PDA

View Full Version : Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc



Franco
11-05-2008, 12:56 PM
It is my feeling that the three of them do more harm to the REAL Conservative movement than they do good.First, they have redefined Conservative to fit their agendas. Real Conservatism borders on Libertarism. That the fucnction of the government is to protect the Constitution and the people of the USA. And, that government should be small, with low taxes and not be involved in social issues. That is unless those social issues threaten our liberties.Seems that the three I've mentioned above as well as some Republican poloticians have hijacked tha party.Republicans are now mostly leaderless and Pres Bush's policies may have done in the GOP for good. I would expect a strong third party to emerge over the next few years. One that does represent Conservative politics and not the misinformation we get from the three talking heads in my headline.P S Just so I am clear, Pres. R Reagan was not a Conservative. But, three above have claimed him to be so as they have redinfined Conservative.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 12:59 PM
They may not be perfect but thay are far far better than Air America. I don't consider O'Rielly a conservative, but I do believe he is an honest analyst.

Franco
11-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Air America went bankrupt a while back. No listeners equal no advertising revenue. That is what the proponets of the "Fairness Doctrine" don't understand. It is NOT that broadcast ownership is right winged because if liberal talk shows attracted listeners, broadcasters would be all over it to make a dollar.Liberals do NOT listen to talk or information. They act on emotions and not facts. They had Air America but they didn't want the information delivered to them as they would have to think. Case in point would be Fox News vs MSNBC. MSNBC's ratings are barely a blimp on the ratings charts. Liberals would rather watch Paris Hilton goofs than the news!

precisionlabradors
11-05-2008, 01:10 PM
or maybe they do think and don't buy into all the fear and conspiracies the republicans eat up like a soap opera.
________
Vaporizer affiliates (http://vaporizeraffiliateprogram.com)

Franco
11-05-2008, 01:12 PM
or maybe they do think and don't buy into all the fear and conspiracies the republicans eat up like a soap opera.

So, that is why Liberals don't listen to Liberal talk radio?Try coming up with something that makes sense.

Lisa S.
11-05-2008, 01:44 PM
It is my feeling that the three of them do more harm to the REAL Conservative movement than they do good.First, they have redefined Conservative to fit their agendas. Real Conservatism borders on Libertarism. That the fucnction of the government is to protect the Constitution and the people of the USA. And, that government should be small, with low taxes and not be involved in social issues. That is unless those social issues threaten our liberties.Seems that the three I've mentioned above as well as some Republican poloticians have hijacked tha party.Republicans are now mostly leaderless and Pres Bush's policies may have done in the GOP for good. I would expect a strong third party to emerge over the next few years. One that does represent Conservative politics and not the misinformation we get from the three talking heads in my headline.P S Just so I am clear, Pres. R Reagan was not a Conservative. But, three above have claimed him to be so as they have redinfined Conservative.

Have you watched Mike Huckabee's show on Fox? Didn't vote for him in the primary, but based on his presentation and views on his show I would vote for him in the next POTUS race. Non-confrontational and a great communicator that doesn't back down on his views, yet listens to other viewpoints.

Not saying he will start a third party, but he is a good bet (if he's willing to leave his show) for the GOP in 2012.

The Dems will not split their party and most right winger's wouldn't leave the GOP for a third party unless it became a viable third party majority that dwarfed the GOP.

Buzz
11-05-2008, 02:11 PM
Liberals do NOT listen to talk or information. They act on emotions and not facts.


Are you saying that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Air Americal all provide/provided their listeners with facts?

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 02:14 PM
Never/wouldn't listen to AA. The stuff I hear on Rush, Bill O and Sean is factual enough, though sometimes hard to document thru the mainstream media.

Goose
11-05-2008, 02:19 PM
I think advocates of the fairness doctrine understand fully that leftist, liberal radio doesn't work and can't compete. That's why they want to squash conservative radio. There's nothing fair about it...they simply want to destroy conservative talk because liberals can't compete and it will be one of the first things Obama-Reid-Pelosi will go after with a vengeance.

gsc
11-05-2008, 03:26 PM
It is like public radio and tv. Not much of a market, can't make it on their own so we taxpayers have to foot the bill.

John Schmidt
11-05-2008, 04:34 PM
Estimates suggest that radio listenership (listening at least once a week) to the following categories are as follows (1) :

NPR/Public Radio 34 %
Christian Radio 22 %
Conservative Talk Radio 17 %
Liberal Talk Radio 7 %

I have no way to know the accuracy of the above numbers. But the survey sited in (1) does break things down by voter demographics.

Corporation for Broadcasting (our tax dollars at work) budget for FY 2007 is a little over a half a billion dollars (2) with the state of Alaska getting about 7.5 million of that money. And my state of Utah receives 6.8 million. I guess ol' Stevens is more powerful than Hatch.

So Booty, how much does it cost to run a radio station?

(1) http://www.moore-info.com/MI_RadioListening6.08.pdf
(2) http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/funding/

gsc
11-05-2008, 04:59 PM
Thanks John, I have to admit, none of the categories are mine though. I know where to find Conservative talk and Christian, I have no idea where to find Liberal talk or NPR, but I am often the square peg in the round hole.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 05:07 PM
I have begun listening to Rush and sean on a regular bases. I used to listne to the local NPR station for the classical music they played, but the constant beg-a-thons and the far left view of their news turned me off quickly.

Marvin S
11-05-2008, 06:18 PM
It is my feeling that the three of them do more harm to the REAL Conservative movement than they do good.First, they have redefined Conservative to fit their agendas. Real Conservatism borders on Libertarism. That the fucnction of the government is to protect the Constitution and the people of the USA. And, that government should be small, with low taxes and not be involved in social issues. That is unless those social issues threaten our liberties.Seems that the three I've mentioned above as well as some Republican poloticians have hijacked tha party.Republicans are now mostly leaderless and Pres Bush's policies may have done in the GOP for good. I would expect a strong third party to emerge over the next few years. One that does represent Conservative politics and not the misinformation we get from the three talking heads in my headline.P S Just so I am clear, Pres. R Reagan was not a Conservative. But, three above have claimed him to be so as they have redinfined Conservative.

Of the 3rd parties I have been associated with over the years, Ross Perot's Reform Party was probably the closest to being viable. Unfortunately, Ross's EGO was in the way of allowing any sort of mass handling of the party. I don't have the exact numbers but didn't Perot get close to 20% of the vote in a 3 way race.

The Libertarians embrace of alternate lifestyles, de criminalization of drugs, unwillingness to go to any war makes them an offshoot of the D's. No self respecting family person would want to associate with that agenda facing them. I'm fairly tolerant, just not that tolerant, I would not want my grandkids forced into accepting that. As you notice the large black vote in CA contibuted to the ban on alternate marriage, so the self respecting blacks do not accept those thoughts either. I'm old enough that being gay meant you were happy.

I have long said Hannity & O'Reilly were Pseudo conservatives because it was selling (if you read any of their books they are not exactly rocket scientists), Ann Coulter is no better, Rush has some good history lessons on occasion but is given to self aggrandizement.

One of the problems is the Conservative movement has been so watered down by stating Reagan was a Conservative that many do not know what is real conservatism. Reagan was a "B" level actor who recognized the AUH2O movement & jumped on the wagon. & there is a tendency of those defining same to attempt to remake the definition into something that fits there agenda.

Real conservatism starts with fiscal responsibility. Limiting funds can have a serious dampening effect on the progress of government. It also has much to do with not meddling in individuals lives in any manner - on this subject the D's & the Social Conservatives are very similar - one group just cuts there hair shorter than the other.

I'll give you an example - We had Waco & Salt Creek, polygamy at it's best, should the government have gotten involved. I say NO, but I also say the many wives should not have been on Public Assistance. No government means just that. If you can't afford the freight don't make the delivery.

Anyway Booty, being conservative for broadcasters is expedient today, rather like being liberal at a Sexfest. When it quits being lucrative those guys will get a new set of stripes.

IowaBayDog
11-05-2008, 06:40 PM
Have you watched Mike Huckabee's show on Fox? Didn't vote for him in the primary, but based on his presentation and views on his show I would vote for him in the next POTUS race. Non-confrontational and a great communicator that doesn't back down on his views, yet listens to other viewpoints.

Not saying he will start a third party, but he is a good bet (if he's willing to leave his show) for the GOP in 2012.

The Dems will not split their party and most right winger's wouldn't leave the GOP for a third party unless it became a viable third party majority that dwarfed the GOP.


Huckabee is no Conservative either, look at his policies from Arkansas, he is a Bill Clinton with morals. He does hunt but he is just as pseudo conservative as the rest.

Franco
11-05-2008, 07:21 PM
Computer problems at home. I'll respond in the morning.

