Hyper-partisans are bad for America and basically serve no useful purpose other than limited entertainment value. Why back when, shortly after I figured out that FM played the same 30 songs all day long, I switched to AM radio and I tried listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Then I noticed something about the content Hannity and Rush's programming it basically went all these lines, "Liberals are bad. Liberals are evil. Liberals are the anti-Christ." After a week of listening to that sh*t, I had to leave it alone. Hannity lost me after he was championing the cause innocence of Charles Shwarz,(one of the cops implicated in the Abner Loumia case. I eventually found Savage's show and I started listening to O'Reilly. Hold on Rex, you actually think that Savage is a fair show. Yes I do. Actually though he's a hyper-partisan, Savage is one of fairer guys on the radio and he has no love for the Republican party. As I learned from Savage's show there's a distant difference between conservatives and Republicans.

Last week I was listening to the weekend guy on KGO. This dude is extremely liberal. Eariler in the year, dude said that Memorial Day should be expanded to include police officers, civil rights activists, people who fight and give their lives in non-military causes. He even made the comparison to figthing graffiti artists to being the same as military personnel fighting enemies. Then comes last week show.

First of all he called the president "madman." I'm by no means a fan of the president. I think he's feckless, inept, and isn't up to the job, with that being said, I don't think George Bush is crazy. Then this moron goes on to say, "Who is the United States to dictate who can and can't have a nuclear weapon?" The Israelis have one, so why can't the Iranians have one. Well, I don't have to worry about some Hasdics or some Orthodox Jews detonating a nuclear device in a metropolian area in the US. Then dude goes on to say that we're the only nation to ever use one, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unneccessary because "The Japanese were getting ready to surrender." That statement is just an out and out lie. The Japanese military considering themselves to be samurai and they lived by the code of Bushido. Surrending was a great dishonor and they wouldn't of did it. To conquer Japan by conviental means would've meant and extended bombing campign, and taking each island one-by-one. It's common knowledge that the Emperor have issued an order for each man, woman, and child to defend the Japanese homeland to the death, and they would've did it. Those that would've survived, probably would've committed ritual suicide. Like it or not, those atomic blasts probably saved countless of Japanese lives.

Then I realized something, these far left radicals are something that moderates and conservatives say they are, intolerant, and they hate America. How can you say that you would actually trust the Iranians with a nuke, the president is a "mad man," and America was wrong to nuke Japan if you don't have a deep-seeded loathing of the United States. Say what you will about the right-wing, and the far right, but at least those people are patriotic, and love their homeland. They also have a more realistic view of foriegn policy and the threats that face America.

i agree

www.citizenjoe.org could be better, but hopefully this is only the beginning and the site expands.

I like the site as it attempts to eliminate spin. most of this country votes based on commercials. People are estimating that the next presidential race with cost over $1Bn in advertising. Insane.

instead of a presidential donation...how about a donation instead to a real charity.

The far left has more than its fair share of 'self-loathing Americans' who sometimes use the freedom of speech that cost many lives over several centuries - to pit their preference for a global view against that of a strong USA.

For some reason, they believe that this is a more 'educated and progressive' forward plan. They don't seem to digest the fact that the European Union and others would like nothing better than to unionize and proclaim themselves a super-power more influential than the United States. They ignore their own internal problems until there is rioting in the street, they don't have the stomach for delivering consequences if necessary, and they are far too willing to capitulate to Iran and other nut cases trying to get nukes for offensive purposes.

I'd rather keep the benefit of the doubt on the side of the USA, than to trust the judgement of these radicals.

Why not try Neil Boortz on for size. You may like his approach as it has no political party biases. You can listen to him here:
http://freedomkeys.com/boortzcast.htm

I use the huntsville, Al link as it seems to work the best. He is on before Rush, so give a try.

PS His tax plan is the best anywhere!

I actually like partisanship, extreme or otherwise. Most people who get into politics have strong opinions and beliefs that sustain them through the rigorous process. (That and the promise of power and riches )

I just appreciate politicians and pundants who tell us what they truly believe.
Give me partisan debate.
Give me a real choice.
Have it out in the arena of ideas and let the best ideas win.

Niel Boortz is ok if you like your talk delivered in a thoughtful, intelligent, and tasteful way. I prefer http://www.thepeoplescube.com/

Free speech allows extreme ranting by all parties as long as it doesn't incite violence. If you don't like it, don't tune in. I don't listen to any of the "talk radio" or "pundit TV" babble, but will watch the Sunday morning news shows. McLaughlin and Meet the Press are my favorites. I also like Chris Matthews upon occasion, the only "liberal" who has been able to make it a go in that format. I'm a conservative, but O'Reilly, et al are just too full of bile for my taste.

Some say the reason there is so much partisanship is because the the parties actually disagree on very little these days. I disagree. I think there are actually big differences. I believe the reason has to do with 30 years of gerrymandering by each party when its in power that have left very few contested House seats. This makes the primary the real election, which makes extremism the way to get elected. Then these dolts have a hard time moving to the center. That is a shame.

Your argument is weak and here's why. You name a number of right wing talk-radio hosts that you have listened to. Not really giving specifics, you dismiss some but like others. You then give a specific example of ONE left wing host who you don't even name. You take a specific example assuming that it represents all Liberal talk/ideology. I can easily pick a quote/opinion that Rush, O'Reilly, Savage etc. have said that are outrageous and/or innapropriate. The difference is that I know that it does not represent all of the right wingers. All I ask is that you keep an opened mind & think for yourself. One comment from an unnamed talk show host does not = what Liberals stand for. May I suggest maybe listening to Ed Schultz (www.wegoted.com) but as O MAN said just watch Meet The Press and you'll be alright.

Without the presence of `extremists` through human history, we probably would still be in the middle ages (or living in caves for that matter).

From philosophers to messiahs, via warriors and emperors, people once considered extremists have shaped our world.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashover:
Your argument is weak and here's why. You name a number of right wing talk-radio hosts that you have listened to. Not really giving specifics, you dismiss some but like others. You then give a specific example of ONE left wing host who you don't even name. You take a specific example assuming that it represents all Liberal talk/ideology. I can easily pick a quote/opinion that Rush, O'Reilly, Savage etc. have said that are outrageous and/or innapropriate. The difference is that I know that it does not represent all of the right wingers. All I ask is that you keep an opened mind & think for yourself. One comment from an unnamed talk show host does not = what Liberals stand for. May I suggest maybe listening to Ed Schultz (www.wegoted.com) but as O MAN said just watch Meet The Press and you'll be alright.

Chis Matthews is a liberal...he was Tip O'Niel's chief of staff...I named him...maybe you don't know who Tip was...you can go ahead and listen to the radio spewers all you want...its called freedom of speech...I can go ahead and say they are all blowhards preaching to the same amen choir of likeminded blowhards...its called freedom of speech...I like Tim Russert, he calls out pols on both left and right...maybe that's what you object to.