Laura Ingraham Show: Obama the Apostate and more Faux News Garbage

[Wild Cobra]

liberals will try to make that case and eventually censor the airwaves. then they will label the bible as hateful and then eventually try to outlaw all literature that is offensive.

liberals will be the founders of the fascist state.

If they were in complete power without our cons ution, that's exactly what we would have. They are facsists at heart.

[jochhejaam]

I honestly believe that right wing radio is a major factor in the political divisiveness of the country -- perhaps the single biggest factor.

"Divide" implies that there is more than one faction and if the divide is deep then those with opposing views have to be at least equally responsible for the divide. Therefore, I believe that the far "left wing" liberal talking heads are the single biggest reason for the political rancor that is so pervasive in our Country.

The notion that one must be either liberal or conseravative, but nothing in between, strikes me as both absurd. But I hear more and more people espousing the notion that if you aren't conservative you must be liberal.

You are spreading this "either liberal or conservative" labeling across the board, right? Giving equal blame to "both" sides? I certainly hope so, because there are just as many people out there saying that "if you aren't liberal, you're conservative", "if you're conservative, you're racist", "if you don't support affirmative action, you're racist", "if you aren't for excessive taxes on the rich, you hate those in poverty", etc.
<I won't take it any further for now, lest I end up arguing a position you don't hold. I'll wait for clarification>

[FromWayDowntown]

"Divide" implies that there is more than one faction and if the divide is deep then those with opposing views have to be at least equally responsible for the divide. Therefore, I believe that the far "left wing" liberal talking heads are the single biggest reason for the political rancor that is so pervasive in our Country.

A divide could exist with one side choosing to separate itself from another -- to wit, Confederate States seceding from the Union in the run-up to the Civil War created a divide without the remaining American States having specifically done anything. I'll grant you that the better word for me to use might have been something like exacerbated or amplified -- but you'll not convince me that the divide hasn't been greatly deepened (and, perhaps, become intractable) because guys like Limbaugh and Hannity routinely insist that you're either conservative or liberal, but nothing in between.

You are spreading this "either liberal or conservative" labeling across the board, right? Giving equal blame to "both" sides? I certainly hope so, because there are just as many people out there saying that "if you aren't liberal, you're conservative", "if you're conservative, you're racist", "if you don't support affirmative action, you're racist", "if you aren't for excessive taxes on the rich, you hate those in poverty", etc.
<I won't take it any further for now, lest I end up arguing a position you don't hold. I'll wait for clarification>

I will say that in my experience, I don't hear "liberals" insisting that one is either liberal or conservative. Perhaps I'm living in an entirely different sphere, but I simply don't hear that rhetoric -- at least with the specific labels of liberal and conservative. I'll grant you that I've heard things like "if you don't support affirmative action, you're racist," but I suppose that doesn't strike me as much of a culprit in the Blue State/Red State divide, if only because it's a singular issue and not a pervasive ideological separation. I do see your point on that issue, though.

And, as someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I certianly wouldn't support that notion that those who aren't one are the other.

[xrayzebra]

I honestly believe that right wing radio is a major factor in the political divisiveness of the country -- perhaps the single biggest factor. The notion that one must be either liberal or conseravative, but nothing in between, strikes me as both absurd. But I hear more and more people espousing the notion that if you aren't conservative you must be liberal. As someone who regularly listened to Rush Limbaugh for years in the early 90's, I know my first exposure to that notion came through my encounters with Limbaugh-ism. I hear the same thing when I listen to those like Hannity and Beck and I see a more and more pervasive view that commitment to an ideology means, in a very basic sense, opposing things that those who self-identify with the other party will support. That's certainly an oversimplification, but the notion of Two Americas strikes me as a very real socio-political development and the idea that Two Americas is a divisive construct is basically self-evident.

Why because they expose the falsehoods that the dimms and MSM put out.

Rush does nothing to put a message that you can succeed in this country. He explains it is not gloom and doom if you fail, just pick yourself up and carry on and learn from your experience.

The deciveness of which you speak has been going on since time began. It is only now that the some want you to think it was always this way. Horse hockey. Political parties are political parties because of deciveness. They aren't love In's. It is a power game all the way, everyday, anyway it can be achieved. Like it or not! It is no different now than back in the first days of this nation.

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you just link Rush's radio spot that says exactly the same thing?

Dittohead, indeed.

Right wing radio just promotes a different kind of victimhood.

[jochhejaam]

A divide could exist with one side choosing to separate itself from another -- to wit, Confederate States seceding from the Union in the run-up to the Civil War created a divide without the remaining American States having specifically done anything.

An act of divisiveness, met with ambivalence rather than resistance, isn't very devisive at all. The remaining States had the option of remaining ambivalent, or agreeing to the separation; they chose not to and rose to the occasion. What we end up with, because of their opposition <aka "specifically doing something">, is an impassable divide created by equally impassioned views

I'll grant you that the better word for me to use might have been something like exacerbated or amplified -- but you'll not convince me that the divide hasn't been greatly deepened (and, perhaps, become intractable) because guys like Limbaugh and Hannity routinely insist that you're either conservative or liberal, but nothing in between.

I mentioned recently that I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than that your view isn't one that I share. Although since you went on the offensive regarding the divisiveness of talk radio, without provocation from me, I'll assume it's okay with you that I blame you for the division that exists between us on the matter...?

(After thought) - It's humorous that you put an emphasis on the divisive powers of Shush and Hannity, while another poster (budkin) recently tossed out a thought about how no one even bothers to listen to "conservative" radio.

I will say that in my experience, I don't hear "liberals" insisting that one is either liberal or conservative. Perhaps I'm living in an entirely different sphere, but I simply don't hear that rhetoric -- at least with the specific labels of liberal and conservative.

I regularly hear it at work, and on this very board in the form of posters throwing out the label "neocon", "neoconservative", etc., based on another poster's viewpoint on a single issue. Additionally, liberal radio talk show hosts are presently outnumbered in listeners by a ratio of about 20-1. I believe that it may be reasonable to suggest that the terminology of left-wing liberals, derogatorily labeling dissenters as conservatives would be even more pervasive if they were able to establish an audience for their strain of philosophical rhetoric.

And, as someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I certianly wouldn't support that notion that those who aren't one are the other.

That's the sensible open-minded view, and I share it.