However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Because the nazis were the first to spread propaganda via cheap radios in every German home, and conservative talk radio is wildly popular today, it is obviously nazism!
"Unlike the left, the Right uses 'controversy' and spreads 'propaganda' disguised as 'entertainment'. Don't you FOOLS get it? Glenn Beck and these other radio hosts are being PAID for their WORK!"
Ha ha ha.


So the argument went right over your head, no surprise there. What triggered your brain malfunction this time, was it the facts or the use of Glenn Becks own words against him?

"Because the nazis were the first to spread propaganda via cheap radios in every German home, and conservative talk radio is wildly popular today, it is obviously nazism!

"Unlike the left, the Right uses 'controversy' and spreads 'propaganda' disguised as 'entertainment'. Don't you FOOLS get it? Glenn Beck and these other radio hosts are being PAID for their WORK!"

Ha ha ha.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The function of over-the-top personalities like Coulter and Limbaugh is to make the slightly less over-the-top rhetoric of FOX seem more objective and reasonable. I wonder if liberals would do better if they had their own Coulters, Becks and Limbaughs? Probably not. Air America (a liberal analog to right wing talk radio) did not attract enough liberal listeners to stay afloat. As phony as Air America was, it didn't approach the level of dishonesty you find in right wing talk radio or on FOX news. I think liberals prefer more intellectual sources of information, like NPR, PBS and print media.


Air America sucked because it just wasn't funny or fun to listen to. No Rush Limbaugh isn't that funny really...he's more annoying. Sean Hannity though...he's damn good at what he does and he's funny, I could have a genuine funny conversation with him without stabbing him in the eyes. I tried with Air America...Liberals aren't funny when they're scolding people.

The function of over-the-top personalities like Coulter and Limbaugh is to make the slightly less over-the-top rhetoric of FOX seem more objective and reasonable. I wonder if liberals would do better if they had their own Coulters, Becks and Limbaughs? Probably not. Air America (a liberal analog to right wing talk radio) did not attract enough liberal listeners to stay afloat. As phony as Air America was, it didn't approach the level of dishonesty you find in right wing talk radio or on FOX news. I think liberals prefer more intellectual sources of information, like NPR, PBS and print media.

If only this poor young man had access to FREE Obamacare he'd have gotten the help he needed!

Back to banning high-capacity magazines and talk radio...

I'm not so sure it's equal, but assigning blame isn't the most productive outcome here. Hopefully this event will moderate the rhetoric on all sides going forward.

I've seen both sides, and yes it is equal. There is a ton of left-wing hate speech that is never focused on by the media. The media CHOOSES not to focus on it, but it is still there - consistent and constant. Media tends to ignore sleaze which they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they're hypersensitive to sleaze they oppose. The media decided that "right wing hate" was to blame before the smoke even cleared and so that's how they're going to discuss the story despite the evidence piling up that the lunatic was a neolib nut.

I do not believe this event will moderate jack-diddly-squat-doodle in terms of political rhetoric because the blame game being played is not taking place with a neutral "let's all step back" attitude. The blame game is ideologically motivated, biased, slanted, one-sided, and taking place 100% from the perspective of "left is fine; right is evil..."

That sort of biased slant is not going to calm people down. It is make people who are conservative even more upset. Bill Clinton pulled the same stunt in 1995. The right mostly ignored it. But they piled on, and conservatives became associated with compounds and crazies as a media default. The right learned a lesson that they can't just ignore it when the political left in concert with a left-biased media manufactures a lie.

So when overnight there are literally dozens of hit peices blaming this tragedy on Palin, the Tea Party, and conservative talk radio? Well, naturally the right is going to respond. I very much doubt the two-way "yes you did - no we didn't" discourse is going to soften the rhetoric.

What WOULD calm people down is if the media and politicians stopped trying to cast this story in such a way as to blame only their opponents. I put the odds of that happening at just about 0%. The political world is addicted to slash and burn hostility, and the media can't stop itself from slanting the news to save its own life because that's just what they've done for decades and they don't even know how to just report without editorializing anymore.

Since this is a one sided account, given to a libertarian talk radio show, I'm gonna take it with a grain of salt.

That said, I'm sure the TSA massively overreacted to her being annoying, and I agree that no one should have to go through those "porno scanner" things. I also think these new rubdowns are just like she said -- they should just let sex offenders do them as community service.

I also think that the whole TSA exercise should be stopped. It has just gotten more and more invasive, despite the severe lack of evidence that it's been effective.

is it just me or is qm actually getting more and more shockingly offensive lately? this is the second thread i've read in 15 minutes where instead of just being a conservative talk radio troll, he actually said things so bigotted and offensive i felt like never ever turning my computer on again.

i think if 3/4 of the sift didnt have him on ignore we'd have a sift talk somewhere about whether or not we should ban him.

i'm going to walk away uncomfortably now with my jaw dropped on the floor.