JDogger
11-05-2008, 07:59 PM
I have begun listening to Rush and sean on a regular bases.
No kidding?:shock:

jburn34
11-05-2008, 08:58 PM
I don't think you can lump O'Reilly in there with someone like Rush. Whether you like him or not, Rush is one of the main leaders on real conservative though right now.

labdoc
11-05-2008, 10:43 PM
I really believe Limbaugh listeners are like fruit cakes (the real thing not people who have a different persuasion). As most know there are 3 fruit cakes in the world and they just get passed around from one person to another. No one actually eats them. I believe there are only about 4-5 true Limbaugh listeners. They just keep changing their name and the tone of their voice. There are others who claim to listen to him but actually can't stand to listen to his arrogant, blow hard, party line politics with almost no original thought. I am a conservative and he makes me want to nuke the radio when he is on.

Truthfully the most interesting, albeit sensationallistic, talk radio is Glenn Beck. He makes a lot of sense sometimes and gets you thinking.

O'Reilly is just plain boring and I get tired of his "what say you" callers. Can't comment on Hannity.

Franco
11-06-2008, 09:33 AM
So Booty, how much does it cost to run a radio station?

(1) http://www.moore-info.com/MI_RadioListening6.08.pdf
(2) http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/funding/



The problem with the cost of public radio is that the government pays all the expenses to keep them afloat minus any local donations. That means paying their rent, utilities, staff etc. A big waste of tax payer dollars! A single local station carrying as much syndicated programming as NPR does shouldn't cost more than 400k annually to operate. I'm sure we as tax payers are paying much more than that per NPR station.

The ratings information is a study conducted by/for NPR to make it appear that they have more listeners than they actually have. According to the industry's accepted ratings which is Arbitron, NPR stations have less than a 1 share of the listening. Arbitron's new measurement for radio listening is a device known as the Personal People Meter. This is an electronic device that people wear that records all sources of audio whether it be traditional terrestial radio, satellite or Ipod/mp3. That information is downloaded and brokendown by age, sex, time spent listening etc. Again, NPR is less than 1%, so it is a waste of taxpayers money.

Bob Gutermuth
11-06-2008, 09:39 AM
Hey labdoc, I resemble that remark. One of my dad's first jobs at Crosse & Blackwell back before the war was making fruit cakes. I couldn't drink enough brandy to be one.

subroc
11-08-2008, 08:18 AM
It is my feeling that the three of them do more harm to the REAL Conservative movement than they do good.First, they have redefined Conservative to fit their agendas. Real Conservatism borders on Libertarism. That the fucnction of the government is to protect the Constitution and the people of the USA. And, that government should be small, with low taxes and not be involved in social issues. That is unless those social issues threaten our liberties.Seems that the three I've mentioned above as well as some Republican poloticians have hijacked tha party.Republicans are now mostly leaderless and Pres Bush's policies may have done in the GOP for good. I would expect a strong third party to emerge over the next few years. One that does represent Conservative politics and not the misinformation we get from the three talking heads in my headline.P S Just so I am clear, Pres. R Reagan was not a Conservative. But, three above have claimed him to be so as they have redinfined Conservative.


Maybe YOUR view of conservative is limited and less than inclusive believing YOUR political views are what the conservative should be. If you want to be libertarian, that option is available to you.

O’Reilly isn’t even a conservative. He calls himself a traditionalist.

Rush hurts nothing. He presents the hypocrisies of the democrats for all to see in a humorous manner. While it may be a rallying cry for the left, especially the extreme left, but who cares how the left views the rest of us.

The next original idea Hannity has will be his first. He regurgitates talking points. I am no big fan of his.

Talk radio is not your enemy. Talk radio is a voice, not the voice, but a voice of the people. That voice is measured by how many listen to it, agrees with it, disagree with it and debate it.

badbullgator
11-08-2008, 08:31 AM
I tend to agree with the first post, I am not sure that they, or if what they spout, is truely what the Republican party is about. I am a life long republican, but I find myself differing from several "conservative" values. Specifically abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I am not alone in this and know there are many republicans like me who feel this way. I get tired of being clumped in with the religious right, and anti abortionist, and anti embryonic stem cell research group.
I am religious (Christian), but do not go to church more than a few times a year. The abortion thing has been ruled on by the USSC, and the notion that embryonic stem cells will come from aborted fetus's is just stupid (trust me I know more about this topic than anyone here). I do think it is time for the GOP to think about what it is all about. If there was a real third party I would look into it, but I don't see that day coming soon.
As far as the religious right goes, I don't have a problem with them, except that not everyone in the party is that, I don't care what religion you are, but no one extreem should be the focous of the party

subroc
11-08-2008, 09:17 AM
...I find myself differing from several "conservative" values. Specifically abortion and embryonic stem cell research...
Not a subject that will generally get discussed on a retriever BB. I am a registered independent, but generally vote republican. I think the Republican Party platform is pretty restrictive on the subject but I agree with a much of it.

I consider myself and even call myself pro-life.

I believe that life begins at conception.

I have no problems with 1st term abortions.

I am ambivalent about 2nd term abortions.

I am not sure how much all that matters in the grand scheme of things.

I believe that aborting a fetus after the time of quickening or viability is murder.

Should there be exceptions? Sure. The exceptions shouldn’t become the rule.

Stem cell research, who cares. We fund far too many things now. If President George W. Bush doesn’t want to pay for embryonic stem cell research with government funds that is OK with me too. If he doesn’t want to do it for religious reasons, I don’t care about that either. If there is that much promise in the research, private funding will fill the void. No harm, no foul.

badbullgator
11-09-2008, 09:25 AM
Not a subject that will generally get discussed on a retriever BB. I am a registered independent, but generally vote republican. I think the Republican Party platform is pretty restrictive on the subject but I agree with a much of it.

I consider myself and even call myself pro-life.

I believe that life begins at conception.

I have no problems with 1st term abortions.

I am ambivalent about 2nd term abortions.

I am not sure how much all that matters in the grand scheme of things.

I believe that aborting a fetus after the time of quickening or viability is murder.

Should there be exceptions? Sure. The exceptions shouldn’t become the rule.

Stem cell research, who cares. We fund far too many things now. If President George W. Bush doesn’t want to pay for embryonic stem cell research with government funds that is OK with me too. If he doesn’t want to do it for religious reasons, I don’t care about that either. If there is that much promise in the research, private funding will fill the void. No harm, no foul.


Your last statement is where you are wrong. It does in fact hold that much promise and there are many sources of funding. This is not about funding, but rather the restrictions placed on receiving, shipping, and using them. It has taken me over two years of work just to be able to send a batch of embryos to Harvard for research because of the bureaucracy that is involved. Nobody is asking for funding, other than NIH and the other government interest. Since you don’t care about funding or the use of these I would have to guess that you will not be one of those complaining about the HIGH cost of treatment for anything that comes form this because it is and will remain PRIVATILY funded and you know when companies fund billions of dollars worth of research they expect a pretty good or at least fair return on those dollars.

subroc
11-09-2008, 09:51 AM
True enough, private research expects a ROI.

Describe the restrictions that you are encountering with shipping of the embryos?

badbullgator
11-09-2008, 10:09 AM
True enough, private research expects a ROI.

Describe the restrictions that you are encountering with shipping of the embryos?


Wait until I am in the office Monday....

BTW- it is not the shipping of embryos, that is done every day. It is problems with getting them to research, but not the actual shipping itself. I did say shipping but I meant in context to the facilities that are doing ESR being able to recieve them for this use. Shipping of embryos is not very restrictive in and of itself

Patrick Johndrow
11-09-2008, 10:19 AM
I have never been a fan of Hannity or O’Reilly but use to listen to Limbaugh back when he first started. Limbaugh in the last six or seven years has become a screecher like Hannity and O’Reilly. Neel Boortz is really more in line with my way of thinking.

But the question….these show are entertainment nothing more and nothing less.

subroc
11-09-2008, 11:58 AM
Wait until I am in the office Monday....

BTW- it is not the shipping of embryos, that is done every day. It is problems with getting them to research, but not the actual shipping itself. I did say shipping but I meant in context to the facilities that are doing ESR being able to recieve them for this use. Shipping of embryos is not very restrictive in and of itself


What does “getting them to research” actually mean?

I believe I read somewhere that the biggest problem that research labs face, that are involved with this research, is the separation of funds between government, and private investment and the book keeping of that separation. That is one of their biggest complaints, not necessarily the government not funding them.

Is that true?

badbullgator
11-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Yes, funding is not an issue really, but keeping the two seperate is. If you are using any government funds there are a lot more "hoops" to jump through in regard to standards and procedures. While there is plenty of private funding to go around government funding is always helpful and in some cases there are researchers that arerestricted to their own instutions funding or government funding. If your own institution will not, or more often cannot, fund the research you have to turn to government grants and funding which in this case is not avaliable.
Please note that embryonic stem cells are not the only source of stem cells

Franco
11-10-2008, 04:30 PM
I tend to agree with the first post, I am not sure that they, or if what they spout, is truely what the Republican party is about. I am a life long republican, but I find myself differing from several "conservative" values. Specifically abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I am not alone in this and know there are many republicans like me who feel this way. I get tired of being clumped in with the religious right, and anti abortionist, and anti embryonic stem cell research group.



