F
fred flintstone
Guest
First Cincinnati; Now Vermont.
All Access:
All Access:
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Maybe they'll only carry progressive sports programming.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* #25
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* #25
F
fred flintstone
Guest
How long are you going to keep this up?
(An example of the liberal tense)
(An example of the liberal tense)
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
Progressive sportstalk= KC Royals baseball,Detroit Lions Football, and USA Olympic basketball
Get it?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
It seems to me that some people can't read a joke and move on.
It also strikes me from a radio programming perspective that since people tend to select what they listen to based on lifestyle issues, it makes more sense to carry sports programming in the evening than liberal talk show programming. After all, sporting events tend to be scheduled in the evening and on weekends so that people can attend them after work. It's pretty tough to do play-by-play of the local minor league baseball teams night games on a daytime only station.
I don't see this as a defeat for AAR. I don't see their night time programming as all that successful in any case. And from the perspective of the station management that made this decision, it will probably pay off for them in increased commercial airtime sales.
BTW, progressive sports would be sports like girl's basketball, co-ed volleyball, and any sport in which there is no score kept so that there are no winners or losers, just the pure celebration of non-judgemental non-competition.
It also strikes me from a radio programming perspective that since people tend to select what they listen to based on lifestyle issues, it makes more sense to carry sports programming in the evening than liberal talk show programming. After all, sporting events tend to be scheduled in the evening and on weekends so that people can attend them after work. It's pretty tough to do play-by-play of the local minor league baseball teams night games on a daytime only station.
I don't see this as a defeat for AAR. I don't see their night time programming as all that successful in any case. And from the perspective of the station management that made this decision, it will probably pay off for them in increased commercial airtime sales.
BTW, progressive sports would be sports like girl's basketball, co-ed volleyball, and any sport in which there is no score kept so that there are no winners or losers, just the pure celebration of non-judgemental non-competition.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Maybe live coverage of Special Olympics.
It's a pet project of the Kennedys.
OK, so old Joe was a fan of Hitler.
OK, so Special Olympics is supposed to make up for how he had one of his daughters lobotimized and institutionalized to keep her from being a political embarassment.
OK, so Bobby worked for Joe McCarthy (a friend of Joe's).
Liberals love the Kennedys, even if progressives don't.
It's a pet project of the Kennedys.
OK, so old Joe was a fan of Hitler.
OK, so Special Olympics is supposed to make up for how he had one of his daughters lobotimized and institutionalized to keep her from being a political embarassment.
OK, so Bobby worked for Joe McCarthy (a friend of Joe's).
Liberals love the Kennedys, even if progressives don't.
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
Now, see if we were on the 'NewsMax' radio board, they would all get thier panties in a bunch due to your 'realistic' views on how this was 'termed'. They would interpret ' I dont see this as a defeat' as 'they got thier a** kicked again'. But,then the lesftists amongst us can't get past thier own shame, and how they have to make up new names for thier failed ideology.
But, it seems you are making sense again, and actually praising the 'pro-lib'gress'erall' choices made by the individual stations and thier decision to utilize something that makes more $$ and sense to run.
Aww, let 'em cry. And count. At least FF and FI and the rest will actually have a number they can be proud of
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
But, it seems you are making sense again,
I have a tendency to do that. But then, I also tend to annoy people. And sometimes it's the former that causes the latter.
My personal political opinions and alignment are one thing. My opinions on what works best on the radio are another. They don't always coincide.
As a conservative with libertarian tendencies (and who sees the Libertarians as a political joke), I don't enjoy seeing the liberal talk radio network that was created with the stated intention of pushing a political agenda that I disagree with enjoying a great deal of success. But looking at that same venture as a strictly radio business operation, I can give the Devil his due.
I genuinely believe that the evening shift for talk radio is pretty much a graveyard in terms of being a choice time for influential communication. That's the time of day when the majority of the audience are nothing but true believers looking to have their opinions validated. Michael Savage, for example, is so incredibly over-the-top that no one could possibly listen to him for any length of time except for people who already believe every single word he says. So, as a propaganda venture for the extreme left-wing of the liberal perspective, losing air time slots in the evening won't reduce the effectiveness of AAR.
It's different during the day when the radio audience contains many more motorists who only have their radios to keep them company. During the day, when someone hits his scan button because his usual station has gone to commercial break, they might stumble across an AAR talk show, and might find the host interesting and entertaining. That gives AAR an opportunity to perform its stated mission as the propaganda arm of the left. As long as AAR retains daytime coverage in a given market, then their mission is not inhibited.
