Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***TheTeddyBear*** · 02-08-2016, 07:57 PM

***Warlord*** · 02-08-2016, 08:38 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2..._2013.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...n-my-side/

I'll take Cruz's voting record, and the word of Jeff Sessions, Steve King, and Mike Lee over that of Faux News any day.

You'd think with the advent of the internet, low-information voters would be able to better educate themselves on the politics of the day. Sadly, it is completely the opposite.

Sadly, a five minute sound-byte selectively edited by the driveby media is more than enough to convince voters they know everything they need to know, no further research needed.

***salvador*** · 02-08-2016, 10:21 PM

Warlord,

I find it almost amazing that you could read the list of basic things that I want out of our govt and believe that I would be better suited as a democrat. I would think that someone like myself, who has been so explicit about where I would cut spending and so adamant that it was my primary reason for voting, would be more than welcomed into the republican party regardless of social issues.

It makes me think that you believe the republican party values something above fiscal conservatism.

Do you think that?

Do you really think that someone who is obsessed with cutting spending would be unwelcome in the republican party?

I ask this because I spent a year of my life in a family situation where I endured O'Reilly 3-4 times a week. I noticed that he called himself a conservative but he spent most of his time on the cultural warrior stuff and he rarely (if ever) got angry and animated about cutting medicare. I always assumed that was just good business. He didn't want to alienate his elderly viewers, who were the majority of his audience.

Is all of republican talk radio like that? My assumption has always been that the business of republican talk radio required that the host didn't harp on cutting entitlements too much because the listeners tend to be 55+. Better to focus on god and values and the military and all the "idiots/pinheads" on the other side. Is that a correct assumption?

Would most Hugh Hewitt listeners be mad as hell about the lack of medicare cuts? Because I assume they'd be at least as angry about getting rid of "Merry Christmas" in schools in favor of "Happy Holidays". Am I wrong?

Regarding my liberal arts credentials that you find so silly, I also have an MBA and a CFA. Not that it matters. Just google "unfunded entitlement liabilities" to figure out where it should be on any republican agenda.

I'm serious about wanting your views on talk radio. Because I get the feeling that it's mostly "us and them", which is the stereotype. And I feel that you seem to believe that the worst thing you can call me is a "liberal", which seems like the kind of thing you would learn on talk radio.

***Spyder*** · 02-09-2016, 12:39 AM

Talk radio shows almost never talk about God or values. Hannity might be the only one that I can think of that ever does. Most talk radio shows comment on current events. Things that are said and how people react to them. A lot of speculation for the causes of those reactions, and what they really mean based off of what was said. Thoughts about the goals of each party, and the people in them. Not a lot of bashing of the other guys, unless you consider shining a light on veiled motives as bashing. Most of the bashing is self-hate of the GOP elected officials that say things or pass things counter to the conservative principles that they were elected on.

That's at least characteristic of the right wing shows that I hear. NPR is constant, soft spoken smug. Enough to make you fall asleep at the wheel and crash your car. I don't advise anyone try to listen to that while operating a moving vehicle.

***salvador*** · (This post was last modified: 02-09-2016 10:53 AM by salvador.)

(02-09-2016 12:39 AM)Spyder Wrote: Talk radio shows almost never talk about God or values. Hannity might be the only one that I can think of that ever does.

Below is an article from US News and World Report about Cruz calling Glenn Beck in 2015 before running for president. Obviously Beck has endorsed Cruz and it's supposed to be a big deal. Here is the opening paragraph of the article. The prayer thing caught my eye:

Before Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, he first talked with Glenn Beck. “It was just a personal call, just a chat for a few minutes,” Beck told his radio audience on Monday, “and we talked about the importance of prayer.” But the content of their conversation was far less important than the fact of it. Cruz understood that before vying for the Republican nomination, he had to shore up his media base.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nico...-influence

***Spyder*** · 02-09-2016, 04:51 PM

(02-09-2016 10:46 AM)salvador Wrote: Below is an article from US News and World Report about Cruz calling Glenn Beck in 2015 before running for president. Obviously Beck has endorsed Cruz and it's supposed to be a big deal. Here is the opening paragraph of the article. The prayer thing caught my eye:

Before Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, he first talked with Glenn Beck. “It was just a personal call, just a chat for a few minutes,” Beck told his radio audience on Monday, “and we talked about the importance of prayer.” But the content of their conversation was far less important than the fact of it. Cruz understood that before vying for the Republican nomination, he had to shore up his media base.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nico...-influence

Oh yeah, I forgot about Beck. His show is almost more church sermon than political these days. He actually used to be very good when he was local in my market, with limited syndication. Now he's like someone gave Joel Osteen a morning show.