Until the Republicans are willing to let this go bye-bye on their National platform, they are doomed to lose election after election!

Uncle Bill
11-16-2008, 02:35 PM
Wow!!!...an entire thread illustrating the "Gored Ox Syndrome". How appropriate, as we move into '09...the year of the OX.

Sounds to me like the RINO's we have in far too many of our public offices, are in good standing on this BB as well.

If it weren't for the 'Limbaughs', 'Becks', and others of their persuasion, who would be talking about conservatism at all??? Certainly not our education system. Certainly not your news room, Mr. Bootay.

Like 'em or not, when the latest version of the fairness doctrine is involked, you won't have to worry about them being on the air. Since radio is a bastardized medium, run only by bean-counters, they won't have the onions to provide equal time, they will opt for the simplistic way out of just cancelling all controversy, and play their pathetic satellite-fed formats.

So yes, you will have your way then Franco, to instill all the programming you can find that will be SEP'd in your favorite minority language....you know, ENGLISH.

Oh, BTW, are you prepared for the 'staff' to unionize? How long did you say you had before retirement? Good luck.

UB

Franco
11-16-2008, 10:01 PM
Bill, my point is that they do the Republican Party more damage than they do good. Why do you suppose McCain wouldn't come within a 100 miles of thier shows? Because what they spew is not Conservatism nor generally accurate. They are trying to define the Republican Party and it is harming the party. The are better voices to represent the party but Rush and Sean have established themseleves as the big boys and broadcast companies are in business to make money. They are PRODUCT and not the real voice of traditional Americans. We carry both of thier shows and I'd drop them both in a heartbeat if corporate would allow me to do so. But, stations won't drop their shows because they know both shows bring decent ratings. Not great ratings but, decent. And, that is true all over the country. Until we get real Conservative voices on the air, these two will define the party and they have no business doing so. You mention Beck and I would not put him in the same catagory as Rush and Sean. I actully think Beck has a better understanding of what is real and he is generally more accurate. Rush and Sean only appeal to the hardcore and turn off anyone interested in exploring what Republicans really have to offer. Rush is also pompus turning new listeres off and Sean is mostly inaccurate. Broadcasters have to find better host or these two will continue to damage Conservatives and Republicans alike.

mattoleriver
11-16-2008, 10:38 PM
Air America went bankrupt a while back. No listeners equal no advertising revenue. That is what the proponets of the "Fairness Doctrine" don't understand. It is NOT that broadcast ownership is right winged because if liberal talk shows attracted listeners, broadcasters would be all over it to make a dollar.Liberals do NOT listen to talk or information. They act on emotions and not facts. They had Air America but they didn't want the information delivered to them as they would have to think. Case in point would be Fox News vs MSNBC. MSNBC's ratings are barely a blimp on the ratings charts. Liberals would rather watch Paris Hilton goofs than the news!

Air America is still alive and kickin'. I believe they have reorganized at least once, maybe even more, but have managed to stay on the air. Don't forget, FOX lost hundreds of millions of $ before turning a profit. It was only Murdoch's deep pockets that kept them going. Air America's website lists these affiliates.
George

KABQ
Albuquerque, New Mexico
1350 AM
http://www.abqtalk.com/
KUDO
Anchorage, Alaska
1080 AM
http://www.kudo1080.com/
WLBY
Ann Arbor, Michigan
1290 AM
WPEK
Asheville, North Carolina
880 AM
http://www.880therevolution.com/
WCMI
Ashland, Kentucky
1340 AM
http://www.wcmi.am/
KKEE
Astoria, Oregon
1230 AM
http://www.kkee1230.com/
WTAA
Atlantic City-Cape May, NJ
1490 AM
WAAW
Augusta, Georgia
94.7 FM
KBAI
Bellingham, Washington
930 AM
WBTN
Bennington, Vermont
1370 AM
KKZN
Boulder, Colorado
760 AM
http://www.am760.net/
WWWI
Brainerd, Minnesota
1270 AM
http://www.3wiradio.com/
WKVT
Brattleboro, Vermont
1490 AM
http://www.1490wkvt.com/
WWKB
Buffalo, New York
1520 AM
http://www.kb1520.com/
WVAX
Charlottesville, Virginia
1450 AM
http://www.wvax.com/
WCPT
Chicago, Illinois
820 AM
http://www.wcpt820.com/
WOIC
Columbia, South Carolina
1230 AM
http://www.woic.com/
WVKO
Columbus, Ohio
1580 AM
http://www.wvko1580.com/
KBBR
Coos Bay-North Bend, Oregon
1340 AM
http://www.1340kbbr.com/
WDTW
Dearborn, Michigan
1310 AM
http://www.1310wdtw.com/
WNWF
Destin-Fort Walton Beach, Florida
1120 AM
WELY
Ely, Minnesota
1450 AM
http://www.wely.com/
KGOE
Eureka, California
1480 AM
http://www.kgoe.com/
WTKG
Grand Rapids, Michigan
1230 AM
http://www.wtkg.com/
WHMQ
Greenfield, Massachusetts
1240 AM
http://www.whmp.com/
WNYY
Ithaca, New York
1470 AM
http://www.1470wnyy.com/
WZNZ
Jacksonville, Florida
1460 AM
http://www.1460.us/
KXLJ
Juneau, Alaska
1330 AM
WDCF
Lakeland, Florida
1350 AM
KTLK
Los Angeles, CA
1150 AM
http://www.progressivetalk1150.com/
WXXM
Madison, Wisconsin
92.1 FM
http://www.themic921.com/
WINI
Marion-Carbondale, Illinois
1420 AM
http://www.winiradio.com/
KEZX
Medford, Oregon
730 AM
http://www.talkradio730.com/
WINZ
Miami, Florida
940 AM
http://www.am940southflorida.com/
KTNF
Minneapolis, MN
950 AM
http://www.950airamerica.com/
KMPT
Missoula, Montana
930 AM
KRXA
Monterey-Salinas-Santa Cruz, CA
540 AM
http://www.krxa540.com/
WDEV
Montpelier-Barre, Vermont
550 AM
http://www.wdevradio.com/
WWRL
New York, NY
1600 AM
http://www.wwrl1600.com/
KKGN
Oakland, CA
960 AM
KPTR
Palm Springs, California
1340 AM
KPHX
Phoenix, Arizona
1480 AM
WPTT
Pittsburgh, PA
1360 AM
http://www.1360wptt.com/
KPOJ
Portland, Oregon
620 AM
http://www.620kpoj.com/
WCHL
Raleigh-Durham, NC
1360 AM
http://www.wchl1360.com/
KJFK
Reno, Nevada
1230 AM
http://www.1230kjfk.com/
WROC
Rochester, New York
950 AM
http://www.newstalk950.com/
KSAC
Sacramento, California
105.5 FM
KYNS
San Luis Obispo, California
1340 AM
KIST
Santa Barbara, California
1340 AM
KTRC
Santa Fe, New Mexico
1260 AM
KPTK
Seattle, Washington
1090 AM
http://www.am1090seattle.com/
KYTI
Sheridan, Wyoming
93.7 FM
http://www.sheridanmedia.com/site/KYTIindex.html
KPTQ
Spokane, Washington
1280 AM
http://www.1280kptq.com/
WHMP
Springfield, MA
1400 AM
http://whmp.com/
WHNP
Springfield, MA
1600 AM
http://www.whmp.com/
KRFT
St. Louis, Missouri
1190 AM
WBLF
State College, PA
970 AM
WVPO
Stroudsburg, PA
840 AM
WTAN
Tampa Bay, Florida
1340 AM
http://www.tantalk1340.com/
KVOT
Taos, New Mexico
1340 AM
KJLL
Tucson, Arizona
1330 AM
http://www.tucsonsjolt.com/
KSZL
Victor Valley, CA
1230 AM
WWRC
Washington, DC
1260 AM
http://www.progressivetalk1260.com/
WJNO
West Palm Beach, Florida
1290 AM
http://www.wjno.com/
WPLY
Wilkes-Barre-Scranton, PA
960 AM

cotts135
11-17-2008, 06:47 AM
Recently Bill O'Reilly had Glen Beck as a guest on his show and they were discussing Bill Ayers. Bill asked the following question:

"O'Reilly: So here's my question. I know I made a big deal out of it, I know you talked about it on your radio program, got a lot of calls on it, people were angry. But when I go out on the street and I say, "William Ayers, does that bother you?" Just as many Americans say, "No, I don't care." What is that mentality when they don't care about a guy like this? What does that tell you?"

Beck responded:

" Beck: Cakes and circuses and too many dumb people. I mean, we should thin out the herd, you know what I mean?"

It is striking to me that Beck would demonize Ayers for promoting terrorism but on the other hand he is advocating the elimination of "dumb people". Does he not see the hypocrisy in his position. Violence is violence whether it is terrorism or elimination of a class of people who you don't like.

