Hype sells!

[Mr. Shaman]

Like Enron which had one of their biggest failures, a power plant in India, get it's go ahead through connections with the Clinton administration, which pressured the Indian government to accept the contract. Yet who was blamed when Enron failed? Bush was, and when it came out that Bush did nothing for them, people blamed him for *not* doing something.

What's my point? My point is that in some peoples world views, democrats are not for big business, and republicans are. Therefore, when Enron crash, it couldn't have anything to do with democrats, and must have had something to do with republicans.

Ya' got pretty-close, that time, Skippy!

Congratulations!!!

ENRON was all-about a Republican-fave: DEREGULAION of the accounting-industry!!

(aka tort-reform. )​

 

[Andy]

Ya' got pretty-close, that time, Skippy!

Congratulations!!!

ENRON was all-about a Republican-fave: DEREGULAION of the accounting-industry!!

(aka tort-reform. )​

Did you read the rest of the article? Did you research it? Of course not. You are a liberal.

Here is what you didn't read. The opposition to the reform in question was led by Senator Joe Lieberman, a DEMOCRAT, and was shot down in 1993, when both the House and the Senate were under DEMOCRAT control. It was shot down in a 88 to 9 vote.

I wager the 9 supporters were not democrat either, but that's just a guess since looking up the bill would be difficult, and thus I'm not going to do it.

Further, the main thing the FASB wanted to change, was how stock options were recorded on corporate financial statements. This would reduce the stated profit of the company. This would not have effected Enron, since the loop hole Enron used, was to overstate the potential profit of future contracts, like say...

...a nuclear power plant in India, that the Indian government didn't want, but due to a cheap Coffee meeting with Clinton, was able to be pushed through anyway.

Once again, you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Andy]

It was this guy, for one.

Nope. See above. "The Obama recession is in full swing." Perfect example of hype and drivel.

Don't listen to what "those on the left" say about "those on the right." Go straight to the horse's mouth (careful: You might just get the wrong end.)

That was the same "Mic Jockey". I heard him say it myself.

I agree with his point though. The market did react negatively to Obama's election because many see him as a socialist that will meddle with the market, which always has negative results.

His talk of bankrupting coal power plants, socializing more corporations with bail-outs, supporting ever higher deficit spending, taking more control of the economy and raising taxes, and last of all, proposed changes to the way 401Ks work, all have a very negative impact economically, and investors know that.

In short, Rush didn't say he caused it, but that it was now his recession. I can see where he came from, and that's his opinion.

Actually, it's a whole lot more like saying that the rant radio hosts are selling hype and drivel to a willing American public. That was the point I was making, not whether some "right" or "left" leaning individual was right or wrong.

Sorta like the Washington Post, New York Times, or hundreds of others, right? Not that anyone would believe something totally false like "Republicans voted against Mothersday" or anything.

Are you now going to try to show evidence that rant radio is actually delivering information based on fact, logic, empirical evidence and reason? Good luck with that.

Sometimes. Sure. Just like every once in a blue moon, NBC gives accurate information too.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Did you read the rest of the article? Did you research it? Of course not. You are a liberal.

.....And, you're a "conservative" who sees no problem with accounting-companies & corporate-America being joined-at-the-hip, 'cause it'd make accounting a little-more convenient, for corporate-America.....and, we certainly wouldn't want any smaller-investors filing-suit to find-out what's really goin'-on, between the two. That'd be un-American.

 

[GenSeneca]

It was this guy, for one.

Here is what I said:
The Mic Jocks on the Right blamed the drop in the market, after the election, on market uncertainty due to Obama's win.

Exactly what your link to Rush says....

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 780 points since Obama won the election, and he hasn't passed anything yet.

"The Obama recession is in full swing." Perfect example of hype and drivel.

So you honestly don't think there is any connection between Obama's win and the resultant drop in the market?

Reading it in context, Rush was talking about the drop in the market as a result of uncertainty due to Obama winning. Despite the title, Rush didn't make the claim that the entire recession was the fault of Obama.

That was the same "Mic Jockey". I heard him say it myself.

If its anything like the above, you've taken him out of context or extrapolated that conclusion from nothing more than a snappy partisan title.

Actually, it's a whole lot more like saying that the rant radio hosts are selling hype and drivel to a willing American public. That was the point I was making, not whether some "right" or "left" leaning individual was right or wrong.

So even if someone is correct, its still hype and drivel according to you... Now I understand.

Are you now going to try to show evidence that rant radio is actually delivering information based on fact, logic, empirical evidence and reason? Good luck with that.