It's difficult to compare AAR with the syndication companies who handle conservative talk shows. The syndicators who book conservatives are primarily out to make a buck, and seem to regard the conservative market as just that, a market to be profitably served. The radio audiences often aren't aware of the name of the company that syndicates Limbaugh or Hannity or Savage. And, the members of the radio audience also don't care.
Since the conservative syndicators aren't making any pretense of being "networks", while AAR is going out of its way to position itself as such, direct head-to-head comparisons seldom work.
That's why I have trouble taking the title of this thread seriously. It's hardly a "downgrade". It's more like a petty little glitch. It also doesn't strike me as a loss for "progtalk". Granted, this time it was AAR's evening programming that was cut in favor of sports. But in another market, it could just as easily be Michael Savage or some other right wing host who loses an outlet to a more lucrative sports format, or other format that bills better.
The change that was mentioned in the launch post didn't appear to happen because the evening talk was liberal (or progressive)*, it happened because no news/talk format evening programming was going to be as profitable as sports programming. So, if any side "lost" in that transaction, it was the news/talk format in general. It was not specifically a "progtalk" downgrade.
* #26 (or 27, I lost count. Someone will have to ask barsook).
I have a tendency to do that. But then, I also tend to annoy people. And sometimes it's the former that causes the latter.
My personal political opinions and alignment are one thing. My opinions on what works best on the radio are another. They don't always coincide.
As a conservative with libertarian tendencies (and who sees the Libertarians as a political joke), I don't enjoy seeing the liberal talk radio network that was created with the stated intention of pushing a political agenda that I disagree with enjoying a great deal of success. But looking at that same venture as a strictly radio business operation, I can give the Devil his due.
I genuinely believe that the evening shift for talk radio is pretty much a graveyard in terms of being a choice time for influential communication. That's the time of day when the majority of the audience are nothing but true believers looking to have their opinions validated. Michael Savage, for example, is so incredibly over-the-top that no one could possibly listen to him for any length of time except for people who already believe every single word he says. So, as a propaganda venture for the extreme left-wing of the liberal perspective, losing air time slots in the evening won't reduce the effectiveness of AAR.
It's different during the day when the radio audience contains many more motorists who only have their radios to keep them company. During the day, when someone hits his scan button because his usual station has gone to commercial break, they might stumble across an AAR talk show, and might find the host interesting and entertaining. That gives AAR an opportunity to perform its stated mission as the propaganda arm of the left. As long as AAR retains daytime coverage in a given market, then their mission is not inhibited.
It's difficult to compare AAR with the syndication companies who handle conservative talk shows. The syndicators who book conservatives are primarily out to make a buck, and seem to regard the conservative market as just that, a market to be profitably served. The radio audiences often aren't aware of the name of the company that syndicates Limbaugh or Hannity or Savage. And, the members of the radio audience also don't care.
Since the conservative syndicators aren't making any pretense of being "networks", while AAR is going out of its way to position itself as such, direct head-to-head comparisons seldom work.
That's why I have trouble taking the title of this thread seriously. It's hardly a "downgrade". It's more like a petty little glitch. It also doesn't strike me as a loss for "progtalk". Granted, this time it was AAR's evening programming that was cut in favor of sports. But in another market, it could just as easily be Michael Savage or some other right wing host who loses an outlet to a more lucrative sports format, or other format that bills better.
The change that was mentioned in the launch post didn't appear to happen because the evening talk was liberal (or progressive)*, it happened because no news/talk format evening programming was going to be as profitable as sports programming. So, if any side "lost" in that transaction, it was the news/talk format in general. It was not specifically a "progtalk" downgrade.
* #26 (or 27, I lost count. Someone will have to ask barsook).
F
fred flintstone
Guest
1. "Mischief" is what you do here.
2. How come you Right Wingers are unable to use "Liberal" as a noun with the adjective "extreme?" This is just a sign of the intellectual lock-step of which you all are so proud (i.e., "mega dittos"). If you had been paying attention, and if you were conversant with American politics, you would realize AAR represents the "moderate" liberal DLC line, which is neither progressive or extreme. But God forbid you should clutter your head with information.
3. Except for Salem, which is the social conservative equivalent of AAR. Of course, the political zealots who started AAR don't know much about radio and they took as their model their favorite radio operation, NPR (which is a network). Rush, Hannity, et al are not the competition for AAR's target audience - public radio is. And if you check the most recent Arbitrons, in which commercial progressive talk showed an overall decline, public radio is kicking butt. The reason: AAR is trying to do Rush's act for liberals. This is like a Top 40 jock playing country or alternative. Public radio is how most lliberals like news-talk.