These type guys hurt the Republican party

Julie R.
11-17-2008, 07:34 AM
cotts, sorry but this

It is striking to me that Beck would demonize Ayers for promoting terrorism but on the other hand he is advocating the elimination of "dumb people". Does he not see the hypocrisy in his position. Violence is violence whether it is terrorism or elimination of a class of people who you don't like.

is not an example of advocating 'violence' and it's pitiful to think an adult (even an ObomaNation supporter) would try to portray it as such. It's obviously a humorous jab at who voted Obama into office. Don't bother telling me how you don't think it's funny as you are obviously not their targeted listener. Is humor now against the PC police, or only allowed for Democrats?

And as for mattoleriver's list of Air America assets...they are all AM radio stations! Who listens to AM radio? Not anyone I know. Hardly an advertisement of solvency for Air America. I have a lot of junky hoopties lying around my farm,but they all run, does that make me a prosperous car dealer?

cotts135
11-17-2008, 08:45 AM
cotts, sorry but this

Don't bother telling me how you don't think it's funny as you are obviously not their targeted listener.
Julie
Have you seen the clip. If not I would ask you to view it and then draw your own conclusions. Mine are is that he is not joking, he said it with a wink and a nod to O'Reilly. If you think that saying it is alright to eliminate a class of people because you disagree with them then I feel for you. Even if he was joking and his intent was pure at best he has degenerated to name calling and stereotyping.

Julie R.
11-17-2008, 09:27 AM
Cotts, actually no, I haven't seen the clip and I rarely listen to O'Reilly. But even your description is that of a joke delivery--wink, wink, nudge nudge. Since I did not see or hear the Beck/O'Reilly discussion, I'm guessing you're waiting to play the race card about the certain group of people. Am I right?

cotts135
11-17-2008, 09:47 AM
Cotts, actually no, I haven't seen the clip and I rarely listen to O'Reilly. But even your description is that of a joke delivery--wink, wink, nudge nudge. Since I did not see or hear the Beck/O'Reilly discussion,
The use of the phrase "wink and nod" was probably a bad choice.As I said before watching Beck say what hes said sure didn't seem to me to be a joke. Watch the clip.


I'm guessing you're waiting to play the race card about the certain group of people. Am I right?

What are you talking about? Honestly, thought never crossed my mind. Its absurd.

subroc
11-17-2008, 06:32 PM
I saw the show and it was irony at no one caring about Ayers coupled with an attempt at humor as a backhanded solution.

I guess cotts135 doesn't get either.

Hey cotts135, if it makes your left wing sensibilities “feel” good to posit that is what he meant, go ahead.

Here is the clip so you can see context and manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWHmps7B3kg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWHmps7B3kg)

cotts135
11-17-2008, 07:33 PM
I guess cotts135 doesn't get either.

I guess in your world it is ok to threaten with elimination a group of people who simply don't see things as you do. I am not concerned if it is a joke or not, it is just not appropriate on so many levels. Just don't see it as funny when you joke about killing people.
Just imagine if Keith Olberman had said the same thing, I am sure that the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the others would have stayed on the sidelines and not said anything about it.

Hoosier
11-17-2008, 07:35 PM
I guess in your world it is ok to threaten with elimination a group of people who simply don't see things as you do. I am not concerned if it is a joke or not, it is just not appropriate on so many levels. Just don't see it as funny when you joke about killing people.
Just imagine if Keith Olberman had said the same thing, I am sure that the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the others would have stayed on the sidelines and not said anything about it.

Group hug anyone?

subroc
11-17-2008, 07:42 PM
cotts135

In that clip what group did he threaten with elimination?

gsc
11-17-2008, 07:47 PM
You know, you can thin out the herd without sending them to the slaughter house. If you really think this on national tv is a threat to anyone, I understand why we now have obama.;)

Steve Amrein
11-17-2008, 08:24 PM
cotts135

In that clip what group did he threaten with elimination?

Musta been watching a rap video

Henry V
11-17-2008, 11:51 PM
..... It's obviously a humorous jab at who voted Obama into office. Don't bother telling me how you don't think it's funny as you are obviously not their targeted listener. Is humor now against the PC police, or only allowed for Democrats?

Interesting, a conservative media person makes a statement that obviously suggests the majority of voters were "stupid" to vote for Obama and he is defended for what is "obviously a humorous jab". If Olberman had said something similar to what Beck said you all would have had a good back and forth "discussion" here for multiple pages about how "liberals" think conservatives are "stupid" and hold this up as proof. Interesting, indeed. Several other posts on various threads have directly made this generalization against "liberals". Shall I post quotes?

Anyway, glad to see the discussions here are still mostly about Ayers, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, gun control, religion, the pledge of allegiance, etc. Are any of the right wingers here still wondering why the majority of voters moved away from your party this last election? Hmmmm, I wonder.

cotts135
11-18-2008, 07:13 AM
cotts135

In that clip what group did he threaten with elimination?

Here is the quote.

"O'Reilly: So here's my question. I know I made a big deal out of it, I know you talked about it on your radio program, got a lot of calls on it, people were angry. But when I go out on the street and I say, "William Ayers, does that bother you?" Just as many Americans say, "No, I don't care." What is that mentality when they don't care about a guy like this? What does that tell you?

Beck: Cakes and circuses and too many dumb people. I mean, we should thin out the herd, you know what I mean?

Um -- I can't -- I can't get my arms around the country that can listen to that and say, 'Oh, well he's saying it's not violent.' And he's on GMA promoting a book about non-violent acts, and comparing what we're going through now with the Vietnam War. He is pushing a book that is not only promoting this 'non-violent act' [air quotes] of blowing things up if you disagree with the government, and on top of that, the man is a university professor, he is a teacher! He is organizing people and telling them what we should teach our kids!"

It seems to me he is talking about people who are either indifferent to Ayers, or believe he is saying what he did is non violent.

subroc
11-18-2008, 07:33 AM
Here is the quote.

"O'Reilly: So here's my question. I know I made a big deal out of it, I know you talked about it on your radio program, got a lot of calls on it, people were angry. But when I go out on the street and I say, "William Ayers, does that bother you?" Just as many Americans say, "No, I don't care." What is that mentality when they don't care about a guy like this? What does that tell you?

Beck: Cakes and circuses and too many dumb people. I mean, we should thin out the herd, you know what I mean?

Um -- I can't -- I can't get my arms around the country that can listen to that and say, 'Oh, well he's saying it's not violent.' And he's on GMA promoting a book about non-violent acts, and comparing what we're going through now with the Vietnam War. He is pushing a book that is not only promoting this 'non-violent act' [air quotes] of blowing things up if you disagree with the government, and on top of that, the man is a university professor, he is a teacher! He is organizing people and telling them what we should teach our kids!"

It seems to me he is talking about people who are either indifferent to Ayers, or believe he is saying what he did is non violent.



The entire segment was about non-violent protest and how much of a hypocrite Ayers is and how he was a violent protestor, actually a terrorist. It highlighted how many don’t care.

You trying to turn the table on the message instead of the messenger is laughable.

What is your position on Ayers? You know the guy that actually bombed sites in the United States and is unrepentant. You would rather twist Becks words to the nth degree to see a non-existing threat?

I think you are a little…ahhhh never mind.

Hew
11-18-2008, 08:21 AM
Interesting, a conservative media person makes a statement that obviously suggests the majority of voters were "stupid" to vote for Obama and he is defended for what is "obviously a humorous jab". If Olberman had said something similar to what Beck said you all would have had a good back and forth "discussion" here for multiple pages about how "liberals" think conservatives are "stupid" and hold this up as proof.

Pssssst....Beck is an entertainer. Olberman considers himself a journalist. Beck has a one hour TV gig as a pundit. Olberman is an MSNBC anchor. Beck is quirky in a Gracie Allen sorta way. Olberman is quirky in a John Wayne Gacy/Ted Bundy sorta way. Beck is funny. Olberman is a humorless douche who is detested by nearly everyone he comes in contact with; including his own co-workers. Just holler if you need more help with the distinctions between the two.


Anyway, glad to see the discussions here are still mostly about Ayers, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, gun control, religion, the pledge of allegiance, etc. Are any of the right wingers here still wondering why the majority of voters moved away from your party this last election? Hmmmm, I wonder.
Interesting take. The GOP offers up the least Republican candidate ever(?), Republican voter turnout drops, and your prescription is that the GOP needs to move further to the left? Thanks for the advice, Dr. Kovorkian, but I think we'll pass.

Buzz
11-18-2008, 08:48 AM
Pssssst....Beck is an entertainer. Olberman considers himself a journalist. Beck has a one hour TV gig as a pundit. Olberman is an MSNBC anchor. Beck is quirky in a Gracie Allen sorta way. Olberman is quirky in a John Wayne Gacy/Ted Bundy sorta way. Beck is funny. Olberman is a humorless douche who is detested by nearly everyone he comes in contact with; including his own co-workers. Just holler if you need more help with the distinctions between the two.


