"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...

P.S., Do YOU really feel comfortable taking part in this kind of pep
rally argumentation?


I've never been to a pep rally that contained "argumentation," and I
don't feel comfortable at all with mixed metaphors. Otherwise, I'm
uncomfortable only to the extent the discussion is basically OT for
the group (assuming there is such a thing). I'm not uncomfortable at
all with letting you exhibit your own quirky brand of elitism. In
fact, I only regret that I can't see your face to see if you're really
serious.

In article
,
Leonard Martin wrote:

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote:



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ed/articles/20
0
4
/03/30/lib
eral_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/



The upshot of this article, shorn of all it's chest-beating in
favor
of
right-wing concepts, is that AM talk radio has the ears of
ignorant
people, there are far more ignorant people in America than
educated
ones, therefore liberal AM talk won't work.

Can't argue with that.

And to think, some of these right-wing ninnies actually see
liberals
as arrogant, condescending, and overly impressed with their own
intelligence. How far off-base can you be!


And lots of right-wingers think they're "the real people" simply
because
they don't know much about much of anything. At least us snooty
liberals
generally have sizeable collections of facts and ideas at our
disposal!


If only you'd put those collections on exhibit once in a while.

Your last two posts are Exhibits A & B in why the left has so much
trouble winning elections in this country despite being
disproportionately represented in dominant media outlets. Those
great unwashed you sneer at are smart enough to realize what you
really think of them.



It has always been thus. In society there's always a conservative
peasantry--sticking religiously to the most ancient and outdated
ideas, taking them all en masse without critical examination--, and
an educated avant garde who's members are willing to think new ideas
and try new things, which is a necessary preparation for meeting
changed conditions.

Example: tradiitional Islamistist CANNOT be induced to treat women
like people, no matter how hard some of their leaders try to make
them do so.

Our right-wing commentators know how to restate the unexamined
traditional ideas, essentially YELLING them back at the great
unwashed over and over again (which yelling the G. U. take as a valid
form of argument), and thereby give the G. U. the erroneous
impression that those ideas have been carefully examined and endorsed
by a true thinker. This gives the listeners a temporary sense of
security about things they'ed been growing a little uncertain about
because they've heard their society's true thinkers calling them into
question.

Example: The ridiculous idea, clung to by some of our more benighted
G. U., that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago.

I don't see how it's possible not to have contempt for this process,
or for its practitioners or consumers.

You are a real left wing looney.

Liberals used to own all radio along with the other mass media. AM had
liberal hosts that were for the older group and FM between playing
records was liberal talk for the younger set. Listening to the same
ideological crap got old real fast along with the hosts shouting and
cutting off anyone that disagreed with them. They all sounded like a
liberal version of Mike Savage having his worst day.

I always had a hard time deciding what I liked least about the "liberal
talk" radio. Was it that they treated anyone who thought differently
like crap or was it the indefensible positions they would take and
miserably defend. If they didn't kick people off that disagreed with
them quickly the host soon found himself defeated in the debate of
ideas so I guess it was all they could do.

This is not to mention most of the rest of the mass media today with
their liberal bias. There certainly is no shortage of liberal views
there.

Liberal talk radio died everywhere except San Francisco and for the
same reason communism died. They have unworkable ideas.

It's obvious you are a "real thinker."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Subject: Boston Globe Op-Ed on Liberal Talk Radio
From: Telamon lid
Date: 4/7/2004 1:58 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article
,
Leonard Martin wrote:

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote:



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ed/articles/20
0
4
/03/30/lib
eral_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/



The upshot of this article, shorn of all it's chest-beating in
favor
of
right-wing concepts, is that AM talk radio has the ears of
ignorant
people, there are far more ignorant people in America than
educated
ones, therefore liberal AM talk won't work.

Can't argue with that.

And to think, some of these right-wing ninnies actually see
liberals
as arrogant, condescending, and overly impressed with their own
intelligence. How far off-base can you be!


And lots of right-wingers think they're "the real people" simply
because
they don't know much about much of anything. At least us snooty
liberals
generally have sizeable collections of facts and ideas at our
disposal!


If only you'd put those collections on exhibit once in a while.

Your last two posts are Exhibits A & B in why the left has so much
trouble winning elections in this country despite being
disproportionately represented in dominant media outlets. Those
great unwashed you sneer at are smart enough to realize what you
really think of them.



It has always been thus. In society there's always a conservative
peasantry--sticking religiously to the most ancient and outdated
ideas, taking them all en masse without critical examination--, and
an educated avant garde who's members are willing to think new ideas
and try new things, which is a necessary preparation for meeting
changed conditions.