4. People on this board tend to get obsessed with evening, overnight and weekend programming. In fact, there is an inverse correlation between any station or show's audience and how much it gets discussed here. Talk radio lives from 6am to 7pm weekdays; otherwise, it's nothing. All talk radio - especially progressive talk stations - would do well to find something else to do after dinner and on the weekends. On the local level, sports is often an easy sell. Brokered shows and even infomercials are easy money. And a few stations do well going to a different format on the weekends (NJ101.5 plays Oldies). I suppose progressive talk stations could play progressive rock. ;D
5. Libertarians are generally more tolerant of other people's opinions than you in your posts, since this is a philosophy that values individual freedom above all (in contrast to the neo-cons, who have falsely co-opted the "conservative" brand name, and who follow a highly authoritarian ideology).
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
If you had been paying attention, and if you were conversant with American politics, you would realize AAR represents the "moderate" liberal DLC line, which is neither progressive or extreme.
I had been paying attention. However, in the city where I live, none of the AAR shows are broadcast on any station, except Thom Hartman on one of the weakest, static-ridden, bad reception plagued AM stations on the dial. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have first hand knowledge of what people like Al Franken say on the air. So if I have a misconception of which segment of the political spectrum AAR is targeted at, it is not because I do not know politics. It is because AAR has done such a poor job of getting their programming carried in the #23 market in the United States.
And don't tell me I can listen on the internet. My computer's internet connection doesn't work while I'm driving.
Based on what I have heard Al Franken say and what he wrote in his books, he strikes me as quite a bit to the left of the so-called "moderate" position you describe. Using what he has said in those venues as a basis for calculating his position on the spectrum, he comes across as extreme left as Howard Dean.
3. Except for Salem, which is the social conservative equivalent of AAR.
We do have a Salem station in my market, which I do listen to from time to time. And the Salem station in my market doesn't broadcast a social conservative agenda, they broadcast a fundamentalist Christian agenda. Perhaps the Salem station in my town is an anomaly.
I do agree that NPR is a very liberal slanted network. I usually listen to NPR during PM drive instead of Hannity. Even though I disagree with most of the opinions expressed on NPR, they do a better job of presenting those opinions. I'd rather listen to something entertaining and well-presented that I can disagree with than to have my opinions validated by someone who is boring. That's also why I seldom listen to Rush Limbaugh, choosing to listen to music instead during the early afternoon.
Libertarians are generally more tolerant of other people's opinions than you in your posts, since this is a philosophy that values individual freedom above all
You are confusing the positions of liberals and libertarians. The liberal position is that all opinions have equal merit and there is no such thing as right and wrong. The libertarian position is that everyone has the right to hold any opinion they choose to, whether it is right or wrong. But, though one has the right to hold an opinion that is wrong, the right to hold the wrong opinion doesn't make the wrong opinion right.
I take no actions to prohibit anyone from holding or expressing an incorrect opinion. If anyone chooses to persist in believing that the world is flat, I will tolerate their choice to believe something that isn't accurate or true. That doesn't mean I won't laugh at them for holding such a ridiculous opinion, nor that I won't express disagreement with them.
BTW, you'll have a hard time finding a more authoritarian and strict doctrinaire organization than the Libertarian Party.
I had been paying attention. However, in the city where I live, none of the AAR shows are broadcast on any station, except Thom Hartman on one of the weakest, static-ridden, bad reception plagued AM stations on the dial. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have first hand knowledge of what people like Al Franken say on the air. So if I have a misconception of which segment of the political spectrum AAR is targeted at, it is not because I do not know politics. It is because AAR has done such a poor job of getting their programming carried in the #23 market in the United States.
And don't tell me I can listen on the internet. My computer's internet connection doesn't work while I'm driving.
Based on what I have heard Al Franken say and what he wrote in his books, he strikes me as quite a bit to the left of the so-called "moderate" position you describe. Using what he has said in those venues as a basis for calculating his position on the spectrum, he comes across as extreme left as Howard Dean.
3. Except for Salem, which is the social conservative equivalent of AAR.
We do have a Salem station in my market, which I do listen to from time to time. And the Salem station in my market doesn't broadcast a social conservative agenda, they broadcast a fundamentalist Christian agenda. Perhaps the Salem station in my town is an anomaly.
