confront them on their lies.
I am constantly amused at the self-serving joke of having what are ostensibly radio “phone-in” shows in which callers are carefully screened so that only those supporting the pundits’ viewpoint, or occasionally persons in opposition who are obviously inept at arguing a case, end up getting heard. Rush’s exploitation of a Greek chorus of hand-picked dittoheads to give the illusion of mass agreement was a genius move, and it’s no coincidence that the rest of the Big 4 include radio call-ins as a central element of their marketing strategies.
Another, related issue is the apparent recognition by the pundits themselves that their extremism can only flourish in a carefully controlled climate where opportunities for factual rebuttal and dissent are ruthlessly stamped out. If these guys are so clever and smart, and sincerely believe the country is headed down the wrong track, why the hell aren’t they running for office themselves? The obvious answer, IMO, is that it is simply preposterous that any one of them could obtain a national-level elected office in an atmosphere of open debate.
So, maybe that’s the key: how could these guys be forced to participate in open debate? I know current meme is that anyone attempting to revive the old federal equal time provision is supposed to be some sort of Communist or something, but the notion does seem to have some utility here.
Well one it wasn’t 8 years. After 9/11 there was a good period of people and congress hugely supporting the president. He got “No Child Left Behind” passed as well as The Patriot Act.
But two, I’ve heard this ‘movie about killing GWB’ thing thrown out there. What was this movie? When ever I ask I just get a response like “Oh it was a major Hollywood movie. I remember it. Just not the title or anyone who was in it.”
ditto on the book.
No, it isn’t. Quite the reverse. My guess is that nearly half the disaffection from Obama is from his left, from Americans who were hoping he would be this century’s FDR and are disappointed he seems to be turning out to be this century’s Bill Clinton. The rest is from sheer economic frustration with the jobless rate.
Wrong. The obvious answer is that they make more money doing radio than they would as elected officials.
There are many completely clueless and insane people in the US Congress. Wilson is a US Senator even though he was one of 7 hold-outs to continue flying the (a) Confederate flag over the SC State Capitol. Bachman is off the charts nutty.
Today’s campaigns are carefully scripted. A dumb person who follows his advisers will do better than someone who thinks on their feet and tries to give intelligent, non-nuanced answers.
Well, sure. You are of course correct. For the purposes of ths discussion, I just took up temporary residence in a fantasyland where the pundits actually put their money where their mouth is, that’s all.
I often disagree with Der Trihs but I think he’s right this time. The Republicans have adopted opposition as their strategy and no amount of offered compromises by the Democrats will move them. So the Democrats need to take them up on it.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should make a joint announcement: “We’re the Democrats. We think universal health care and raising the taxes on rich people and economic stimulus packages are good ideas. The Republicans think they’re bad ideas. But we’ve got the numbers so we’re going to enact the laws we want. In five years if these ideas work out like we think then we’ll be proven right and you vote for more Democrats. If they’ve failed in five years, then we’ll be proven wrong and you can vote for Republicans.”