Any Tom Leykis Listeners Out There??

[uavchaser]

i keep having that "meow meow meow meow" song in my head every time I come back to this thread to read this off topic bs. I'm in graduate school of Leykis 101 now Hugh, i'll always be dilligently studying the fine art kicking beotches to the curb, hey I just did last night, look at that.

 

[bart]

Yo Zapata, check this out:

1. Congressional elections were held in 2002 and were a sweeping victory for conservatives. The courts were mute because the Democrats did not attempt to selectively count votes. The judiciary stepped in in 2000 because one side wanted only to recount votes in selected districts rather than in the whole state.

2. Who mentioned George Bush? His foreign policy is excellent, but he is a big government, big spending liberal elsewhere.

3. The hosts that are patsys are the hosts at NPR. Do you think they would have a job for one second if they were anything but left wing reactionaries? If the views of the left wing were so popular, they would have talk shows that were economically viable due to the following:

Popular Content = Large Audiences = Higher Advertising Revenues

The NPR model is as follows:

Unpopular Content = Small Audiences = Must take money from people by force

Unlike the NPR, conservative talk radio hosts aren't using government power to forcibly take my money and support their agenda. They then proclaim that their viewpoints are important and not well understood by the un-educated masses - creating the self-important, elitist viewpoint that most of their listeners have.

NPR in the end is just another Government jobs program - only the no-talent bums that hold the jobs have advanced degrees.

 

[Typhoon1244]

NPR is a collection of the most anti-American, liberal losers the free world has ever known, not counting the BBC.

Spoken like a man who's never actually listened to either.

I still haven't figured out how not believing every single thing that dribbles out of George W.'s mouth makes you an "anti-American liberal loser."

 

[bart]

Typhoon...

I have listened extensively to both NPR and the BBC (both segments on other networks and their Int'l shortwave broadcasts).

I hold my opinion from listening to them both. Their liberal bias has been researched and published (www.mediaresearch.org, www.eagleforum.org, and accuracy in media). The fact that the journalists in the national media are dominantly Liberal is really beyond serious question. Evidence was clear as far back as 1981 when the S. R. Lichter and Stanley Rothman queried 240 journalists working for the national media and found that 81% percent voted for the Democratic candidate for president for every election from 1964 to 1972. More recently, Thomas Edsall, political reporter for the Washington Post cites 2001 Kaiser/Public Perspective survey that, ``only a tiny fraction of the media identifies itself as Republican (4%) or Conservative (6%). This is in direct contrast to the public, which identifies itself as 24% Republican and 35% Conservative...''

As for George W, I did not bring him up. You and Zapata did.

Please point out where I stated I believe everything he says.

 

[Typhoon1244]

As a card carrying member of the so-called "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy..."

This is what caught my eye...any credibility you might have had with me was lost with this statement. I'm frightened by anyone who aligns themselves solely with the beliefs of one Party. Life is not, and never will be, that simple.

Something's happening to me as I grow older. I used to think Republicans were heartless as_holes and the Democrats would eventually save the day. But recent events (9/11, Iraq, etc.) have made me realize that the Democrats are, well, morons. Wonderful. Thanks to the simple-minded, all-or-nothing nature of our current political system, I have to choose between as_holes and morons.

Political discussions on this forum give me a headache...I'm going to look for aitplane stuff...

 

[VivaZapata]

Yo, bart,

"Popular Content = Large Audiences = Higher Advertising Revenues"

The same argument can be made for Big Macs and the National Enquirer. Your reasoning does not give your points any merit.

Your links are to right leaning organizations, hardly objective sources, especially eagleforum....I don't buy it.

NPR and Public television are PARTLY (mostly listener supported) funded by the ("elected") gov't because people realize that to maintain integrity and objectivity, there needs to exist broadcast mediums that are relatively free of commercial influence or profit motive.

You may have listened "extensively" to NPR and BBC yet you obviously filter the content with your preconceived notions. To simplistically lump all of the professional staff at NPR as "left wing reactionaries" and "no talent bums" is abject nonsense.

 

[Huck]

I listen to Limbaugh. I listen to NPR. I can actually enjoy listening to people that don't hold the same views as mine. It's like watching TV when you're overseas. Yeah, CNN is there, but don't you want to hear other opinions once in awhile? (And some of those BBC girls are hotties, at least the weather ones....)

 

[gallileo]

- Go get em Zapata.-

The rantings of Rabid conservatives hurt my head.

by the way. Did the pennacilin work?

 

[Helos2Galaxy]

They took Tom off the Ny airways a few months ago