I do agree that NPR is a very liberal slanted network. I usually listen to NPR during PM drive instead of Hannity. Even though I disagree with most of the opinions expressed on NPR, they do a better job of presenting those opinions. I'd rather listen to something entertaining and well-presented that I can disagree with than to have my opinions validated by someone who is boring. That's also why I seldom listen to Rush Limbaugh, choosing to listen to music instead during the early afternoon.
Libertarians are generally more tolerant of other people's opinions than you in your posts, since this is a philosophy that values individual freedom above all
You are confusing the positions of liberals and libertarians. The liberal position is that all opinions have equal merit and there is no such thing as right and wrong. The libertarian position is that everyone has the right to hold any opinion they choose to, whether it is right or wrong. But, though one has the right to hold an opinion that is wrong, the right to hold the wrong opinion doesn't make the wrong opinion right.
I take no actions to prohibit anyone from holding or expressing an incorrect opinion. If anyone chooses to persist in believing that the world is flat, I will tolerate their choice to believe something that isn't accurate or true. That doesn't mean I won't laugh at them for holding such a ridiculous opinion, nor that I won't express disagreement with them.
BTW, you'll have a hard time finding a more authoritarian and strict doctrinaire organization than the Libertarian Party.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Salem operates three formats:
Christian Music.
Christian Teaching and Talk.
News-Talk.
WPIT-AM and WORD-FM in Pittsburgh carry the Christian Teaching and Talk format. Salem does not have a News-Talk outlet in the market.
Christian Music.
Christian Teaching and Talk.
News-Talk.
WPIT-AM and WORD-FM in Pittsburgh carry the Christian Teaching and Talk format. Salem does not have a News-Talk outlet in the market.
A bit of edge to your comment here. Another interpretation might be that WPTT airs four progressive talk programs daily - two of them local, which is exceptional for any station, especially a weak one - plus two national shows (Hartmann and Alan Colmes). Local progressive talk trumps syndicated progressive talk any day (IMHO).
You can listen on XM Satellite Radio while you are driving.
I did not say NPR is liberal slanted. Don't put words in my mouth. First, I said "public radio." People say "NPR" when they mean "public radio," just as they say "Air America" when they mean "progressive talk." Public radio stations gets programming from PRI, APM and other sources besides NPR, just as progressive talk stations get programming from Jones Radio and other sources besides AAR. And what I said was NPR's presentation appeals to many liberals, more so than AAR's faux-Rush presentation.
I think you are confused. Opinions are opinions. Everybody has one. I like vanilla and you like chocolate. I like the Phils and you like the Pirates. Those are opinions. Right or wrong/good or bad is a moral-ethical dimension. Was a given action correct or incorrect/advised or ill-advised (invading Iraq, cutting taxes)? That's a pragmatic question: How well did it work? For the most part, by the time historians get that sorted out, we'll all be dead anyway. So we are back to opinions - which are so much hot air. It is my experience that liberals and libertarians (i.e., Goldwater conservatives) are somewhat more tolerant of differing viewpoints (compared to authoritarian neo-cons and theocratic social conservatives), although even liberals and libertarians can become rigid self-righteous at times, too.
All you have to kow about the political term "Progressive" as it's used by Leftists today is that Capital Hill's "Democratic Progressive Caucus" was partnered (openly) with the Democratic Socialists of America until 1999 (but the makeup and iagenda is the same). It's just a way to make "Socialist" sound nicer.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Another interpretation might be that WPTT airs four progressive talk programs daily - two of them local, which is exceptional for any station, especially a weak one - plus two national shows (Hartmann and Alan Colmes). Local progressive talk trumps syndicated progressive talk any day (IMHO).
First, who is WPTT's second liberal talk show host? Lynn Cullen is now, and always has been, an old-fashioned limousine liberal. She hasn't got a "progressive" thought in her head. But their only other local talk host is Doug Hoerth. You couldn't accurately call him a "liberal", but you also couldn't accurately call him a "conservative", either. The most accurate terms that now describe Doug Hoerth are "has-been", "past his sell-by date", "shadow of his former self". Most of those terms also apply to Ms. Cullen.
There was a time, about ten years ago, when I actually listened to her show often, and preferred listening to her over Rush Limbaugh. I agreed with Rush, but his pompous schtick grew really thin very quickly. I never agreed with Cullen, but she was interesting to listen to. That is no longer the case, as she has changed her delivery style radically. She sounds as if she might be physically unwell, speaking quite slowly. She is, to be honest, a crashing bore now.
