Why can't Blowhard admit he is completely partisan?

[spainlinx0]

I love how Blowhard always comes on the show, and acts like both parties are completely the same, and politicians are all the same and all garbage, but it's awful when the Democrats are winning. This is what Blowhard does. He comes on and bashes the Democrats constantly, and then in the other breath when Ron challenges him about Republicans he sits there and says "well all politicians are garbage." How can he sit there and say "Obama is just another politician, he won't do ANYTHING in office," and then in his other breath mock democracy and say it sucks because Obama is winning.

I'm betting he only voted Ron Paul because he knew his vote was worth shit, but if it was close he would have sucked it up and voted for McCain.

Blowhard, it's enough. You're not an independent. You don't hate the Republican party, and you're not critical of the government. You only hate the government when you're team isn't winning. I guarantee that if McCain was winning he wouldn't have called in depressed. He would have been happy. So just admit you're Republican and stop acting like you have any intellectual integrity about this.

[JerseyRich]

I love how Blowhard always comes on the show, and acts like both parties are completely the same, and politicians are all the same and all garbage, but it's awful when the Democrats are winning. This is what Blowhard does. He comes on and bashes the Democrats constantly, and then in the other breath when Ron challenges him about Republicans he sits there and says "well all politicians are garbage." How can he sit there and say "Obama is just another politician, he won't do ANYTHING in office," and then in his other breath mock democracy and say it sucks because Obama is winning.

I'm betting he only voted Ron Paul because he knew his vote was worth shit, but if it was close he would have sucked it up and voted for McCain.

Blowhard, it's enough. You're not an independent. You don't hate the Republican party, and you're not critical of the government. You only hate the government when you're team isn't winning. I guarantee that if McCain was winning he wouldn't have called in depressed. He would have been happy. So just admit you're Republican and stop acting like you have any intellectual integrity about this.

What an interesting radio show it would be to have the Blowhard call in and be happy and agree with everyone...

[KnoxHarrington]

I love how Blowhard always comes on the show, and acts like both parties are completely the same, and politicians are all the same and all garbage, but it's awful when the Democrats are winning. This is what Blowhard does. He comes on and bashes the Democrats constantly, and then in the other breath when Ron challenges him about Republicans he sits there and says "well all politicians are garbage." How can he sit there and say "Obama is just another politician, he won't do ANYTHING in office," and then in his other breath mock democracy and say it sucks because Obama is winning.

I'm betting he only voted Ron Paul because he knew his vote was worth shit, but if it was close he would have sucked it up and voted for McCain.

Blowhard, it's enough. You're not an independent. You don't hate the Republican party, and you're not critical of the government. You only hate the government when you're team isn't winning. I guarantee that if McCain was winning he wouldn't have called in depressed. He would have been happy. So just admit you're Republican and stop acting like you have any intellectual integrity about this.

You see a lot of that on message boards -- someone will pretty much exclusively bash the Democratic party, then claim "But but parties suck."

It's Bill O'Reilly's gimmick, really. He refuses to admit that he's a Republican.

[GreatAmericanZero]

since it takes Bloward 3 mins to make a 10 second point, i would rather him just not talking at all. i have things to do!

[CofyCrakCocaine]

fuck all the blowhard haters

[SP1!]

Why cant everyone admit they just elected a socialist as president?

All politicians are the same, they want power but the place they differ is how they act once they get there, the republicans love money which everyone can agree is good, the dems trick people into thinking they care about the people when in reality they look at the people as a means to an end. Once they get in there they think the people are too stupid to know whats best for themselves.

[KnoxHarrington]

Why cant everyone admit they just elected a socialist as president?

All politicians are the same, they want power but the place they differ is how they act once they get there, the republicans love money which everyone can agree is good, the dems trick people into thinking they care about the people when in reality they look at the people as a means to an end. Once they get in there they think the people are too stupid to know whats best for themselves.

We won't "admit" it because we fucking did not elect a "socialist" President.

You keep using that word. I do not believe you know what it means.

[underdog]

We won't "admit" it because we fucking did not elect a "socialist" President.

You keep using that word. I do not believe you know what it means.

He's the worst board character ever.

[JerseyRich]

He's the worst board character ever.

Plus he has a number in his name!

[paulisded]

Why cant everyone admit they just elected a socialist as president?

All politicians are the same, they want power but the place they differ is how they act once they get there, the republicans love money which everyone can agree is good, the dems trick people into thinking they care about the people when in reality they look at the people as a means to an end. Once they get in there they think the people are too stupid to know whats best for themselves.

Could I get a cliche count?

[Serpico1103]

Why cant everyone admit they just elected a socialist as president?