***Warlord*** · 02-10-2016, 03:03 PM

(02-08-2016 10:21 PM)salvador Wrote: Warlord,

I find it almost amazing that you could read the list of basic things that I want out of our govt and believe that I would be better suited as a democrat. I would think that someone like myself, who has been so explicit about where I would cut spending and so adamant that it was my primary reason for voting, would be more than welcomed into the republican party regardless of social issues.

It makes me think that you believe the republican party values something above fiscal conservatism.

Do you think that?

Do you really think that someone who is obsessed with cutting spending would be unwelcome in the republican party?

No, and you're free to choose whatever party you want. I would however like you to clarify a few points for me.

1) What democrat now, or in the past, ran on a platform of fiscal irresponsibility and rampant government waste? Both sides have ran on fixing the budget for YEARS. Neither have done it. So why go Republican when...

2) The great bulk of the Republican party is made up of people who disagree with you on nearly every social issue known to man!?

Every criticism you have of Republican candidates invariably, incessantly, and inevitably go back to what their positions are on social issues, not what their positions are on the more important issues of the economy, government largesse, and national security.

Not once have you ever intelligently spoken in detail about what you find wrong with their policies on those issues. It always goes back to "Derp, he's a dumb Christian and their stupid so he's automatically stupid too, so suck my dick!"

If you want a party that produces candidates who align with your social values then go vote Democrat. If you want to continue to go Republican, that's fine too, but please shut the fuck up with all the insults to Republican candidates who disagree with you on those social issues, especially when you criticize EVERYONE ELSE for caring about those issues.

Just stick to the issues you claim to care about (economy, government spending, national defense) and we'll all be fine and happy here in our own little BU utopia.

Quote:I ask this because I spent a year of my life in a family situation where I endured O'Reilly 3-4 times a week. I noticed that he called himself a conservative but he spent most of his time on the cultural warrior stuff and he rarely (if ever) got angry and animated about cutting medicare. I always assumed that was just good business. He didn't want to alienate his elderly viewers, who were the majority of his audience.

So you're angry at daddy and mommy. Grandma and grandpa, maybe? You kids have got to grow up. Go vote Bernie and get it over with, man. Your perception of conservatives is based on what you saw on the O'Reilly factor? Geez, man!

Quote:Is all of republican talk radio like that?

This is what I mean, man. You come at every issue from the left. "Derp, Christians are dumb... Fox News... bathe in a river... talk radio... derp!"

Quote:My assumption has always been that the business of republican talk radio required that the host didn't harp on cutting entitlements too much because the listeners tend to be 55+. Better to focus on god and values and the military and all the "idiots/pinheads" on the other side. Is that a correct assumption?

My advice. Don't make assumptions. Assumptions are for uninformed troglodytes. If you want to know what goes on in talk radio, go listen to talk radio. It's not fucking heroin.

Quote:I'm serious about wanting your views on talk radio. Because I get the feeling that it's mostly "us and them", which is the stereotype. And I feel that you seem to believe that the worst thing you can call me is a "liberal", which seems like the kind of thing you would learn on talk radio.

My view on talk radio? My view is that you should try it for yourself and then form an opinion, instead of forming an opinion without facts.

What I do find interesting is this running narrative you've built in your mind about talk radio somehow dividing people into an "us vs them" scenario, in typical liberal fashion, but fail to acknowledge (or perhaps even understand) that this is the way media is across the board.

If you really think there is one news source out there ANYWHERE that doesn't have an agenda, and presents news in a fashion to further that agenda, then you really need a reality check.

We're all doing the best we can, and we don't need a bunch of condescending, jumped-up, fucktard know-it-all windbags lording over us with their ignorant assumptions, sans facts, on the matters of the day. It gets really tiring having to listen to that shit.

