A Complete Waste of Space

by David Brooks, in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opini ... ef=general


discuss?

I think it interesting that a man who has called for violence, albeit quietly, is now asking for civility.

Remember Rahm's statement, "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"? Oboy didn't say it but he didn't refute it nor distance himself from it. There were some other statements with respect to Hispanics that weren't exactly "civil". Would you classify Jeremiah Wright's sermons or Bill Ayer's past acts as "civil"? Would saying the Republican's "can sit in the back of the bus" be considered civil?

The current regime's "hue and cry for civility" may be an attempt to pave the way to shut down the "enemies of the left" with further implementation of the fairness doctrine they espouse. They are going to have a hard fight as it is advertising and rating that keeps those shows in business. I can think of no "liberal" radio show that can garner the kind of revenue that Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin, or any of the lesser right wing talking heads continue to produce. PBR is supported by the government, and it still lags way behind in ratings even with its leftward skew on things.

Appears to me that even though some here disagree with the views of the right wing radio hosts, the majority of Americans agree to some extent with what is being said. Otherwise, those guys would be waiting tables.

The current administration has repeatedly refused to listen to their constituents. Why do think that the last election turned out the way it did? The "silent majority" is getting off their asses and making some noise.

I do not think the present administration will be able to practice what they are currently preaching.

On a side note, I heard that amongst all the polls taken with regard to "hate radio" as they call it and the shooting in Tuscon, the majority of people polled thought there was no tie in to what Loughner did and the so called broadcasting of views in opposition to current administration.

Wullie wrote:Appears to me that even though some here disagree with the views of the right wing radio hosts, the majority of Americans agree to some extent with what is being said. Otherwise, those guys would be waiting tables.

agreed these companies are in business. the business of making money. if they weren't making money they would end up in the same boat as George Soros and Air America. OFF THE AIR.

Only hardcore lefties agreed with what was being said. again look at MSNBC, BY FAR in last place in the ratings war among the news outlets. people like Olberman maybe??

it is obvious a majority of Americans agree at least in part with what people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and the others say, because their rating keep growing exponentially. and they stay on the air because they are making $$$ for their companies

Here is a little quote from the link you posted.
It grabbed my attention...My "knee jerk" reaction and first thoughts were?
In general, that is a pretty accurate statement in most cases.....However?
When a politician chooses to vote "present" and has history of blaming
everyone but himself? Well, you know who I mean, what I mean and that
statement (the quote below) just blows.....in regard to that one or few associated individuals,
who account to no one and admit no failure.

'Every sensible person involved in politics and public life knows that their work is laced with failure. Every column, every speech, every piece of legislation and every executive decision has its own humiliating shortcomings. There are always arguments you should have made better, implications you should have anticipated, other points of view you should have taken on board"

Windy Old Pudfark sez: " Accountability is a critical part of our government. When we the people, cease to require it of our elected officials, the elected officials cease to require it amongst themselves and we end up? Exactly where we are now. "

He has written two pseudo-intellectual books of junk social science, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, and On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. Though he is a conservative, the primary reason for his success is not his popularity among conservatives, but, rather, among liberals. He is, in fact, known as the liberals’ “favorite conservative.” This is because he speaks softly, is effeminate, and gently gratifies their self-loathing, masochistic wish to be insulted.

THAT david brooks?? Not surprised

Wullie wrote:I think it interesting that a man who has called for violence, albeit quietly, is now asking for civility.

who are you referring to here?? Obama? The dude made his rep with a speech about unity in America, ran on same, won on same.

On a side note, I heard that amongst all the polls taken with regard to "hate radio" as they call it and the shooting in Tuscon, the majority of people polled thought there was no tie in to what Loughner did and the so called broadcasting of views in opposition to current administration.

don't know if you read it elsewhere, but I quoted that same point to Ruggie.

CUDA wrote:it is obvious a majority of Americans agree at least in part with what people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and the others say, because their rating keep growing exponentially. and they stay on the air because they are making $$$ for their companies

well, yes and no. What it really comes down to is that ENOUGH people agree and/or disagree with them enough to LISTEN, and thus make ratings. Time after time, it has been proven that Liberals don't flock to talk radio formats, and the apolitical don't either(the latter making up the bulk of the population). Bear in mind that Rush, for example, on his best days, has less than 1% of the population listening to him.

Dawg wrote:

He has written two pseudo-intellectual books of junk social science, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, and On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. Though he is a conservative, the primary reason for his success is not his popularity among conservatives, but, rather, among liberals. He is, in fact, known as the liberals’ “favorite conservative.” This is because he speaks softly, is effeminate, and gently gratifies their self-loathing, masochistic wish to be insulted.

THAT david brooks?? Not surprised

I never cited him as either a Conservative or Liberal. He works for Heritage Foundation, which leans right, but also for the Times, which leans left. In that sense, he represents a thinking person, which I respect.

callmeslick wrote:

Wullie wrote:I think it interesting that a man who has called for violence, albeit quietly, is now asking for civility.

who are you referring to here?? Obama? The dude made his rep with a speech about unity in America, ran on same, won on same.

On a side note, I heard that amongst all the polls taken with regard to "hate radio" as they call it and the shooting in Tuscon, the majority of people polled thought there was no tie in to what Loughner did and the so called broadcasting of views in opposition to current administration.

don't know if you read it elsewhere, but I quoted that same point to Ruggie.

Yes, I'm referring to your boy, Barry Soetoro AKA Barak Hussein Obama. As for your statement on how he won, I disagree. I think he won because the GOP trotted out a fucking RINO turd and a "FUCK BUSH" backlash.

John boy wouldn't have had the showing he did if it weren't for Sarah.

I missed your quote. I read it and heard it elsewhere.

what is interesting, so far, about this thread is that Pud seems to be the only person who actually read the linked op-ed. It was a pretty insightful look at the societal changes in America that got us to the divisive politics of the present. Anyone else actually read it? Dawg's out-of-hand dismissal of the author is a prime illustration of a closed mind which Brooks addresses.