In principle, I favor local programming over syndication in almost every form of radio, including all talk formats. However, in practice, when the local hosts are such pale imitations of what they once were that they are painful to listen to, a good syndicated show is preferable.
You can listen on XM Satellite Radio while you are driving.
You can buy me one.
I did not say NPR is liberal slanted.
No, you said "Of course, the political zealots who started AAR don't know much about radio and they took as their model their favorite radio operation, NPR (which is a network)." I assumed that when you used the term "took as their model their favorite radio operation, NPR", that you were implying that it was their favorite because it reflected the same political zealotry that you referred to earlier in the same sentence. But, if you do not believe that NPR is liberal, I have some swamp land for sale that you might be interested in. (Sorry, I meant "wetlands".)
People say "NPR" when they mean "public radio,"
I say "NPR" when I mean "public news/talk radio", since the only PRI programming I am familiar with is non-news/talk. Micheal Feldman's 'What Do You Know', from PRI, is an excellent program, and quite entertaining. It is not, however, news/talk. But, I'll acknowledge that there's probably a boatload of public radio programs that are unheard in the market in which I live.
I think you are confused.
I've been confused many time in my life. This is not one of those times. I have little time to spend worrying about anyone who is willing to put the word "my" in front of an opinion that he is not certain is correct. If you do not believe an opinion that you hold is correct, then why do you bother to hold it? I have little use for the wishy-washy, mamby-pamby milquetoasts who claim an opinion as their own yet who don't have enough confidence that they are correct to defend that opinion.
If you don't think your opinion is correct, then you shouldn't call it "your opinion". And if you aren't willing to claim it as your own and defend it, what's the point of expressing it?
And we've already been around the issue of talk hosts who only pretend to hold opinions. There's not that much wrong with being a wh*re, so long as you're very well paid for the work.
First, who is WPTT's second liberal talk show host? Lynn Cullen is now, and always has been, an old-fashioned limousine liberal. She hasn't got a "progressive" thought in her head. But their only other local talk host is Doug Hoerth. You couldn't accurately call him a "liberal", but you also couldn't accurately call him a "conservative", either. The most accurate terms that now describe Doug Hoerth are "has-been", "past his sell-by date", "shadow of his former self". Most of those terms also apply to Ms. Cullen.
There was a time, about ten years ago, when I actually listened to her show often, and preferred listening to her over Rush Limbaugh. I agreed with Rush, but his pompous schtick grew really thin very quickly. I never agreed with Cullen, but she was interesting to listen to. That is no longer the case, as she has changed her delivery style radically. She sounds as if she might be physically unwell, speaking quite slowly. She is, to be honest, a crashing bore now.
In principle, I favor local programming over syndication in almost every form of radio, including all talk formats. However, in practice, when the local hosts are such pale imitations of what they once were that they are painful to listen to, a good syndicated show is preferable.
You can listen on XM Satellite Radio while you are driving.
You can buy me one.
I did not say NPR is liberal slanted.
No, you said "Of course, the political zealots who started AAR don't know much about radio and they took as their model their favorite radio operation, NPR (which is a network)." I assumed that when you used the term "took as their model their favorite radio operation, NPR", that you were implying that it was their favorite because it reflected the same political zealotry that you referred to earlier in the same sentence. But, if you do not believe that NPR is liberal, I have some swamp land for sale that you might be interested in. (Sorry, I meant "wetlands".)
People say "NPR" when they mean "public radio,"
I say "NPR" when I mean "public news/talk radio", since the only PRI programming I am familiar with is non-news/talk. Micheal Feldman's 'What Do You Know', from PRI, is an excellent program, and quite entertaining. It is not, however, news/talk. But, I'll acknowledge that there's probably a boatload of public radio programs that are unheard in the market in which I live.
I think you are confused.
I've been confused many time in my life. This is not one of those times. I have little time to spend worrying about anyone who is willing to put the word "my" in front of an opinion that he is not certain is correct. If you do not believe an opinion that you hold is correct, then why do you bother to hold it? I have little use for the wishy-washy, mamby-pamby milquetoasts who claim an opinion as their own yet who don't have enough confidence that they are correct to defend that opinion.
If you don't think your opinion is correct, then you shouldn't call it "your opinion". And if you aren't willing to claim it as your own and defend it, what's the point of expressing it?