Nope... No point. Its entertainment and partisan information, same you get from Keith Overbite and Chris "tingly leg" Matthews... But I don't see you making posts about how they sell "hype and drivel to a willing American public".

So whats the deal? Why have you taken to beating up ONLY on conservatives lately, while leaving their Progressive counterparts unmentioned? If you're trying to look like a non-partisan participant, then go after both sides.... Of course, if your plan is make the partisan hack progressives of the site giddy, mission accomplished - keep up the partisan attacks on Conservatives.

BTW... What does the "C" in PLC stand for anyway?

 

[PLC1]

Here is what I said:
The Mic Jocks on the Right blamed the drop in the market, after the election, on market uncertainty due to Obama's win.

Exactly what your link to Rush says....




So you honestly don't think there is any connection between Obama's win and the resultant drop in the market?

Reading it in context, Rush was talking about the drop in the market as a result of uncertainty due to Obama winning. Despite the title, Rush didn't make the claim that the entire recession was the fault of Obama.



If its anything like the above, you've taken him out of context or extrapolated that conclusion from nothing more than a snappy partisan title.



So even if someone is correct, its still hype and drivel according to you... Now I understand.


Nope... No point. Its entertainment and partisan information, same you get from Keith Overbite and Chris "tingly leg" Matthews... But I don't see you making posts about how they sell "hype and drivel to a willing American public".

So whats the deal? Why have you taken to beating up ONLY on conservatives lately, while leaving their Progressive counterparts unmentioned? If you're trying to look like a non-partisan participant, then go after both sides.... Of course, if your plan is make the partisan hack progressives of the site giddy, mission accomplished - keep up the partisan attacks on Conservatives.

BTW... What does the "C" in PLC stand for anyway?

I think if you'll read my posts, you will see that I included the left wing rant radio as well. The problem with that is, it seems to be the right wing drivel that sells, so we hear a lot more of it. We don't even get the left wing stuff here any more, except on satellite radio. That says a lot about who is buying the hype and drivel, not about the drivellers themselves. They are giving a willing public what they want to hear, obviously.

The other part of that is the so called "conservative" talk radio is not so much conservative as it is partisan. Neither major party is really conservative any more, certainly not in a fiscal sense.

Global warming is not so much a conservative vs liberal issue, either, as it is a science vs wishful thinking issue. I couldn't find any reference to Limbaugh and the ice berg program I heard on the radio, but his stance on the issue is well known.

 

[Andy]

.....And, you're a "conservative" who sees no problem with accounting-companies & corporate-America being joined-at-the-hip, 'cause it'd make accounting a little-more convenient, for corporate-America.....and, we certainly wouldn't want any smaller-investors filing-suit to find-out what's really goin'-on, between the two. That'd be un-American.

Oh I am? Prove it. You show me where I said I had no problem with accounting companies and corporate america being joined at the hip? In fact, what does that have to do with what you claimed before being wrong (as always)?

You don't know anything. You just put up another straw-man, try and claim I support something I never said I supported, and attack it. Another empty pathetic post.

Here's what I don't have a problem with. I don't have a problem with private companies, who break laws, being sued, sent to court, fined and imprisoned.

Here's what I do have a problem with. When government politicians pass laws supporting sub-prime loans, putting government appointees in charge of the largest loan corporation in America, driving it into the ground, while at the same time cooking the books to gain CEO bonus pay, and at the same time, lobbing congress democrats to prevent oversight, and after everything falls apart... having us tax payers bailout the bankrupt, scandal ridden company, and having NOTHING done to all those involved.

That's what I have a problem with. And better still, your president elect goes to the guy who drove the company into the ground, for economic advice.
What is your excuse Shaman?

 

[Andy]

I think if you'll read my posts, you will see that I included the left wing rant radio as well. The problem with that is, it seems to be the right wing drivel that sells, so we hear a lot more of it. We don't even get the left wing stuff here any more, except on satellite radio. That says a lot about who is buying the hype and drivel, not about the drivellers themselves. They are giving a willing public what they want to hear, obviously.

Talk radio involves thinking more than TV or other media outlets. Thus, leftwing stuff simply doesn't fly on radio. There was a liberal show here locally, and I used to listened to it off and on. It was pathetic.

I don't even remember the specific issue being discussed, but he was complaining the evil republicans did thus and so. A caller called in and made a dead-on accurate point about why the republicans did what they did.

Suddenly, mid call, the host hung up. Literally mid-sentence, *click* gone. The host even made fun of it, proving that it was done purposefully. He even mocked that he'd hear people complain that he censored opposing views later. Of course, they didn't do that, because they simply quit listening, just like I did. That was the last time I listened to his show. Not surprisingly, it was canceled not even a month later.