All politicians are the same, they want power but the place they differ is how they act once they get there, the republicans love money which everyone can agree is good, the dems trick people into thinking they care about the people when in reality they look at the people as a means to an end. Once they get in there they think the people are too stupid to know whats best for themselves.

I am not sure where you learned the love of money was a good thing. Or who you polled that agreed with you, but since you are such a douche it doesn't matter.
Try to stop using buzz words and actually have a real point that you can back up with substance.
Several times in our history there has been 90% tax rates, can you name the Socialist president that allowed it? No? Because we haven't had a socialist president.

[foodcourtdruide]

We won't "admit" it because we fucking did not elect a "socialist" President.

You keep using that word. I do not believe you know what it means.

I'd love for him to define what a socialist is, then defend his allegations against Obama being a Socialist while defending McCain as a non-Socialist.

[Rube]

He's the worse board character ever.
Come on. Really? The worse?

[foodcourtdruide]

Come on. Really? The worse?

Gotta agree, FunWithCorpses was the worst.

Best? Fat_Sunny.

[Rube]

Who were the real board members for them?

[PapaBear]

FWC wasn't a board character. He was just a complete asshole from what I could tell. I think people confuse the term "board character". To me, that's someone who is already a member, but has a second (or more) account where they pretend to be someone else.

[Heather 8]

Plus he has a number in his name!

Hey! :nono:

[Freakshow]

We won't "admit" it because we fucking did not elect a "socialist" President.

You keep using that word. I do not believe you know what it means.

http://www.sworddragon.com/passions/images/montoya2.jpg

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[EliSnow]

I don't know guys. SP1!'s knowledge and political analytical skills are very well honed (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1899381&postcount=254):


I find it funny that they have states like Missouri, Indiana, Florida, and Virginia still too close to call. There is no way obama wins Virginia, Missouri, Indiana and Florida is going to be further over to mccain than anyone thinks.

[NYHCmikeX]

Gotta agree, FunWithCorpses was the worst.

But was he the WORSE? Like that other guy said.

[sailor]

i've always considered blowhard an old-school ny democrat. if he is more critical of them, it would be because he doesn't see them as the party of his youth.

[Don Stugots]

Blowhard plays a great character. Touche'

[Freakshow]

Blowhard plays a great character. Touche'

you mean, Ron does a great character with his "Blowhard" voice.

[EliSnow]

What an interesting radio show it would be to have the Blowhard call in and be happy and agree with everyone...

There is a huge middle ground between agreeing with everyone and disagreeing with everyone. Stugots says he's a great character, and he does bring entertainment to the show. But it is annoying that it's the same message any time. Have some things where you think that the present is better than the past, or the democrats are doing some things right. Make some concessions. Look reasonable.

[spainlinx0]

I don't have a problem with him being completely in the bag for the Republicans. If he feels that they have the agenda that he agrees with, then he should vote for them and make his case, and I would have no problem with it. The problem I have is that he claims to think all politicians are the same, and garbage, but the Democrats are the ones who take 99% of the abuse, even though the Repubs have been in power for almost all of the last 8 years.

It is intellectually dishonest to say all politicians are the same shit, but you should still vote Repub, just because.

[Freakshow]

I don't have a problem with him being completely in the bag for the Republicans. If he feels that they have the agenda that he agrees with, then he should vote for them and make his case, and I would have no problem with it. The problem I have is that he claims to think all politicians are the same, and garbage, but the Democrats are the ones who take 99% of the abuse, even though the Repubs have been in power for almost all of the last 8 years.

It is intellectually dishonest to say all politicians are the same shit, but you should still vote Repub, just because.

George W. Bush is a democrat? I'm pretty sure he's the one taking 99% percent of the abuse at the moment.

[mikeyboy]

I am not sure where you learned the love of money was a good thing. Or who you polled that agreed with you, but since you are such a douche it doesn't matter.
Try to stop using buzz words and actually have a real point that you can back up with substance.
Several times in our history there has been 90% tax rates, can you name the Socialist president that allowed it? No? Because we haven't had a socialist president.

We've already gotten on SP1 for the name calling. Don't start it here. Argue your points without resorting to personal attacks. It really devalues your points otherwise.

[spainlinx0]

George W. Bush is a democrat? I'm pretty sure he's the one taking 99% percent of the abuse at the moment.

I'm talking about from Blowhard. The Democrats take 99% of the abuse from Blowhard.

[epo]

Why cant everyone admit they just elected a socialist as president?

All politicians are the same, they want power but the place they differ is how they act once they get there, the republicans love money which everyone can agree is good, the dems trick people into thinking they care about the people when in reality they look at the people as a means to an end. Once they get in there they think the people are too stupid to know whats best for themselves.