And we've already been around the issue of talk hosts who only pretend to hold opinions. There's not that much wrong with being a wh*re, so long as you're very well paid for the work.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
PRI NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
BBC Newshour
Capitol News Connection with PRI
The Changing World
Here and Now
National Native News
Open Source from PRI
Pacific Time
PRI's The World
The Tavis Smiley Show
To the Best of Our Knowledge
To the Point
Zorba Paster On Your Health
APM NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
American RadioWorks
As It Happens
Future Tense
Marketplace
Marketplace Money
Public Insight Journalism
Speaking of Faith
Sustainability
Weekend America
Word for Word
How do you arrive at THE TRUTH? Talk to a burning bush? Sit under a tree for 40 days? Get struck by a blinding light on the turnpike? You are starting to sound narrow-minded, inflexible and self-righteous and even Jesus didn't like such people.
For how many of your "opinions" are you willing to die?
BBC Newshour
Capitol News Connection with PRI
The Changing World
Here and Now
National Native News
Open Source from PRI
Pacific Time
PRI's The World
The Tavis Smiley Show
To the Best of Our Knowledge
To the Point
Zorba Paster On Your Health
APM NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
American RadioWorks
As It Happens
Future Tense
Marketplace
Marketplace Money
Public Insight Journalism
Speaking of Faith
Sustainability
Weekend America
Word for Word
I see. Your opinions rise above the level of viewpoint, judgement or assessment. Your opinions are THE TRUTH.
How do you arrive at THE TRUTH? Talk to a burning bush? Sit under a tree for 40 days? Get struck by a blinding light on the turnpike? You are starting to sound narrow-minded, inflexible and self-righteous and even Jesus didn't like such people.
For how many of your "opinions" are you willing to die?
How many of your opinions are based on assumptions?
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
PRI NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
APM NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
That's an interesting and extremely uninformative list of show titles. How many of those shows are "news/talk", and how many are simply "news"?
Your opinions rise above the level of viewpoint, judgement or assessment. Your opinions are THE TRUTH.
Actually, all opinions that anyone expresses as being their own should be regarded by the person expressing them as being accurate and truthful. I believe that those opinions I regard as mine are the truth. Unless you're an intellectual charlatan, you should regard all opinions that you express as your own as being the truth. If you don't believe that your opinions are the truth, then why bother to express them? If you think your opinions are wrong, why claim them as your own?
even Jesus didn't like such people.
So, you're not only an expert on radio, and on politics, you are also a theologian.
For how many of your "opinions" are you willing to die?
Only the important ones. It is my opinion, which I claim as my own, that chili made with small cubes of beef is superior to chili made with ground beef. I am certain of that. I have studied the matter carefully. I have won awards at chili contests with my own recipe that uses cubes of meat, not ground meat. But, that opinion is not important enough to die for.
I believe that a nation is best served with a representative republic form of government and a free, capitalist economic system, and with legal protections for all citizens' rights. I wouldn't choose to simply die for that belief as a suicide/martyr, but I would be willing to risk death in fighting to preserve that system. It is also my opinion (which I learned from a quote from General George Patton) that one doesn't preserve one's own nation by dying for it, one preserves it by making the enemies of one's nation die for their cause or nation.
APM NEWS AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
That's an interesting and extremely uninformative list of show titles. How many of those shows are "news/talk", and how many are simply "news"?
Your opinions rise above the level of viewpoint, judgement or assessment. Your opinions are THE TRUTH.
Actually, all opinions that anyone expresses as being their own should be regarded by the person expressing them as being accurate and truthful. I believe that those opinions I regard as mine are the truth. Unless you're an intellectual charlatan, you should regard all opinions that you express as your own as being the truth. If you don't believe that your opinions are the truth, then why bother to express them? If you think your opinions are wrong, why claim them as your own?
even Jesus didn't like such people.
So, you're not only an expert on radio, and on politics, you are also a theologian.
For how many of your "opinions" are you willing to die?
Only the important ones. It is my opinion, which I claim as my own, that chili made with small cubes of beef is superior to chili made with ground beef. I am certain of that. I have studied the matter carefully. I have won awards at chili contests with my own recipe that uses cubes of meat, not ground meat. But, that opinion is not important enough to die for.
I believe that a nation is best served with a representative republic form of government and a free, capitalist economic system, and with legal protections for all citizens' rights. I wouldn't choose to simply die for that belief as a suicide/martyr, but I would be willing to risk death in fighting to preserve that system. It is also my opinion (which I learned from a quote from General George Patton) that one doesn't preserve one's own nation by dying for it, one preserves it by making the enemies of one's nation die for their cause or nation.
- Status