The other part of that is the so called "conservative" talk radio is not so much conservative as it is partisan. Neither major party is really conservative any more, certainly not in a fiscal sense.

I don't know about that. I can remember Rush hammering Bush on the Bail-out, the over spending, and his Amnesty support. Yeah there are some that are very partisan. There were some times during the election, that Hannity drove me crazy supporting, or at least, being very soft on major issues with candidates. He strikes me as one who supports conservatism, until such a time as doing so may harm republicans. I'd rather harm the republicans, than support socialism.

Global warming is not so much a conservative vs liberal issue, either, as it is a science vs wishful thinking issue. I couldn't find any reference to Limbaugh and the ice berg program I heard on the radio, but his stance on the issue is well known.

Yeah, because man made CO2 causing global warming is clearly false. At least to any meaningful degree.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem with that is, it seems to be the right wing drivel that sells, so we hear a lot more of it.

Why is that in your opinion? Why is Rush #1 and Rhodes not even on the radar?

We don't even get the left wing stuff here any more, except on satellite radio.

Why did Air America fail?

That says a lot about who is buying the hype and drivel, not about the drivellers themselves.

What does that say to you exactly? Are you implying that Conservative listeners are bigger idiots?

Have you ever considered it was a failed business model on the part of Liberal talk radio, i.e. Non-Profit, vs. Conservative talk radios For-Profit structure?

Global warming is not so much a conservative vs liberal issue, either, as it is a science vs wishful thinking issue.

I agree... its wishful thinking to believe Americans can stop the changes in the earths climate so long as we levy high enough taxes, impose strict enough regulation and provide generous enough subsidies.

 

[Andy]

Have you ever considered it was a failed business model on the part of Liberal talk radio, i.e. Non-Profit, vs. Conservative talk radios For-Profit structure?

Huh? Liberal talk shows are all non-profit? I doubt that would really effect the success or failure of the show. Even if it was a non-profit show, it still requires income from ad sales, which are priced based on ratings, which are simply based on listenership.

In other words, as long as the show had enough listeners, it should survive... right?

The fact is, when you limit liberalism to talking about issues, it always fails. When you do 30-second sound bites, with pictures of poor union workers who need a bail-out, that sells. It gets and emotional response, which is all liberalism is. Since you can't get an emotional response in a real discussion of issues on the radio, liberal programs always fail.

If there is some other way in which non-profit caused radio programs to fail, I'd love to hear it. I've often questioned what non-profit really means since everyone is motivated by profit, or they wouldn't do what they do.

 

[GenSeneca]

Huh? Liberal talk shows are all non-profit?

Non-Profit was an overstatement.... Progressives follow the doctrine of Altruism and that doesn't translate into profit... Ever.

They have all followed the same concept. Their business model is that of National Public Radio (NPR, who wouldn't survive if not for government subsidies) while the content portion is a non-stop campaign commercial, in their case for Democrats and the "Progressive" special interest groups.

Don't take my word for it though, go check out the Air America site:

Nothing but a Bush bashing, Obama love fest over there... Conservative talk radio never had pictures of Bush with linked articles of glowing praise for the man.

Also... its NOT Liberal Talk Radio.... Its "Progressive":

Progressive talk radio network with streaming audio features provocative conversation, interviews and political satire. -- Air America Radio

BTW Andy... You gotta stop lumping in the Liberals with the Progressives... Liberals really aren't that dissimilar from Conservatives. Look closely, the Progressives are the Neo-Cons of the Left - They both love Big Government and Deficit Spending... as long as they get to be in charge of it.

 

[Andy]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the primary difference issue wise, between a liberal and a progressive?

 

[GenSeneca]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the primary difference issue wise, between a liberal and a progressive?

Statism.

As a Conservative, do you disagree with anything listed below about Liberalism?

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1]

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law. - Wiki

I don't disagree with any of that... one might even call them Conservative talking points...

Now lets look at Progressivism:

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals... American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. -- Wiki

Not so much room for agreement there...

Which ideology do you, as a Conservative, have more in common with?

 

[PLC1]

The problem with that is, it seems to be the right wing drivel that sells, so we hear a lot more of it.

Why is that in your opinion? Why is Rush #1 and Rhodes not even on the radar?

Because, as I've said, right wing drivel sells, left wing doesn't. Why it sells I have no idea. I find it entertaining at times, but I sense that a lot of people take it seriously, and even consider it the real voice of conservatism.

We don't even get the left wing stuff here any more, except on satellite radio.

Why did Air America fail?

Because, as I've said, their brand of drivel doesn't sell very well.