***salvador*** · (This post was last modified: 02-11-2016 12:53 PM by salvador.)

The basic math of our economy is this: In spite of the fact that we have had unprecedented stimulus over the past 7 years in the form of 0% interest rates and we've bought $3TR+ of bonds (basically printing $3TR+ out of thin air) and we've run massive deficits, the current tax code is only expected to raise about $3.4TR this year. (God forbid we go into a recession.) This $3.4TR is still around $500BN short of a balanced budget and we have 11K baby boomers retiring every day. Depending on assumptions, the unfunded entitlement liabilities are between $40TR-$100TR. And that's in addition to the $18TR of federal debt outstanding. So common sense tells us that there is no conceivable way we can repay our obligations with "real" dollars as we know them today.

The government has two choices: inflate or die. And not only do we have to inflate, but we have to do it while convincing people that the inflation rate is minimal so that the bond market doesn't collapse. Tricky proposition. The only thing the government can do is at least PRETEND to try to be responsible with "the full faith and credit of the US govt" which is backing our paper money so the collapse/devaluation is semi-manageable. (And by "pretending" I mean making very real CUTS so SS, Medicare and our military as it's already too late to actually honor our debts with real dollars.)

I'm sure you are aware of all of this. The only reason I bring it up is because I believe the gravity of this problem dwarfs all the chickenshit social issues.

Republicans at least talk as if they are fiscally conservative whereas the dems don't. That is why I vote republican - that tiny sliver of hope, but it is always massively disappointing and if Bloomberg is a real fiscal conservative I'll be thrilled to vote for him.

I brought up O'Reilly because I believe he is one of the most successful radio talk show hosts (or was) and I assume his message is the basic template for success. In my opinion, his brand of conservatism is light on medicare reform, which I believe has to be the core of any real conservative's agenda. I think it's a fair question to ask if that is standard for other "conservative" talk radio hosts. Because it seems that the radio guys have a huge amount of influence in the party and for some reason none of the candidates outside of Paul seem to care about the elephant in the room. I'm wondering if there is a connection.

You obviously care much more about the social issues than I do and that's fine. But to think that that is some kind of reason for someone who doesn't give a fuck about them to abandon the only hope of a party having fiscal restraint is totally depressing.

Anyway, you are right. This is tedious and a waste of time for both of us.

***Warlord*** · 02-12-2016, 02:00 PM

(02-10-2016 07:23 PM)salvador Wrote: The basic math of our economy is this: In spite of the fact that we have had unprecedented stimulus over the past 7 years in the form of 0% interest rates and we've bought $3TR+ of bonds (basically printing $3TR+ out of thin air) and we've run massive deficits, the current tax code is only expected to raise about $3.4TR this year. (God forbid we go into a recession.) This $3.4TR is still around $500BN short of a balanced budget and we have 11K baby boomers retiring every day. Depending on assumptions, the unfunded entitlement liabilities are between $40TR-$100TR. And that's in addition to the $18TR of federal debt outstanding. So common sense tells us that there is no conceivable way we can repay our obligations with "real" dollars as we know them today.

The government has two choices: inflate or die. And not only do we have to inflate, but we have to do it while convincing people that the inflation rate is minimal so that the bond market doesn't collapse. Tricky proposition. The only thing the government can do is at least PRETEND to try to be responsible with "the full faith and credit of the US govt" which is backing our paper money so the collapse/devaluation is semi-manageable. (And by "pretending" I mean making very real CUTS so SS, Medicare and our military as it's already too late to actually honor our debts with real dollars.)

I'm sure you are aware of all of this. The only reason I bring it up is because I believe the gravity of this problem dwarfs all the chickenshit social issues.

Republicans at least talk as if they are fiscally conservative whereas the dems don't. That is why I vote republican - that tiny sliver of hope, but it is always massively disappointing and if Bloomberg is a real fiscal conservative I'll be thrilled to vote for him.

Which candidate, in your opinion, has put forth the best plan for getting spending under control, reducing the deficit, and eliminating wasteful spending? By plan, I mean policy, not rhetoric.