Interesting take. The GOP offers up the least Republican candidate ever(?), Republican voter turnout drops, and your prescription is that the GOP needs to move further to the left? Thanks for the advice, Dr. Kovorkian, but I think we'll pass.

Is anyone on the right NOT and entertainer? Limbaugh is an entertainer, Coulter is an entertainer, now Beck is an entertainer. I guess all you need to do in the political commentary business is claim to be an entertainer and you can say anything.

Olberman considers himself an anchor, but NBC took care of that for him. He is just as nauseating as his counterparts on the right, at least in my opinion.

You guys keep on pushing to the right. That approach will certainly pay handsome dividends down the road.

Henry V
11-18-2008, 09:14 AM
Interesting take. The GOP offers up the least Republican candidate ever(?), Republican voter turnout drops, and your prescription is that the GOP needs to move further to the left? Thanks for the advice., Dr. Kovorkian, but I think we'll pass.

Where did I say that republicans need to move to the left? You have jumped to a conclusion because you assume things about my intent. You know some might interpret what I wrote to say that running on the same old issues is the problem and that the priority issues and key spokesmen need to change (you know, kinda like the post that started this thread made by a conservative).

Perhaps you should cue up the speeches made by some of the lead republican governors and listen to what they were talking about last week at their meeting (excluding Palin who did not have a real vision for the future IMHO). I guess you would call many of them Dr. Kevorkian too.

You are right as always, stick with those tried and true issues and talking head "entertainers". They are most important for moving this country forward in a conservative way. This strategy really worked the last 8 years and in this election. Keep it up and maybe Obama will be able to get 400 electoral votes next time.

Oh, and keep that chip on your shoulder that Olberman is strictly "an anchor", especially on his own show. You are at least one person who believes that.

cotts135
11-18-2008, 09:28 AM
You trying to turn the table on the message instead of the messenger is laughable.

That's just beautiful, where now supposed to attach more importance to the messenger than the message. Basic logic tells us that that is an Ad Hominim attack.
You need to stop confusing my comments on what Beck said with what Ayers has done. What Ayers has done in the past is a separate issue to how Beck responded to O'Reillys question. There is also a name for that in basic logic, it is called a Strawman attack.
My issue in these post's are with Beck not Ayers. My thoughts about Ayers I am sure are just about the same as yours. What he did is Domestic Terrorism period hence he is a Domestic terrorist. I don't condone any of his acts and his claims that these acts were non-violent is ludicrous.

Hew
11-18-2008, 01:52 PM
Oh, and keep that chip on your shoulder that Olberman is strictly "an anchor", especially on his own show. You are at least one person who believes that.
Exactly, there's just me and the Washington Post with their chip-on-the-shoulder headline on 9/8/08: MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors

At least you're now aware that there are differences between political commentary (Beck) and journalism (your boy Olbermann) so this thread hasn't been a total loss for you. My work here is finished, where do I send the bill?

subroc
11-18-2008, 07:05 PM
Nothing ad hominem about it. I already disagreed with your arguments on the merits believing you are choosing to misrepresent what he said and trying find a dark meaning in an innocuous comment where there is none.

Your choosing to see, in some bizzaro world, that he is advocating hurting anyone, dismissing any context even after listening to the piece is disingenuous at best.

I expect you could find many here that agree with you:

http://dailykos.com/ (http://dailykos.com/)

Now in those famous words of that commentator, Bill O'Reilly, from that bastion of “fair and balanced,” Fox News, “I’ll give you the last word.”

Uncle Bill
11-19-2008, 11:50 AM
Bill, my point is that they do the Republican Party more damage than they do good. Why do you suppose McCain wouldn't come within a 100 miles of thier shows? Because what they spew is not Conservatism nor generally accurate. They are trying to define the Republican Party and it is harming the party. The are better voices to represent the party but Rush and Sean have established themseleves as the big boys and broadcast companies are in business to make money. They are PRODUCT and not the real voice of traditional Americans. We carry both of thier shows and I'd drop them both in a heartbeat if corporate would allow me to do so. But, stations won't drop their shows because they know both shows bring decent ratings. Not great ratings but, decent. And, that is true all over the country. Until we get real Conservative voices on the air, these two will define the party and they have no business doing so. You mention Beck and I would not put him in the same catagory as Rush and Sean. I actully think Beck has a better understanding of what is real and he is generally more accurate. Rush and Sean only appeal to the hardcore and turn off anyone interested in exploring what Republicans really have to offer. Rush is also pompus turning new listeres off and Sean is mostly inaccurate. Broadcasters have to find better host or these two will continue to damage Conservatives and Republicans alike.

And after you have "dropped them in a heartbeat", you would be getting the 'conservative' message out to your listeners how??? I suspect NOT!

Your company and all like them didn't get that message out before Limbaugh, and I'd bet when the newer form of the fairness crap is forced on your stations, you will indeed drop these programs, and opt for what?

Please tell me how you intend to do anything via your broadcasts that will educate the listener about conservatism? I'm betting you will be putting your head in the sand like all the others, and be listening to your bean-counters, and "not rocking the boat".

No, Franco, when Limbaugh and the others in his camp are silenced, you will then see the complete installation of socialism like you can't imagine possible. Add to it the liberalization of the SCOTUS, and the "educating" of our youth in the various levels of schooling, and this Democracy will be history.

As has been stated by one far more educated than me..."this is not the beginning, nor is it the end...but it IS the end of the beginning."

As HEW reminded us...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

We have entered into this 'era'. Even if we succeed in recovering from it, it will be a generation or more. What has been unleashed on this society will be the largest eye-opener in history. There will be some that will get what they want, but it will be a miscule percentage of those that will be getting what they deserve. The 'hen house' has indeed been opened to the rabid predators.

You may not like the message of the Limbaugh clan, but when they are gone, you will discover how many holes in the dike they were plugging. Are you ready for the nation that's void of any conservative voice?

Welcome to the world of Allen Combs, Bill Maher, Al Franken, Keith Olberman, and Michael Moore. How proud the libs must be of "their" voices.

Your stations won't be airing these as "EQUAL TIME", they'll just shut off the others, and you know it, Franco. Be prepared for what you ask.

UB

Franco
11-19-2008, 01:33 PM
Bill, I NEVER said anything about silencing them! I just want them off our stations so we could make room for better conservative talk host. Let me add that both Limbaugh and Hannity have difficult audiences to sell to advertisers, which is anoher problem. One, I think they hurt the party and two, there aren't many advertisers looking to target their commercials to men over the age of 55(when was the last time you or I were influenced by any advertising that wasn't Cialis or other meds/). That is the big bulk of their audience and I've said all along that they Preach to the Choir. WE need talk host that can influence more and younger listeners.

I'm listing just some of the talk host with syndicated shows;Others include Mark Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin), Bill O'Reilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(commentator)), Dennis Prager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager), Michael Medved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Medved), Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt), Phil Hendrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hendrie), George Noory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Noory), Bill Wattenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wattenburg), Bob Brinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Brinker), Rick Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Roberts), Jay Mundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Mundy), Jim Quinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Quinn), G. Gordon Liddy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy), Bill Cunningham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cunningham), Melanie Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Morgan), Jon Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Arthur), Mike Gallagher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gallagher) and Laura Ingraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham). Other top-rated, conservative, less-political commentators include Laura Schlessinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schlessinger) (whose show, Dr. Laura, features personal & interpersonal advice), and Bruce Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Williams), (whose show focuses on banking, business, and personal finances).

There are many more up and comers and they are not on low powered a.m. signals like Air(destroy) America!

Henry V
11-19-2008, 11:27 PM
Ok, could someone please clarify what "conservative" means for purposes of this discussion?

Marvin S
11-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Ok, could someone please clarify what "conservative" means for purposes of this discussion?

Conservative means someone who is fiscally prudent, believes there should be limited or no government involvement in any area except the protection of our country,the reasonable rights of citizens & doing those necessary projects collectively that the populace would be unable to accomplish as individual entities.

That they believe the 10 Commandments apply to the personal conduct of their own life is also a plus.

What I find objectionable about both social conservatives & liberals is they both try to tell us how to run our lives.

Thanks for asking the question.

Franco
11-20-2008, 10:46 AM
Marvin has hit the nail on the head!

Like I've said earlier in this thread, Limbaugh, Hannity and others have tried to redefine Conservative. In doing so, they have helped us lose the White House, the Senate and Congress.

I for one do not consider either one of them to be true Conservatives! For that matter neither is McCain.

Many of us viewed this past election as the lesser of two evils.

Henry V
11-20-2008, 10:16 PM
Marvin and Mr Booty,

Glad I could help hold the nail. OK, so by this definition, who among today's politicians fits this definition and where does McCain stray the farthest?

Also, this recent article was interesting. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/the_conservative_transition.html
What are your thoughts on the classes of conservatives/republicans presented here. Is he way off in his assessment?