Yawn. Get over it and deal.

[sspkmark]

But was he the WORSE? Like that other guy said.

Worse I thought you said Wurst... Now I'm fucking Starvin....Earl? we have any Worse back there?

[Hottub]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/198236940_629db24adf.jpg?v=0

[foodcourtdruide]

Yawn. Get over it and deal.

I would love to see him answer the following:

What is a socialist?
If Obama is a socialist, how isn't McCain a socialist?

I'll help him.

Socialism - 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Is Obama advocating government control of production and distribution of goods? Is he trying to abolish "private property"?

Can some of Obama's policies loosely be called Socialist? Maybe, but if that's the case then so can some of John McCain's and almost every American politician. Obama is not a socialist, he is an American Democrat and there is a huge difference. Calling him a socialist shows great ignorance.

It's as ridiculous as calling George W. Bush a Nazi for issues like wiretapping. Does that word get thrown around as a hyperbole? Yes. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of democrats don't literally think George W. Bush is a Nazi, as SP1 seems to literally think Obama is a socialist.

[Serpico1103]

Blowhard is like Archie Bunker. He still believes that communists are coming for him. Too bad someone should tell him it is the Chinese who we have pushed into capitalism that will destroy his image of America.
The only threat communism every posed was that we would destroy ourselves trying to stop the perceived threat of the Red Menace.

[sailor]

Blowhard is like Archie Bunker. He still believes that communists are coming for him. Too bad someone should tell him it is the Chinese who we have pushed into capitalism that will destroy his image of America.
The only threat communism every posed was that we would destroy ourselves trying to stop the perceived threat of the Red Menace.

and was archie was a democrat, no? i always assumed he was, just like i thought blowhard was. (sorry for trying to re-rail this thread)

[Furtherman]

I would love to see him answer the following:

What is a socialist?
If Obama is a socialist, how isn't McCain a socialist?

I'll help him.

Socialism - 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Is Obama advocating government control of production and distribution of goods? Is he trying to abolish "private property"?

Can some of Obama's policies loosely be called Socialist? Maybe, but if that's the case then so can some of John McCain's and almost every American politician. Obama is not a socialist, he is an American Democrat and there is a huge difference. Calling him a socialist shows great ignorance.

It's as ridiculous as calling George W. Bush a Nazi for issues like wiretapping. Does that word get thrown around as a hyperbole? Yes. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of democrats don't literally think George W. Bush is a Nazi, as SP1 seems to literally think Obama is a socialist.

Awesome post. What every socalist-screaming-hack-parrott needs to know.

[HBox]

I would love to see him answer the following:

What is a socialist?
If Obama is a socialist, how isn't McCain a socialist?

I'll help him.

Socialism - 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Is Obama advocating government control of production and distribution of goods? Is he trying to abolish "private property"?

Can some of Obama's policies loosely be called Socialist? Maybe, but if that's the case then so can some of John McCain's and almost every American politician. Obama is not a socialist, he is an American Democrat and there is a huge difference. Calling him a socialist shows great ignorance.

It's as ridiculous as calling George W. Bush a Nazi for issues like wiretapping. Does that word get thrown around as a hyperbole? Yes. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of democrats don't literally think George W. Bush is a Nazi, as SP1 seems to literally think Obama is a socialist.

SP1 is an idiot of the highest magnitude. I explained all of this to him before. He tried to say the Social Security is not a socialist program because people pay into it and then get something back for it. He has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about.

[Serpico1103]

I wonder what fills up the rest of Blowhard's day. Hannity, Rush, and some Fox news. Maybe O'Reilly when he wants the "independent" view.

[NewYorkDragons80]

You see a lot of that on message boards -- someone will pretty much exclusively bash the Democratic party, then claim "But but parties suck."

It's Bill O'Reilly's gimmick, really. He refuses to admit that he's a Republican.

Shit, that sums up 202/197 other than Earl, who admits he's a Democrat.

[foodcourtdruide]

Shit, that sums up 202/197 other than Earl, who admits he's a Democrat.

Fez admits he's a democrat and I've heard Ron be hard on the democrats plenty of times. You think he's been kind to the Clintons?

[EliSnow]

Fez admits he's a democrat and I've heard Ron be hard on the democrats plenty of times. You think he's been kind to the Clintons?

Ron's been harder on Bush the last 8 years. I always got the sense that his political leanings are more liberal than conservative. Yes, he talks to Shirley Roper and Richard Belzer, but he makes fun of Roper. He's pallin' around with Belzer.