Quote:I brought up O'Reilly because I believe he is one of the most successful radio talk show hosts (or was) and I assume his message is the basic template for success. In my opinion, his brand of conservatism is light on medicare reform, which I believe has to be the core of any real conservative's agenda. I think it's a fair question to ask if that is standard for other "conservative" talk radio hosts. Because it seems that the radio guys have a huge amount of influence in the party and for some reason none of the candidates outside of Paul seem to care about the elephant in the room. I'm wondering if there is a connection.

Again, I'd recommend having a listen if you want questions answered about the content of talk radio.

I'd also like you to point out which medium of news you think offers unbiased, unfiltered news that is not, nor is it intended to be, influential on the consumer. And tell us all which news mediums and providers are acceptable, in your expert opinion.

Quote:You obviously care much more about the social issues than I do and that's fine.

I care about social issues so much that I have never once ventured to offer my opinion up on them except when asked to do so.

I care so much about social issues that I have repeatedly said I don't care what the laws are on sex, drugs, abortion, marriage, etc... as long as it is a law voted on by the state and not the federal government.

I care so much about social issues that I neither support nor stop supporting a candidate based on what their views are on those social issues.

You, on the other hand, feel an overwhelming need to prove how little you care about social issues... by talking almost exclusively about social issues.

You care so little about social issues that you openly admit you support the federal government wiping its ass with the constitution and trouncing states' rights as long as it is pushing the social issues you (supposedly don't) care about.

You care so little about social issues that your sole beef with a Republican candidate is that (you feel!) he's a slimy Jesus freak who's too socially conservative for your tastes, because you think conservatives should be raging liberals in every aspect but the "budget", even though those two positions are necessarily opposed to one another.

Quote:But to think that that is some kind of reason for someone who doesn't give a fuck about them to abandon the only hope of a party having fiscal restraint is totally depressing.

I'm not asking you to give up being a Republican. We need every vote we can get, even your kind. I'm just pointing out that one of the reasons you might be such a nasty little tit is because you're aligned with a party that goes against everything you believe in.

Quote:Anyway, you are right. This is tedious and a waste of time for both of us.

Good. You're halfway there. If you ever grow up and manage to cross over and become a full-blown conservative, we'll welcome you with open arms.

You gotta appreciate Cruz's ads. Better than most of the drivel these scummy politicians put out.

***salvador*** · 02-12-2016, 07:13 PM

There aren't any candidates in either party who have put forward a serious budget plan and it's embarrassing for American democracy.

Kasich keeps saying that he is putting together a plan that will be unpopular that will deal with entitlements but I'll believe it when I see it.

We've had a ton of republican debates and heard virtually nothing about the economy or entitlement reform. Completely incredible. All the journalists who keep apologizing for not being more rigorous in asking questions leading up to the Iraq war are once again allowing a catastrophe to happen. I assume they aren't asking the tough questions because they don't want to jeopardize their access to the candidates. I can't think of another possible reason. Shameful/treasonous.

If I was in charge of the republican party, each of the following issues would have an entire debate:
--entitlement reform
--the budget in context of the boomers' retirement
--foreign policy and America's place in the world, including the size and cost of our military
--tax reform
--the effects of globalization and technology on the shrinking middle class and what policies we can put in place for America to become more competitive
--Immigration

Instead we are making it all about personality, like we always do.

I don't hate Cruz because he's a jesus freak, I hate him because he's a phony and he is intentionally polarizing, which makes him unelectable in a general election. And I think the reason so many establishment people hate him is because if he's the nominee a ton of the undercard republican candidates are going to lose as a consequence.

The reason I believe you are so focused on social issues is because most of your insults (and virtually every post you've made since the Israel discussion has been filled with them) have revolved around butt sex, atheism, and the use of the word "liberal" as a curse word. Those are your go-to insults with a few "retards" in there for decoration. And you seem to believe the republican party is grounded primarily in "conservative values" and that fiscal prudence is just one of those values.

The internet is the best place for unfiltered truth in politics. The main reason I like this thread is because Cane posts some interesting/subversive/borderline wack-job stuff here that I would never come across on my own. The reason I'm interested in republican talk radio is because it seems to have such a huge impact on modern republican politics and I feel there is an entire angry movement that I'm missing that, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be angry about the entitlement crisis we will all end up suffering through.