Marvin S
11-20-2008, 10:52 PM
OK, so by this definition, who among today's politicians fits this definition and where does McCain stray the farthest?

McCain is history - he's spending too much time trying to be liked rather than providing leadership. His wife would probably be better than him.

None of the crop that ran this time are overwhelming - Guiliani is OK, My problem with both Pawlenty & Romney is their ability to win the governorship in really liberal states, What do they stand for? Palin had her moment in the sun & should stick to speaking engagements, maybe Senator &/or a cabinet position in a R administration. I do like her willingness to challenge the GOB's but believe her social positions (which I respect her for, but disagree) to be unelectable. The Gov of LA, Bobby Jindal is probably the best person on the horizon, also Haley Barbour & as many say, JC Watts.


What are your thoughts on the classes of conservatives/republicans presented here. Is he way off in his assessment?

Who knows, I know after running a campaign for the WA State Legislature & doorbelling the district, I told my wife never again, I could not in all truth tell 2/3rd's of those people I was the person for them. They get what they deserve, the unfortunate thing is those who don't deserve it also get it.

I'm no pundit, don't desire to be in that group, all I know is that the government is intruding too much in our life & it should not be that way. The best government is that which is not visible but effective.

IowaBayDog
11-21-2008, 08:50 AM
Like I've said earlier in this thread, Limbaugh, Hannity and others have tried to redefine Conservative. In doing so, they have helped us lose the White House, the Senate and Congress.

I for one do not consider either one of them to be true Conservatives! For that matter neither is McCain.



How did those 2 lose the White House for the GOP, neither even supported McCain prior to the Palin nomination. He wasn't there guy so it is pretty dis-ingenuous to lay the blame at their feet for that loss. If anything they kept it from being a true landslide.

What opinions do you feel that Rush expresses that are NOT conservative? I'm not a Hannity fan either, I prefer Beck to Rush as well but listen to both. But if you are going to say they are not truely conservative requires at least a modicum of proof or examples where they have not been so. Tell us where they are wrong policy wise?

JS
11-21-2008, 11:24 AM
Could it be possible that the majority of Americans simply do not agree with GOP goals and priorities?

Could it possibly be that the majority of Americans are actually as well informed as people who post on this board, and yet see things differently?

I don’t like to use the simple pigeonhole terms, “liberal” or “conservative”. No one person or no one issue is that black and white. But, I think I circulate in a pretty eclectic environment. I associate with people with a broad cross section of views. I listen to news and commentary from a wide variety of sources. I have a broad, diverse background and my political persuasion has changed over time from what I once believed.

I have good friends with whom I disagree on many things. I can’t bring to mind ANYONE with whom I agree on everything. I believe we all agree on more things than we disagree.

From where I sit ..... speaking in general now ..... the views I read expressed BY MOST here do not line up anywhere close to center. Opinions expressed here are, to “conservative”, what Moveon.org is to “liberal”. Michael Moore does not represent the Democratic party no matter how much you wish it were so. He is an extremist. I think a good share of the “conservative” posters here are his counterpart.

That is fine. Everyone has a right to their opinion, That’s what makes America great. But, while you’re wringing your hands over why the GOP lost, and wondering how the rest of the country got duped, you might step outside your cubicle and look around. Maybe you’re an extremist and don’t realize it.

JS

Marvin S
11-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Could it be possible that the majority of Americans simply do not agree with GOP goals and priorities?

What are these GOP goals & priorities, I would like to know?


I associate with people with a broad cross section of views. I listen to news and commentary from a wide variety of sources. I have a broad, diverse background and my political persuasion has changed over time from what I once believed

News & commentary have been discredited as an unbiased source. You might try reading some of the more moderate political animals such as Michael Barone, Thomas Sowell, etc., reaching your own conclusion & then making a more informed statement.

We all have life experiences which teach us how to look for nuggets of useful information, so that's not unique. How we use the nuggets is what makes each of us unique.


From where I sit ..... speaking in general now ..... the views I read expressed BY MOST here do not line up anywhere close to center. Opinions expressed here are, to “conservative”, what Moveon.org is to “liberal”. Michael Moore does not represent the Democratic party no matter how much you wish it were so. He is an extremist. I think a good share of the “conservative” posters here are his counterpart.

You failed to use :) :) to show you were joking. But if you actually believe what you have posted your point of reference is seriously askew. Those as you call them conservative posters are in general those who actually work & have seen life's lessons in the school of hard knocks.

JS
11-21-2008, 02:08 PM
You failed to use :) :) to show you were joking. But if you actually believe what you have posted your point of reference is seriously askew. Those as you call them conservative posters are in general those who actually work & have seen life's lessons in the school of hard knocks.


Marvin, I'm not joking in the least and my point of reference is probably just as "fair and balanced" as yours.

Furthermore, I could probably tell you all you want to know and more, about the school of hard knocks. But, after reading your posts over the last few years, I'm fairly certain you would tell me I'm not very well informed about my past, either.

Maybe in your next life, someone will appoint you to some position of authority where you can impose your will on the rest of us. Until then, you'll just have to live with the choice of the majority.

Seriously askew indeed,

JKS

greg ye
11-21-2008, 02:36 PM
Ok, could someone please clarify what "conservative" means for purposes of this discussion?

Henry, the broad stroke of any conservative, to me, is adherence to supply side economics facilitated by a fiscal policy that incentivizes a desired public policy. I think this is key to all who claim to be conservative. They should believe that individuals can create opportunity better than the government.

Franco
11-21-2008, 04:34 PM
How did those 2 lose the White House for the GOP, neither even supported McCain prior to the Palin nomination. He wasn't there guy so it is pretty dis-ingenuous to lay the blame at their feet for that loss. If anything they kept it from being a true landslide.

What opinions do you feel that Rush expresses that are NOT conservative? I'm not a Hannity fan either, I prefer Beck to Rush as well but listen to both. But if you are going to say they are not truely conservative requires at least a modicum of proof or examples where they have not been so. Tell us where they are wrong policy wise?

I said the two HELPED lose the White House. In the early primary outings they bashed McCain, and then jumped on board after he received the nomination. Like I said before, they have redefined what real Conservatism is and it is not for the betterment of the party but, to fit their narrow views. And, it is those narrow views that alienate those undecided who may have vote Republican. However, maybe I am giving them too much credit since their audience is white males over the age of 55 with just a sprinkling of women and under 55’s.

What opinions do I feel that Rush expressed that is not Conservative?

Their support of staying in Iraq after we did NOT find any WMD’s. Experimental nation building is not a Conservative principle.

Their entire social issues from Gay Marriage to Abortion. Those topics as well a religion are something Big Brother or Big Government deal in, not a Conservative government.

And, I’m tired of hearing about what a great Conservative President Ronald Reagan was. Yes, he was our most effective President over the last 35 years but, a Conservative he wasn’t. No Conservative President would have traded military arms for hostages nor granted amnesty for over 10 million illegals. Which in turn has led to another 20 million plus illegals.

We need less government, not more and the mess we have now is from too much gooberment interference!

Franco
11-21-2008, 05:01 PM
Could it be possible that the majority of Americans simply do not agree with GOP goals and priorities?

JS

Could it be possible that the majority of Americans' intelligence level has now fallen to the point that they don't know any better?

Joe S.
11-21-2008, 05:16 PM
How did those 2 lose the White House for the GOP, neither even supported McCain prior to the Palin nomination.

Hummm...perhaps by NOT supporting McCain prior to the Palin nomination.

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.

EdA
11-21-2008, 05:55 PM
Could it be possible that the majority of Americans' intelligence level has now fallen to the point that they don't know any better?

Sooo, Bootay, are you saying that anyone who did not vote for John McCain is stupid? And do you think they became stupid overnight.....maybe some kind of a virus or something, eh?...:rolleyes:

One could make make the counter argument as well.....;-)

Tim Thomas
11-21-2008, 05:57 PM
Could it be possible that the majority of Americans' intelligence level has now fallen to the point that they don't know any better?

Or possibly lulled by a silver tongue....much easier than taking responsibility for ones self and doing a little research.

Marvin S
11-21-2008, 06:07 PM
Furthermore, I could probably tell you all you want to know and more, about the school of hard knocks.

Really, I would like to hear more about your experiences. :) :) Again, everything is from a point of reference.


But, after reading your posts over the last few years, I'm fairly certain you would tell me I'm not very well informed about my past, either.

Interesting statement, considering I have consistently posted that my objection to those of liberal bent & social conservatives is they are both trying to tell others how to live their lives.


Maybe in your next life, someone will appoint you to some position of authority where you can impose your will on the rest of us.


I've been in positions of authority, found it not to be a big deal like many other things. Though I would say, if you worked under my authority, you worked & were better for it.

I notice you are an IA person, did your forebears perchance emigrate from SD late 20's or early 30's.