[foodcourtdruide]

Ron's been harder on Bush the last 8 years. I always got the sense that his political leanings are more liberal than conservative. Yes, he talks to Shirley Roper and Richard Belzer, but he makes fun of Roper. He's pallin' around with Belzer.

I think you have to be pretty blind not to be harder on Bush than the Clintons.

[IMSlacker]

Ron's been harder on Bush the last 8 years. I always got the sense that his political leanings are more liberal than conservative. Yes, he talks to Shirley Roper and Richard Belzer, but he makes fun of Roper. He's pallin' around with Belzer.

Yes, but, if Ron ever found out that he had a friend who is gay, he'd have to kill him and then Dave and then himself to cover up his shame.

[TheMojoPin]

Ron's been harder on Bush the last 8 years. I always got the sense that his political leanings are more liberal than conservative. Yes, he talks to Shirley Roper and Richard Belzer, but he makes fun of Roper. He's pallin' around with Belzer.

That's because Shirley is a batshit crazy hatemonger and Belzer is just an old ex-hippie comedian.

I'm not sure what the comparison is.

[EliSnow]

That's because Shirley is a batshit crazy hatemonger and Belzer is just an old ex-hippie comedian.

I'm not sure what the comparison is.

Maybe it's not as good of a comparison, but Belzer's pretty nutty too, and is close to be as far left as Shirley is far right. Okay, maybe not as close, but he is definitely left.

And it seems while Ron doesn't buy all of Belzer's beliefs, he's closer to his side.

Or maybe I'm reading into things way too much.

[Serpico1103]

Maybe it's not as good of a comparison, but Belzer's pretty nutty too, and is close to be as far left as Shirley is far right. Okay, maybe not as close, but he is definitely left.
And it seems while Ron doesn't buy all of Belzer's beliefs, he's closer to his side.
Or maybe I'm reading into things way too much.

Belz is on the left, but no where near as extreme as Shirley. Belz has not organized protests against individual soldiers.
The Right, in general, does not support the troops, they support the war. Two different things. As, a country since the revolutionary war we have always cast off our veterans when they have returned from war. So, it is annoying to hear "patriotic" republicans call for war.

[jamie38]

Maybe it's not as good of a comparison, but Belzer's pretty nutty too, and is close to be as far left as Shirley is far right. Okay, maybe not as close, but he is definitely left.

And it seems while Ron doesn't buy all of Belzer's beliefs, he's closer to his side.

Or maybe I'm reading into things way too much.
Oh come on. Yes Belzer is very far to the left, but he's not even on the same planet as Roper...no one is.

[EliSnow]

Oh come on. Yes Belzer is very far to the left, but he's not even on the same planet as Roper...no one is.

Which is why I made the following concessions:

Maybe it's not as good of a comparison, but Belzer's pretty nutty too, and is close to be as far left as Shirley is far right. Okay, maybe not as close, but he is definitely left.

[Freakshow]

You can't compare because Shirly isn't really on the right. She didn't support McCain, and i'm pretty sure she doesn't support Bush. She needs a new polical direction to define her.

[AKA]

Shit, that sums up 202/197 other than Earl, who admits he's a Democrat.

Ron has mentioned on the air that he would always prefer to vote 3rd Party, and until recently usually has - Fez has talked about being a lifelong Republican, until he had his change of heart after he realized the lies that led to the war.

In many ways, like Jon Stewart, Ron realizes that there are jokes to be made at the expense of the Democratic Party, and like Stewart he has shown he will go there - the GOP got what they deserved the last 8 years, becasue they were the party in power and should have a tougher hide to take it. Unless Sarah Palin comes back to DC as a senator, there really will be no GOPer of significance the comedians can laugh at once Bush and Cheney have been airlifted out of there. It won't be like Michael Moore in the 1990s, who lost his muse with Democrats in power; I think people like Ron and Stewart will show how easy it is to make fun of folks you actually agree with.

[AKA]

You can't compare because Shirly isn't really on the right. She didn't support McCain, and i'm pretty sure she doesn't support Bush. She needs a new polical direction to define her.

She is the string theory of political alignment.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/string_theory_for_web_3.jpg

[EliSnow]

Okay, okay, it was a bad comparison.

But other than certain libertarian things, does anyone think that Ron leans more to the right than the left?

[jamie38]

Okay, okay, it was a bad comparison.

But other than certain libertarian things, does anyone think that Ron leans more to the right than the left?
I agree that Ron is generally on the left. However, I've heard him disagree with the democrats plenty of times, and I don't believe he votes exclusively democrat. So it doesn't bother me that he doesn't call himself one.