Example: tradiitional Islamistist CANNOT be induced to treat women
like people, no matter how hard some of their leaders try to make
them do so.

Our right-wing commentators know how to restate the unexamined
traditional ideas, essentially YELLING them back at the great
unwashed over and over again (which yelling the G. U. take as a valid
form of argument), and thereby give the G. U. the erroneous
impression that those ideas have been carefully examined and endorsed
by a true thinker. This gives the listeners a temporary sense of
security about things they'ed been growing a little uncertain about
because they've heard their society's true thinkers calling them into
question.

Example: The ridiculous idea, clung to by some of our more benighted
G. U., that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago.

I don't see how it's possible not to have contempt for this process,
or for its practitioners or consumers.

You are a real left wing looney.

Liberals used to own all radio along with the other mass media. AM had
liberal hosts that were for the older group and FM between playing
records was liberal talk for the younger set. Listening to the same
ideological crap got old real fast along with the hosts shouting and
cutting off anyone that disagreed with them. They all sounded like a
liberal version of Mike Savage having his worst day.

I always had a hard time deciding what I liked least about the "liberal
talk" radio. Was it that they treated anyone who thought differently
like crap or was it the indefensible positions they would take and
miserably defend. If they didn't kick people off that disagreed with
them quickly the host soon found himself defeated in the debate of
ideas so I guess it was all they could do.

This is not to mention most of the rest of the mass media today with
their liberal bias. There certainly is no shortage of liberal views
there.

Liberal talk radio died everywhere except San Francisco and for the
same reason communism died. They have unworkable ideas.

It's obvious you are a "real thinker."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California



"I always had a hard time deciding what I liked least about the "liberal
talk" radio. Was it that they treated anyone who thought differently
like crap or was it the indefensible positions they would take and
miserably defend. If they didn't kick people off that disagreed with
them quickly the host soon found himself defeated in the debate of
ideas so I guess it was all they could do."

Sounds just like Rush Limbaugh to me!

Les

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

You are a real left wing looney.


The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted
in fear and insecurity.

"B Banton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

You are a real left wing looney.


The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is
rooted
in fear and insecurity.

I love the smell of a good over-generalization in the morning.
Please distinguish between this alleged "fear and stupidity" and that
exhibited by the poster to whom he was replying--assuming you bothered
to read it.

"B Banton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

You are a real left wing looney.


The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted
in fear and insecurity.

Your stupidity is rooted in your brain. And yes, you are a loon.

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote:


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...les/2004/03/30
/lib
eral_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/



The upshot of this article, shorn of all it's chest-beating in favor of
right-wing concepts, is that AM talk radio has the ears of ignorant
people, there are far more ignorant people in America than educated
ones, therefore liberal AM talk won't work.


The article doesn't say the conservative audience is less educated than the
liberal audience. Check it out:

"But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is
audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue
(Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know,
essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience
is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue
(potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this
difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting
booth."

In fact, the article says about the audiences:

(Bush), college educated

(Gore), less well educated

Perhaps the author might have been clearer if he had used Blue for True Blue
Americans and Red for Commie Simp Pinkos.


Can't argue with that.

Leonard


Frank Dresser

Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston
Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total
misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started
this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article
in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative
but he characterized the blue electorate as more
educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known
that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy,
but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with
characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs,
and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer.

Oz


Frank Dresser wrote:

The article doesn't say the conservative audience is less educated than the
liberal audience. Check it out:

"But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is
audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue
(Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know,
essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience
is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue
(potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this
difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting
booth."

In fact, the article says about the audiences:

(Bush), college educated

(Gore), less well educated

Perhaps the author might have been clearer if he had used Blue for True Blue
Americans and Red for Commie Simp Pinkos.



Can't argue with that.

Leonard



Frank Dresser

Larry Ozarow wrote:

characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs,
^^^^^^
Oops, I meant "snobs" not "slobs." Must be one of them
Freudian slips.

and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer.

Oz

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...
Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston
Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total
misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started
this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article
in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative
but he characterized the blue electorate as more
educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known
that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy,
but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with
characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs,
and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer.

Oz



Any generalization about liberals, or any group, will probably be unfair.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to counter one unfair generalization
with another unfair generalization in an discussion. Everyone gets a fair
chance to clarify their points.

And as far as the analysis of education and politics -- I don't know how
much can be made of it. It might be true that liberals(or democrats) have
more formal education than conservatives(or republicans), but so what? My
formal education ended when I dropped out of a junior college trade school.
I'm capable of learning independently, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I
don't consider myself anyone's fool. And I haven't seen any proof that
formal education is immunization from foolishness.

Frank Dresser