Franco
11-21-2008, 08:26 PM
Sooo, Bootay, are you saying that anyone who did not vote for John McCain is stupid? And do you think they became stupid overnight.....maybe some kind of a virus or something, eh?...:rolleyes:

One could make make the counter argument as well.....;-)

I know Obama got the vast majority of the vote from people with low intelligence. People that couldn't pass a simple Civics test! Not all that voted for Obama are ignorant. Some very well educated folks voted for him. But, what gave him the victory was his support from voters who looked at him as a FREE RIDE!

Buzz
11-21-2008, 09:35 PM
I know Obama got the vast majority of the vote from people with low intelligence. People that couldn't pass a simple Civics test! Not all that voted for Obama are ignorant. Some very well educated folks voted for him. But, what gave him the victory was his support from voters who looked at him as a FREE RIDE!

Dang you Booty. I sure hope you're not getting that information from Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly! You've gone and made me post this article that I read in the Economist, against my better judgement. I declined starting a thread about it earlier today - I thought it would be too controversial in a place like RTF, but the persistent knocking of Obama supporter's mental capacity requires a correcting of the record. Here is a quote from the article:


There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

The entire article is here. I encourage you to check it out.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247

You know, the fact that Bush won these voters in 2004 gives me pause about Obama.

ENJOY!

IowaBayDog
11-22-2008, 06:55 AM
Hummm...perhaps by NOT supporting McCain prior to the Palin nomination.

Just Sayin' Regards,

Joe S.

Ummm, So because they didn't support the LEAST conservative candidate in the primaries and pushed more conservative ones that shows how they lost the election for McCain by not being true conservatives? I guess that is the type of solid thinking that leads to someone to vote for Obama.:rolleyes:

IowaBayDog
11-22-2008, 07:08 AM
I said the two HELPED lose the White House. In the early primary outings they bashed McCain, and then jumped on board after he received the nomination. Like I said before, they have redefined what real Conservatism is and it is not for the betterment of the party but, to fit their narrow views. And, it is those narrow views that alienate those undecided who may have vote Republican. However, maybe I am giving them too much credit since their audience is white males over the age of 55 with just a sprinkling of women and under 55’s.


We need less government, not more and the mess we have now is from too much gooberment interference!

So because they tried to oust the LEAST conservative candidate in the primaries they were not being conservative:confused:

All the negatives of Reagan you pointed out were also McCain policies, you should be thanking Rush for helping him lose if those are your feelings. Reagan's immigration deal was his worst no doubt.

You actually think it is conservative to go into a country and if you don't find something (hate to tell you we did and they had them for a looong time) that you should leave a country you just took apart high and dry? If we went in there for our national security interests, it is Conservative to stay until the job is FINISHED and ensure that the mission is accomplished. Leaving Iraq without getting a government in place would have created a worse situation for out national security. Lots of mistakes have happened in Iraq, leaving after a month because we didn't find what we wanted (:rolleyes:) would have been the worst one. All the debate to go to war is done prior to the U.S. firing the first bullet, once that bullet is fired winning is the only option if we are to survive as a World Power.

There are some non-conservatives out there, a lot on this board it appears, stop pointing to the radio and start looking in the mirror, the problem starts there.

It's 0 F out right now and I need to go find some open water on Lake Michigan to put Dekes out on. November in Da U.P. when everyone else is Deer Hunting!

Joe S.
11-22-2008, 09:45 AM
You actually think it is conservative to go into a country and if you don't find something (hate to tell you we did and they had them for a looong time) that you should leave a country you just took apart high and dry?

This is news. What, EXACTLY, did we find in Iraq, Danny?

You aren't drinking the kool-aid, you've got it going VFR direct from an IV bag.:rolleyes:

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

Gerry Clinchy
11-22-2008, 11:08 AM
You know, the fact that Bush won these voters in 2004 gives me pause about Obama.

Now there's a heckuva thought ;)

IowaBayDog
11-23-2008, 11:28 AM
This is news. What, EXACTLY, did we find in Iraq, Danny?

You aren't drinking the kool-aid, you've got it going VFR direct from an IV bag.:rolleyes:

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


Lets see yellow cake, nerve gas, etc.. Or my current co-worker who actually suffers from the after affects of nerve gas exposure(blindness and loss of some motor function) is just making it up along with the several others that were in his unit. He's a hell of an actor.

Or I guess the sattelite images and raw reports I looked at for 6 years while I was in lends be to believe that Iraq was definetely involved in N.B.C. activities for a long time. That Saddam was a nice guy though I'm sure he gave all that stuff up:rolleyes:.

There's no Kool Aid left Joey, you drank it all already. Filling fuel tanks for a living probably didn't give you as much insight into what is going on in the world. But your lack of insight is pretty obvious anyway.

Joe S.
11-23-2008, 11:42 AM
Lets see yellow cake, nerve gas, etc.. Or my current co-worker who actually suffers from the after affects of nerve gas exposure(blindness and loss of some motor function) is just making it up along with the several others that were in his unit.

We didn't "find" that stuff as a result of the current invasion. We knew it was there as a result of the Desert Shield/Storm. I'm suprised as an Intel Analyst you don't know that.

Sorry to hear about your co-worker, Danny. Is this lingering effects from Desert Shield/Storm or did your co-worker suffer this as a result of the current event?


Or I guess the sattelite images and raw reports I looked at for 6 years while I was in lends be to believe that Iraq was definetely involved in N.B.C. activities for a long time. That Saddam was a nice guy though I'm sure he gave all that stuff up:rolleyes:.

Oh, so now we invaded Iraq to get the chemical weapons. Again, WE KNEW HE HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. If I remember correctly, we gave them the stuff when they were fighting Iran and we were supporting him.


There's no Kool Aid left Joey, you drank it all already. Filling fuel tanks for a living probably didn't give you as much insight into what is going on in the world. But your lack of insight is pretty obvious anyway.

So, how was the hunting?

Best Regards,

Joe S.

Hoosier
11-23-2008, 11:56 AM
Saddam wouldn't allow the F*&^ing inspectors in. They were shooting at our jets. They were in violation of numerous UN resolutions. They were buying off members of the UN security council something had to be done, the US had the balls to do it. That was before the liberals neutered us.

Buzz
11-23-2008, 03:15 PM
Saddam wouldn't allow the F*&^ing inspectors in.

Really? I mean F*&^ing REALLY?

And I thought that the one's that marked the oval for Obama were the misinformed ones.

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/03/special-report.html

IowaBayDog
11-23-2008, 05:15 PM
We didn't "find" that stuff as a result of the current invasion. We knew it was there as a result of the Desert Shield/Storm. I'm suprised as an Intel you don't know that.

Sorry to hear about your co-worker, Danny. Is this lingering effects from Desert Shield/Storm or did your co-worker suffer this as a result of the current event?
Analyst


Oh, so now we invaded Iraq to get the chemical weapons. Again, WE KNEW HE HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS. If I remember correctly, we gave them the stuff when they were fighting Iran and we were supporting him.



So, how was the hunting?

Best Regards,

Joe S.


The hunting was a bust, ice now has taken over the first couple hundred yards of Lake Michigan. Lots of geese still around but no longer in season. I was coming to visit family, the hunting was only a bonus, luckily I scouted prior to buying a license.

He wounds are from this latest war not the early 90s. He was over there for the 1st 2 years.

We knew it was there from Desert Storm, and it was found in the latest war as well. But we KNEW it was there, thanks for admitting that, WMDs includes all elements of NBC, not just the "N".

subroc
11-23-2008, 05:28 PM
It appears taking control of WMD doesn't count. Only finding new stockpiles above and beyond all that they currently had is enough for those on the left.

I guess we couldnt be attacked with weapons we knew were there.

JS
11-23-2008, 06:30 PM
President Bush defended his decision to go into Iraq in many ways, but I don't recall him ever announcing that we did find WMDs.

I may be showing my ignorance here, and I do take occasional trips to the boonies just to get away from this kind of stuff, but what did I miss? :confused:

JS

subroc
11-23-2008, 07:48 PM
President Bush defended his decision to go into Iraq in many ways, but I don't recall him ever announcing that we did find WMDs.

I may be showing my ignorance here, and I do take occasional trips to the boonies just to get away from this kind of stuff, but what did I miss? :confused:

JS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html

BTW, if you lean left, your expected to dismiss this with the belief that because it was identified prior to our military action, it doesn’t matter.

Easy enough to get on board now.

JS
11-23-2008, 08:44 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html

BTW, if you lean left, your expected to dismiss this with the belief that because it was identified prior to our military action, it doesn’t matter.

Easy enough to get on board now.

From the FOX NEWS story:


While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.This has been discussed before. As I asked earlier, if President Bush considered this a WMD, why has he not been shouting it out from the highest hill in his attempts to defend his position on the Iraq war??

I believed what Bush told us prior to the invasion. I reluctantly supported his decision and was fearful our troops would be wading into a chemical cloud. Didn't happen. Even he says he was duped by the intelligence he received. (well, maybe not in those exact words)

JS

subroc
11-23-2008, 08:54 PM
Does that mean you are on board? Issue dismissed?