Blowhard only ever calls to support the republican position but then calls himself an independent. It's the same gimmick that O'Reilly pulls, and it's obnoxious.

I'm not a fan of people like Rush and Hannity, but at least they can admit where they stand.

[foodcourtdruide]

Okay, okay, it was a bad comparison.

But other than certain libertarian things, does anyone think that Ron leans more to the right than the left?

I think he leans left, but a lot of people lean left and aren't necessarily democrats. I don't think I could say Ron agreed more with Obama than McCain. Maybe on social issues, but Ron NEVER got behind Obama's other policies and if anything, believed a little in the cult of personality thing.

[foodcourtdruide]

I agree that Ron is generally on the left. However, I've heard him disagree with the democrats plenty of times, and I don't believe he votes exclusively democrat. So it doesn't bother me that he doesn't call himself one.

Blowhard only ever calls to support the republican position but then calls himself an independent. It's the same gimmick that O'Reilly pulls, and it's obnoxious.

I'm not a fan of people like Rush and Hannity, but at least they can admit where they stand.

I agree. Didn't Blowhard blame the homeless problem in NYC on the ACLU, or some crazy shit like that? I really like Blowhard, but his political beliefs make me dizzy.

[Freakshow]

I think he leans left, but a lot of people lean left and aren't necessarily democrats. I don't think I could say Ron agreed more with Obama than McCain. Maybe on social issues, but Ron NEVER got behind Obama's other policies and if anything, believed a little in the cult of personality thing.

I think Ron is solidly on the left. He just likes playing devil's advocate (do what the devil tells you, do it, rrrrraaaaa). Especially with Earl and his inability to defend his support for Obama. I seem to remember he was the same way with Fez and his support of Republicans prior to '04.

[Serpico1103]

Okay, okay, it was a bad comparison.
But other than certain libertarian things, does anyone think that Ron leans more to the right than the left?

I think most people on XM/Sirius lean more left than right. Except for Ant's rants about guns and his taxes. They are all pro-choice, I think, none of them want religion to play a larger role in our lives, none of them are pro-corporation. I loved when Lilly would say people should just work hard like her father did. She said this while not earning her own keep, living off her rich dad.
Republicans lose the average citizen who may believe in their economic ideals, which they have not followed in a long time, and push morals and religion instead.
The Federal government was never meant to impose local morals, unfortunately through necessity and corruption of the constitution the Federal government has devoured all state power.
Let the Mid-West keep the Republicans.

[foodcourtdruide]

I think Ron is solidly on the left. He just likes playing devil's advocate (do what the devil tells you, do it, rrrrraaaaa). Especially with Earl and his inability to defend his support for Obama. I seem to remember he was the same way with Fez and his support of Republicans prior to '04.

Would you call him a democrat?

[TripleSkeet]

The main problem is theres no real party for logical human beings that agree with some policies on both sides.

If you agree with anything the Democrats say people start calling you a Tree Hugging Liberal and if you agree with anything Republican they start calling you a Conservative Zealot. Its fucking retarded. Both parties have smart logical ideals and both have ideals that are just over the top and ridiculous.

The one thing I never understood is how the real religious fucking yokels (and my mom is one) continue to vote republican STRICTLY based on their stance on abortion. Its the dumbest fucking thing Ive ever seen. "Im against abortion so vote for me." Why? Youre not going to overturn any fucking laws. In the last 28 years, 20 of which had a Republican president and they never even tried overturning Roe vs. Wade. So why would their stance on that have any bearing on your vote whatsoever?

I just dont get it.

[Serpico1103]

The main problem is theres no real party for logical human beings that agree with some policies on both sides.

If you agree with anything the Democrats say people start calling you a Tree Hugging Liberal and if you agree with anything Republican they start calling you a Conservative Zealot. Its fucking retarded. Both parties have smart logical ideals and both have ideals that are just over the top and ridiculous.

The one thing I never understood is how the real religious fucking yokels (and my mom is one) continue to vote republican STRICTLY based on their stance on abortion. Its the dumbest fucking thing Ive ever seen. "Im against abortion so vote for me." Why? Youre not going to overturn any fucking laws. In the last 28 years, 20 of which had a Republican president and they never even tried overturning Roe vs. Wade. So why would their stance on that have any bearing on your vote whatsoever?

I just dont get it.

Republicans are in no rush to overturn Roe v. Wade. That issue gets out the religious vote they need. Just like the gay rights issue. That is why they draw attention to it. To make sure their religious base turns out and votes.
The Right controls the Supreme Court so they would have a good chance of overruling Roe v. Wade. But, it is a lightning rod they want to keep.
I think Obama winning was very important. Otherwise, McCain might have been able to appoint two more justices to the Supreme Court. The Right would have completely controlled the court for another 30 to 40 years.