I'm just wondering how this show does so well...

Probably a combination of market position and market demand. When the radio show began in the early 90s there was a total vaccuum of conservative commentary. The left wing dominated television commentary and the newspapers - and talk radio was a wasteland of local crap like "Cooking with Celeste", "Gardening with Bob" and similar blase' mediocrity.

So Rush comes on the scene as a conservative firebrand and it filled a huge market void. Most of the U.S. is conservative - not liberal. So conservative people were sick of hearing nothing but liberals talking at each other. Rush said the things they believed in and wanted to hear. Boom. Instant audience.

It established him as the first conservative talker in the market. That gives you brand awareness and top-of-mind. When people think 'conservative talk' they think "Rush Limbaugh".

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'm a big fan of obstructing communism and undermining "Progressivism".
taxocrats should go to Europe if they wish to be wards of the nanny state.


So were you born with your head up your ass..
or did you stumble upon free audio book lessons whilst listening to "conservative" talk radio?

How is providing care for hundreds of September 11th Rescuers and victims communist?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just an awful human.



p.s. - I seriously hope you get cancer. Painful, expensive, tediously protracted cancer.

I mean seriously, you literally snipped out the phrase "I'm sure there will be congressional oversight", and cut off the part where I said why I thought that

Sure. You said it, but have no proof it will happen so why belabor it? As with all piles of money in Washington, that 20 billion will get misappropriated and spent on unrelated crap with only token pennies on the dollar going to BP oil damages. Every citizen must view government as the ENEMY, because history proves that eventually it will be.

I know that leftists disagree with that stance... This poll proves only Democrat zombies are big gummint fanbois... Most other folks have a healthier point of view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/48_see_government_today_as_a_threat_to_individual_rights

There's part of your fever dream I agree with -- namely, the rich and the powerful never get held accountable for anything.

Agreed. Guys like Barney Frank should be penniless street bums in the stocks at town square instead of still being in charge of the committee he used to screw up the economy.

Free speech zones, dissent = sedition, opposition = traitors, with us or against us…

I am not a slave to a political ideology. I don’t apologize for people when they do the wrong things. So I I freely and openly condemn(ed) the tactics the GOP used during Bush to stifle dissent. Will you do the same? Do you condemn people like Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Olbermann, Madcow, and all the others on the left who routinely mock, belittle, and censor Tea Partiers, call people “Nazis”, and the “party of No” for no reason but to grease the skids of their agenda? Thankfully, I am not bound with such fetters. Boo - hiss to 'free speech zones' no matter what party is behind them.

We need the Fairness Doctrine, badly. The rightwing dominance of the media has had a disastrous effect on our country's welfare. Rupert Murdoch has done incalculable harm, just to make a buck.

No – we don’t need any government regulation of media. The marketplace of ideas is a grand collision – and viewpoints of all kinds are available everywhere without government interference. The Right may dominate talk radio, but the left dominates most other media with an iron fist. Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, PBS, tv shows, pop music, and the vast majority of news channels, newspapers, and internet blogs either tilt left or are outright left wing extremists.

So does your opinion of the “Fairness Doctrine” include forcing all these left wing radicals to give conservative views ‘equal time’ in all media venues? Or do you only care about talk radio because it says things you don't like sometimes? See how your support of such a concept leads only to tyranny and abuse? The whole FD concept is an attempt by neolibs to break down one of the few areas where they don't dominate. Rather than cheer it on, it should totally creep you out and outrage you.

You righties always get your panties in a wad when you can't insult broad swaths of the population with derogatory racial and sexist remarks.

No – we get annoyed when sanctimonious lefties use political correctness to stifle dissent. I don’t insult minorities or make racist/sexist comments. And yet here you are, accusing me personally of being a racist and a sexist based on no evidence. Funny how you are using Political Correctness to stifle dissent, isn’t it? Gee – it’s almost like I was EXACTLY RIGHT! Thanks for proving my point. Sadly you aren't alone. This kind of crap is commonplace from the left on campuses, in public schools, on news, in the media, in entertainment, and in politics. Ried, Pelosi, and more commentators I can count have all used the same tactic. Shame on you all.

BP committed a crime, the kind of crime that they could (and probably will) try to weasel out of with legalities.

If they commit a crime, you take them to court. You don’t have the Executive Branch create a private slush fund. If they violated the law, then punish them with the law. Don’t make up crap from the Oval Office.

It looks like a dead forum. Only one topic has a comment. I get the feeling that talk radio listeners aren't savvy enough to surf the interwebs, or else they wouldn't be listening to such an primitive and outmoded form of media.

Cost him his job? That would make perfect grounds for a wrongful termination suit?

Also this would have been much better without the talk radio guys at the beginning and end.