How about the chemical weapons that were found?

You can dismiss those as well.

JS
11-23-2008, 09:16 PM
Does that mean you are on board? Issue dismissed?

How about the chemical weapons that were found?

You can dismiss those as well.

Don't know exactly what you mean by "on board".

IMO, when the material was discovered is irrelevant.

Bush said we would find weapons of mass destruction. Per the FOX NEWS article, "yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called dirty bomb". It is not a weapon and I think the president agrees or he would have been saying, "see! I told you so! I told you so!".

The people were told the threat was imminent. It was not and the president has acknowledged that, saying the intelligence he got was faulty. He then began to justify the war on other points.

He's not using WMDs to justify the war. Why are you guys still doing it?

JS

subroc
11-23-2008, 09:22 PM
You asked, I gave you the info, and it is apparently unimportant to you.

Issue dismissed!

No longer relevent...

JS
11-23-2008, 09:35 PM
You asked, I gave you the info, and it is apparently unimportant to you.

Issue dismissed!

No longer relevent...

Seriously, I'm not sure what you're getting at. :)

I asked if President Bush had ever declared that we did in fact find WMDs in Iraq. Serious question ... I may have missed it.

You replied with a link to a Fox News story. I have read it twice and see no mention of such a declaration by the president.

What info did you give me that "is apparently unimportant"?

JS

subroc
11-23-2008, 09:43 PM
I posted about WMD

You asked a question about it

I posted a link

You highlighted that it had been discussed before.

I asked if you had dismissed the issue and identified that chemical weapons had been found.

You appear to want to kick the dead dog.

I'm out.....

YardleyLabs
11-23-2008, 09:50 PM
The stockpiles of yellow cake were fully known and under active supervision by UN teams. They were never part of the justification for the invasion and would never have warranted an invasion. It is quite apparent that the administration wanted a war for its own political purposes and viewed every event leading up to the war only in terms of its value in convincing the American public to go along. You now what they say, you can put lipstick on a pig but....

subroc
11-23-2008, 09:52 PM
...It is quite apparent that the administration wanted a war for its own political purposes and viewed every event leading up to the war only in terms of its value in convincing the American public to go along...

Keep believing that.

YardleyLabs
11-23-2008, 09:54 PM
Keep believing that.

I will, thank you.;-)

subroc
11-23-2008, 09:56 PM
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Marvin S
11-23-2008, 10:11 PM
The stockpiles of yellow cake were fully known and under active supervision by UN teams. They were never part of the justification for the invasion and would never have warranted an invasion. It is quite apparent that the administration wanted a war for its own political purposes and viewed every event leading up to the war only in terms of its value in convincing the American public to go along. You now what they say, you can put lipstick on a pig but....

Did you by chance watch "60 Minutes" this evening? I'll let you draw your own conclusion, I have already drawn mine about allowing really bad people to have access to anything potentially dangerous.

JDogger
11-23-2008, 11:37 PM
I'll let you draw your own conclusion, I have already drawn mine about allowing really bad people to have access to anything potentially dangerous.

Gee Marvin, since this thread has already wandered.

Does that mean you don't believe EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, under the provisions of the 2nd amendment, should have access to AR's and AK's for whatever personal use they deem neccesary?

Or... is it just us, who believe we know what we're doing, who's need is more neccesary, that should be allowed to possess such weapons?

I'll try to make this really clear, since it has been pointed out to me recently that I may make my arguments somewhat obliquely.

Who gets to say what firearms I may or may not possess as an individual...and what weapons a country may or may not possess in their perceived national interest?

Can we really have it both ways?

Is the right to keep and bear arms strictly an American right?

JD

Franco
11-24-2008, 10:36 AM
Dang you Booty. I sure hope you're not getting that information from Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly! You've gone and made me post this article that I read in the Economist, against my better judgement. I declined starting a thread about it earlier today - I thought it would be too controversial in a place like RTF, but the persistent knocking of Obama supporter's mental capacity requires a correcting of the record. Here is a quote from the article:





ENJOY!

I don't need a poll to justify my instincts. If all the voters were required to pass a Civics test before they voted, McCain would have won. Yes, Obama received votes from many with formal eductions. However, formal eductions doesn't mean a passing grade in common sense nor does a formal eduction mean one can see through all the media hype.

JS
11-24-2008, 11:09 AM
I don't need a poll to justify my instincts. If all the voters were required to pass a Civics test before they voted, McCain would have won. Yes, Obama received votes from many with formal eductions. However, formal eductions doesn't mean a passing grade in common sense nor does a formal eduction mean one can see through all the media hype.

If that test were to include spelling and grammar ... (proper use of the English language we all hold so dear) ... I would guess the majority on this board would not have been allowed to vote and Obama's margin would have been even larger. :razz:

JS

Marvin S
11-24-2008, 11:31 AM
Does that mean you don't believe EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, under the provisions of the 2nd amendment, should have access to AR's and AK's for whatever personal use they deem neccesary?

I have no issue with properly vetting someone who wants to own a firearm.

BTW - necessary is spelled with 1 c, 2 s's.


I'll try to make this really clear, since it has been pointed out to me recently that I may make my arguments somewhat obliquely.

Who gets to say what firearms I may or may not possess as an individual...and what weapons a country may or may not possess in their perceived national interest?

You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.


Is the right to keep and bear arms strictly an American right? JD

Were it a right in many country's for the populace to be allowed weapons there would be much less cruelty in the world today. IMO

Hew
11-24-2008, 11:39 AM
Don't know exactly what you mean by "on board".

IMO, when the material was discovered is irrelevant.

Bush said we would find weapons of mass destruction. Per the FOX NEWS article, "yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called dirty bomb". It is not a weapon and I think the president agrees or he would have been saying, "see! I told you so! I told you so!".

The people were told the threat was imminent. It was not and the president has acknowledged that, saying the intelligence he got was faulty. He then began to justify the war on other points.

He's not using WMDs to justify the war. Why are you guys still doing it?

JS
Yeah...not so much. Here's what Bush said in his State of the Union right before the war:



Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
Does Iraq now have WMDs or the capacity, ability, or desire to make them, buy them or sell them? No. Wasn't that the desired end game with respect to Iraq and WMDs?

JDogger
11-24-2008, 01:01 PM
I have no issue with properly vetting someone who wants to own a firearm.

BTW - necessary is spelled with 1 c, 2 s's.



You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.



Were it a right in many country's for the populace to be allowed weapons there would be much less cruelty in the world today. IMO

Forgive my spelling Marvin. Forgive me also for forgetting that 'Marvin Knows Best'. For individuals and countries alike.

JD

Marvin S
11-24-2008, 01:42 PM
Forgive me also for forgetting that 'Marvin Knows Best'. For individuals and countries alike. JD

:) :) :) You guys make me laugh :D :D. Can't admit you lost the war of posts so now have to make an attempt at being personal. Did you miss IMO (means in my opinion)? But it's nice to know you are out there unable to combat a little bit of logic with your teleprompter responses. Please, keep it coming!!

JDogger
11-24-2008, 10:10 PM
:) :) You guys make me laugh :D :D. Can't admit you lost the war of posts so now have to make an attempt at being personal. Did you miss IMO (means in my opinion)? But it's nice to know you are out there unable to combat a little bit of logic with your teleprompter responses. Please, keep it coming!!
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/love/love0030.gifOh Marvin, Bapu, worshipper of smilies and winner of War of posts...

Don't you know?... I was just pokin' at you a little. http://discussion.treocentral.com/images/smilies/poke.gif

Where's that high-brow, psuedo-intellectual sense of humor hiding? Behind a little bit of logic?

Where's my 'Lighten up Francis' smilie when I need it?

JD

Joe S.
11-26-2008, 07:42 AM
Did you by chance watch "60 Minutes" this evening? I'll let you draw your own conclusion, I have already drawn mine about allowing really bad people to have access to anything potentially dangerous.


You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.


Marv:

1. Define who the "really bad people" are and how you reached that decision.

2. Identify who decides another nation-state is "really bad" and how and why they get to decide another nation-state is "really bad."

3. If Venezuela starts building nuclear power plants with the help of Russia, are the "really bad people" gaining access to "anything potentially dangerous?" If so, how would you stop that specific nation-state from building a nuclear power plant?

It's Always Easier On Paper Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
11-26-2008, 10:42 PM
Marv:

1. Define who the "really bad people" are and how you reached that decision.

2. Identify who decides another nation-state is "really bad" and how and why they get to decide another nation-state is "really bad."

3. If Venezuela starts building nuclear power plants with the help of Russia, are the "really bad people" gaining access to "anything potentially dangerous?" If so, how would you stop that specific nation-state from building a nuclear power plant?

It's Always Easier On Paper Regards,

Joe S.


1) If they are backed by radical muslims they are prolly bad.

2) Korea and Iran...they nations that have the most to lose or suffer damage.

3) Yep