[Westley]

blowhard is to old to listen to 202

[Lady Resin]

blowhard is to old to listen to 202

I got my eyes on your profile.

[EliSnow]

The Right controls the Supreme Court so they would have a good chance of overruling Roe v. Wade.

Nah, they don't control it. Kennedy is moderate enough that he'll side with the strict interpretation justices on some things, and the other justices in others.

I think Obama winning was very important. Otherwise, McCain might have been able to appoint two more justices to the Supreme Court. The Right would have completely controlled the court for another 30 to 40 years.

It was the primary reason I had to vote for Obama. Stevens and Ginsberg will step down in the next four years, and McCain was big for justices like Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

[epo]

I'll try to re-track the original point of this thread: Blowhard. And I'm shockingly enough going to defend him.

From his calls, Blowhard is obviously a man of conservative beliefs. I don't think anyone would question that for a minute. However conservative beliefs do not automatically translate into partisanship or "republican".

By definition Blowhard seems to not be a partisan, rather an ideologue. Certainly he will most generally favor a republican more than other candidates on the current political spectrum, but he does not seem to be married to the politics of the Republican Party.

In fact, I would bet that his core conservative beliefs have him greatly disappointed in the current state of the Republican Party.

[Serpico1103]

Nah, they don't control it. Kennedy is moderate enough that he'll side with the strict interpretation justices on some things, and the other justices in others.
It was the primary reason I had to vote for Obama. Stevens and Ginsberg will step down in the next four years, and McCain was big for justices like Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Yes, while Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, he has not been as conservative as I think they would have liked. The court is 6 to 3 for the conservatives, 5 to 4 if you count Kennedy against the conservatives.
But, the new Republican appointees are so young in contrast to the rest of the court the democrats need to be careful with how they appoint to the court.

[jamie38]

I'll try to re-track the original point of this thread: Blowhard. And I'm shockingly enough going to defend him.

From his calls, Blowhard is obviously a man of conservative beliefs. I don't think anyone would question that for a minute. However conservative beliefs do not automatically translate into partisanship or "republican".

By definition Blowhard seems to not be a partisan, rather an ideologue. Certainly he will most generally favor a republican more than other candidates on the current political spectrum, but he does not seem to be married to the politics of the Republican Party.

In fact, I would bet that his core conservative beliefs have him greatly disappointed in the current state of the Republican Party.
I agree that there can be a definite difference between a Republican and a conservative. Shirley Phelps Roper proves that.

However, I've never really heard Blowhard say anything that doesn't fall in line with the Republican iedeology.

And I agree he probably is disappointed with the Republican party. But I think he's upset that they've failed to carry out their fiscally conservative platform, not because he disagreed with that platform to begin with.

[Serpico1103]

I agree that there can be a definite difference between a Republican and a conservative. Shirley Phelps Roper proves that.
However, I've never really heard Blowhard say anything that doesn't fall in line with the Republican iedeology.
And I agree he probably is disappointed with the Republican party. But I think he's upset that they've failed to carry out their fiscally conservative platform, not because he disagreed with that platform to begin with.

Of course he is a Republican. War, racism, and poverty have never affected him so it doesn't concern him.

[FezsAssistant]

I STILL can't distinguish between Fred From Brooklyn and Blowhard.

[Serpico1103]

I STILL can't distinguish between Fred From Brooklyn and Blowhard.

Blowhard doesn't say cunt, on the radio.

[spainlinx0]

I'll try to re-track the original point of this thread: Blowhard. And I'm shockingly enough going to defend him.

From his calls, Blowhard is obviously a man of conservative beliefs. I don't think anyone would question that for a minute. However conservative beliefs do not automatically translate into partisanship or "republican".

By definition Blowhard seems to not be a partisan, rather an ideologue. Certainly he will most generally favor a republican more than other candidates on the current political spectrum, but he does not seem to be married to the politics of the Republican Party.

In fact, I would bet that his core conservative beliefs have him greatly disappointed in the current state of the Republican Party.

The Republican party hasn't matched his so-called ideals for many many many years. Reagan a fiscal conservative? Get the fuck out of here. And yet he is the poster boy for the Republican party, INCLUDING Blowhard.

[JerseyRich]

I STILL can't distinguish between Fred From Brooklyn and Blowhard.

One is a jewish pot smoking laborer from Rockaway...

The other isn't.

[Fezticle98]

Quiet. Newsmax will pull their advertising from ronfez.net if Blowhard is driven away.