That says a lot about who is buying the hype and drivel, not about the drivellers themselves.

What does that say to you exactly? Are you implying that Conservative listeners are bigger idiots?

Conservative listeners? No, not necessarily conservative listeners. More like gullible listeners, or maybe those who like to hear their own opinions reinforced. Rant radio is not the voice of real conservatism, at least, not usually. They do make some good points from time to time.

Have you ever considered it was a failed business model on the part of Liberal talk radio, i.e. Non-Profit, vs. Conservative talk radios For-Profit structure?

That is another possibility, but it seems more likely that it is non profit because it can't be run for profit. It's hard to make a profit on what people are not willing to buy.

But, it does make sense that they might have failed due to having the wrong business model.

Global warming is not so much a conservative vs liberal issue, either, as it is a science vs wishful thinking issue.

I agree... its wishful thinking to believe Americans can stop the changes in the earths climate so long as we levy high enough taxes, impose strict enough regulation and provide generous enough subsidies.

Either way, it's wishful thinking. The ranters aren't saying that we can't stop global climate change by levying taxes and imposing restrictions. They are saying that global climate change is based on "junk science", by which they mean any science that doesn't support their preconceived ideas.

But, then, climate change is here to stay, and thinking we can change it is also wishful thinking. We've made some unalterable changes to the climate of the Earth, and we'd better learn to live with them. That is based on facts, not wishful thinking of any variety.

And, it's a science vs. hype issue, not a liberal vs conservative one. That's why the ranters selling us hype and drivel like to come down against the scientific point of view, and yes, I'm talking about both the deniers and the "we're all doomed if we don't drive priuses" crowd.

 

[Andy]

Because, as I've said, right wing drivel sells, left wing doesn't. Why it sells I have no idea. I find it entertaining at times, but I sense that a lot of people take it seriously, and even consider it the real voice of conservatism.

I think what he meant, and what I would have said, or agreed with is...

I hear left wing drivel on CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS, and numerous other channels, plus news papers like the Washington Post (Republicans vote against Mothersday), the New York Times, and literally hundreds of other locations. It seems to sell quite well.

There is only two spots that it does not sell (as far as I can tell), in Books, and Talk Radio.

Actually there is yet another reason why Radio and Books are dominated by conservatives, and News Papers and TV are dominated by Liberals.

News Papers and TV are one way communication which there is no direct feedback. In Radio, callers call in and debate hosts, which Liberals when debated always lose. TV on the other hand, normally no one can directly contest the crap spewed.

In books, people directly respond by not purchasing books by liberal authors, and do purchase books by conservative ones. In news papers, more often people are buying them for general headlines, stock market information, classifieds, comics, weather, business news and so on. The liberalism gets a free ride.

Conservative listeners? No, not necessarily conservative listeners. More like gullible listeners, or maybe those who like to hear their own opinions reinforced. Rant radio is not the voice of real conservatism, at least, not usually. They do make some good points from time to time.

What person doesn't like to have their own opinions reinforced?

That is another possibility, but it seems more likely that it is non profit because it can't be run for profit. It's hard to make a profit on what people are not willing to buy.

But, it does make sense that they might have failed due to having the wrong business model.

Again, in either case, Radio programs make or break in listenership. So profit based or not, it would still have to sell ad space.

Either way, it's wishful thinking. The ranters aren't saying that we can't stop global climate change by levying taxes and imposing restrictions. They are saying that global climate change is based on "junk science", by which they mean any science that doesn't support their preconceived ideas.

It's possible some might view it that way, but most claim that "man-made global warming" is based on junk science, because it is in fact based on junk science.

I take it you have not specifically examined or heard the other side to the theory?

And, it's a science vs. hype issue, not a liberal vs conservative one. That's why the ranters selling us hype and drivel like to come down against the scientific point of view, and yes, I'm talking about both the deniers and the "we're all doomed if we don't drive priuses" crowd.

My view is it's politics. There is a faction in our government that believes in near universal control of government is all that matters. To that end, the 'man-made global warming' scare, is a useful tactic to gain more governmental control.

Now, don't me wrong, I know good and well there are many decent people who are convinced these environmental issues. But if you look at their sources for believing it, nearly all are either government controlled, or government funded.

Few if any of the global warming motivated polices even help reduce the supposed sources of global warming. Ethanol for example, actually produces more supposed 'green house gases' than does regular oil based gasoline. Wind mills for example, can not, nor ever have, replaced anything, let alone shut down, or negated the need for new power plants, coal fired or otherwise.

So what's the purpose? The purpose is of course to gain more and more control over everything. More regulations, more Kyoto, more cap and trade. In short... more socialism.