[RaysFever]

I wonder what fills up the rest of Blowhard's day. Hannity, Rush, and some Fox news. Maybe O'Reilly when he wants the "independent" view.

It's fine to jump on Republicans for people like Rush and Hannity, but the TV media is so heavily dominated by democrats which is just ignored. Even the comedy shows like the Simpson's, Family Guy, American Dad (all on FOX), Daily Show, 30 Rock, and others are very left leaning. No one complains about them being political. Bill Maher and Keith Olberman are as or more extreme than O'Reilly, but for whatever reason, they aren't the villains that O'Reilly is. I don't think there is equality in political coverage, but somehow there is heat as if the coverage is slanted right.

[RaysFever]

Of course he is a Republican. War, racism, and poverty have never affected him so it doesn't concern him.

Now this comment is ridiculous, and not knowing anyone personally, you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on political affiliation. The facts are that there are people on both sides of every issue from every kind of background, in every financial bracket, with life experience, and with direct connection to the military and to war. It is ignorant to think that just because people think differently than you means they don't understand your situation, or can't think as well as you can.

[Serpico1103]

Now this comment is ridiculous, and not knowing anyone personally, you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on political affiliation. The facts are that there are people on both sides of every issue from every kind of background, in every financial bracket, with life experience, and with direct connection to the military and to war. It is ignorant to think that just because people think differently than you means they don't understand your situation, or can't think as well as you can.

I know he is not black. He has never mentioned his tours of duty so I have to assume he didn't serve. And, from they way he talks he grew up working class in Brooklyn.
So, I didn't think I jumped to crazy conclusions.
The Republican party of today is for the rich (or those that think they are), religious, white, and straight.

[MacVittie]

Of course he is a Republican. War, racism, and poverty have never affected him so it doesn't concern him.

None of those three have ever affected me and I'm very far from a Republican.

[foodcourtdruide]

It's fine to jump on Republicans for people like Rush and Hannity, but the TV media is so heavily dominated by democrats which is just ignored. Even the comedy shows like the Simpson's, Family Guy, American Dad (all on FOX), Daily Show, 30 Rock, and others are very left leaning. No one complains about them being political. Bill Maher and Keith Olberman are as or more extreme than O'Reilly, but for whatever reason, they aren't the villains that O'Reilly is. I don't think there is equality in political coverage, but somehow there is heat as if the coverage is slanted right.

Yeah, we never hear vague conspiracy theories about a liberal media.

[Serpico1103]

None of those three have ever affected me and I'm very far from a Republican.

Proving you can think outside yourself. And, realize that you are part of something larger. Until, recently you could have stopped by being concerned with the US, but now we truly are a global community.

[TheMojoPin]

It's fine to jump on Republicans for people like Rush and Hannity, but the TV media is so heavily dominated by democrats which is just ignored. Even the comedy shows like the Simpson's, Family Guy, American Dad (all on FOX), Daily Show, 30 Rock, and others are very left leaning. No one complains about them being political. Bill Maher and Keith Olberman are as or more extreme than O'Reilly, but for whatever reason, they aren't the villains that O'Reilly is. I don't think there is equality in political coverage, but somehow there is heat as if the coverage is slanted right.

Rush and Hannity and their ilk are all trying to present themselves as news outlets. All the other programs you listed aren't doing that. They're making fun of current events, and they all constantly make fun of the Left as well as the Right.

[Serpico1103]

Rush and Hannity and their ilk are all trying to present themselves as news outlets. All the other programs you listed aren't doing that. They're making fun of current events, and they all constantly make fun of the Left as well as the Right.

Well at least Colmes is there to represent the left. Fair and Balanced.:wallbash:

[RaysFever]

Rush and Hannity and their ilk are all trying to present themselves as news outlets. All the other programs you listed aren't doing that. They're making fun of current events, and they all constantly make fun of the Left as well as the Right.

Olberman, Rush, Hannity, etc, all do opinion shows. They aren't behind the news desk. It just seems that only the right opinion shows get ripped.

I personally don't feel the news is presented fairly, but leans left in most cases. I feel like this presidential election demonstrated. But, I'm not going to change you mind, that's fine, but you're not going to change mine either. That's what makes the world go around. Cheers!

[TheMojoPin]

Olberman, Rush, Hannity, etc, all do opinion shows. They aren't behind the news desk. It just seems that only the right opinion shows get ripped.

Ripped by who? And who cares who "rips" a show?

They're on news networks and they prop themselves up as news outlets.

I personally don't feel the news is presented fairly, but leans left in most cases. I feel like this presidential election demonstrated.

How? Obama, whether you want to admit it or not, ran a very controlled and impressive campaign. The McCain campaign, by comparison, was a stumbling trainwreck. Which do you think is going to be seen in a more negative light just by how they played out? It doesn't even require "leaning" one way or another.

There's simply no way to satisfy everyone in term of "bias." It's dangerous how such a false strawman has turned our focus away from the news itself to the non-issue of "how" it's reported. Every decision made is going to inherrently have "bias" based on a massive number of reasons that can't be avoided simply by humans being involved in the process. This ends up being the result of people not liking the news they're hearing.

[jamie38]

Olberman, Rush, Hannity, etc, all do opinion shows. They aren't behind the news desk. It just seems that only the right opinion shows get ripped.

I personally don't feel the news is presented fairly, but leans left in most cases. I feel like this presidential election demonstrated. But, I'm not going to change you mind, that's fine, but you're not going to change mine either. That's what makes the world go around. Cheers!

Well I think you should note that there are many conservative media outlets out there. Talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives, and I often see conservative pundits with books on the bestsellers list.

However, I think it's also important to realize that journalism is by nature somewhat of a liberal profession that is going to attract people on the left, since the very essence of journalism is to question the status-quo.

Just sayin'...not everything's a vast liberal conspiracy.

[Rockvillejoe]

blowhard rules! love the blowhard! blowhard fror president!

i'm sure he would agree with the proven axiom that if you are under 40 and not liberal you have no heart, and if you over 40 and still liberal you have no brain....W.C.


the rest of youse suffer from arrested development.

haaaaaank hoooooyoooooo!

B.H. for prez in 2012!

[RaysFever]

Ripped by who? And who cares who "rips" a show?

They're on news networks and they prop themselves up as news outlets.



How? Obama, whether you want to admit it or not, ran a very controlled and impressive campaign. The McCain campaign, by comparison, was a stumbling trainwreck. Which do you think is going to be seen in a more negative light just by how they played out? It doesn't even require "leaning" one way or another.

There's simply no way to satisfy everyone in term of "bias." It's dangerous how such a false strawman has turned our focus away from the news itself to the non-issue of "how" it's reported. Every decision made is going to inherrently have "bias" based on a massive number of reasons that can't be avoided simply by humans being involved in the process. This ends up being the result of people not liking the news they're hearing.

OK I'm not interested in getting into a whole political thing here. If you say that O'Reilly and Olberman are on news networks, then I'll give it to you. O'Reilly's show is called the O'Reilly factor, and Olberman's is Countdown - where he counts down the top news stories of the day. They are both a little crazy, but I really think O'Reilly admits his bias, and Olberman denies his. Whatever....

For the other part, newspapers didn't hold Obama to anything, The Washington Post admitted a bias in their coverage of the election. People got caught up in history for history's sake. Hopefully it turns out that he happens to be a great President.

I'm not saying he will be a bad president - I hope he is great! But, I don't think the coverage has been equitable. But, the great thing is that it doesn't have to be (unless the fairness doctrine is imposed as law).

Leading up to this election, though, it was repeatedly said (and implied) that if Obama isn't elected, it proves racism is still prevalent in the US. This implies that the only possible way not to vote for Obama was to be a racist. If you don't think that these kinds of accusations can influence people entering an election, then I think you're mistaken.

As everyone says - demand makes the market. Right-wing radio is popular because people want it. Left-wing print is popular because people want it.

[RaysFever]

Well I think you should note that there are many conservative media outlets out there. Talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives, and I often see conservative pundits with books on the bestsellers list.

However, I think it's also important to realize that journalism is by nature somewhat of a liberal profession that is going to attract people on the left, since the very essence of journalism is to question the status-quo.

Just sayin'...not everything's a vast liberal conspiracy.

I don't think there is a vast liberal conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies for the most part.

While it's considered that talk radio is dominated by conservatives, look at Ron and Fez. They are talk radio, and they certainly aren't conservative. There is no doubt they lean left, even though Ron doesn't come out and back a candidate. I did appreciate that he wouldn't run down either candidate, but just the sound bite played when a red state came in (albeit funny) showed bias.

I think that people forget that comedy talk radio is still talk radio.

Anyway, there's no vast conspiracy, it just so happens that people in the media lean one way - Or, the public started leaning one way, and the media kept reporting that way to give them what they want. It's not a bad thing to have bias, unless you deny it (especially to yourself).

[TheMojoPin]

The campaigns weren't covered "equally" because they weren't run "equally." One was a disaster and the other wasn't. That's going to inherrently skew the coverage because the news itself is skewed.

I think too many people apply the editorial section of media outlets, be they television networks or newspapers or magazines, to the outlet's ENTIRE identity as a news source.