• 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

CunningHAM another Rush rehash or Hanniclone Drudge come back!

M

mred

Guest
whoppie..he had his 15 minute of fame...his show is boring compared to Drudge. MCCAIN saw what happened to George Allan of VA after the "Mawcaca" comment. He knows that there could be backlash. How many people with middle-eastern sounding names serve in the US military? in Iraq and elsewhere?
 
mred said:
whoppie..he had his 15 minute of fame...his show is boring compared to Drudge. MCCAIN saw what happened to George Allan of VA after the "Mawcaca" comment. He knows that there could be backlash. How many people with middle-eastern sounding names serve in the US military? in Iraq and elsewhere?


Speaking of "whoopie".........................Cunningham was hired to warm up the crowd for a John McCain political rally. He did his job. We need only to check the tapes of Whoopie Goldberg warming up the crowd at a John Kerry rally in 2004 to understand what a "fluffer" is supposed to do.
 
Cunningham did Rush's show one time as a substitute, and was mever invited back. Cunningham is unable to discuss topics in detail the way Rush or his regular replacements do. Whether you disagree with them or not is immaterial - Walter Williams can discuss economics and governmental policy. Cunningham wasted his chance on Limbaugh's show discussing whether fat women are pretty - that is not something Rush would cover beyond a quick note if the matter was in a newspaper or magazine and said something funny.
AS TO THE COMMENTS & UTTERING HUSSEIN: I remember hosts on Air America, Hardball, and Countdown continually referring to Mr. Romney as "Willard" instead of Mitt. And remember all the concerns over Mormons Oberman and Randi Rhodes expressed? Hussein plays on people's fear of Muslims the same way calling Romney by his birth name of Willard tries to cast Romney as odd or elusive. Liberal hosts loved discussing their fears over Mormons. What is the difference? Both tried to stir up fear. What is OK for one is OK for the other.
 
Okay...so we all get that Cunningham isn't terribly bright, but very good at pushing an adjective next to a noun in order to get a reaction.

As to the "Hussein" vs. "Willard" my sense is that the "Hussein" seeks to use religion as an invective on a whole class of people based on inaccurate understanding and appreciation of the religion while "Willard" seeks to cast an individual in a negative light.

That said they are both classless.

But why should we expect anything more these days? Anything resembling true intellectual discourse has been replaced by invective filled diatribe.
 
justareporter said:
Okay...so we all get that Cunningham isn't terribly bright, but very good at pushing an adjective next to a noun in order to get a reaction.

As to the "Hussein" vs. "Willard" my sense is that the "Hussein" seeks to use religion as an invective on a whole class of people based on inaccurate understanding and appreciation of the religion while "Willard" seeks to cast an individual in a negative light.

That said they are both classless.

But why should we expect anything more these days? Anything resembling true intellectual discourse has been replaced by invective filled diatribe.

Didn't Reagan call DuPont "Pierre" in debates? This has been going on for years. As for the Mormon issues, they were hardly a blip in Mass when Mitt ran for Gov- the so-called (incorrectly) most liberal state in the union- the evangelicals don't like Mitt's religion, liberals don't really care.
 
jimwalsh2001 said:
Cunningham is actually one of the better hosts around; he's knows that it's about entertainment.

What he (and others) know is, to them, it's about peddling hate and divisiveness and pushing an agenda. They are part of a far right conservative movement whose sole intent is destroying *the other side* and trying to push America back to the values of the 1950s.
 
The initial problem wasn't Willie's school yard taunts. The hoopla began when McCain's distanced himself from Willie's comments.

Free speech was never questioned. No warrants are out for Willie's arrest because of what he said.

Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.
 
brian65 said:
Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.

Cunningham was hired to warm up the crowd for a John McCain political rally. He did his job. We need only to check the tapes of Whoopie Goldberg warming up the crowd at a John Kerry rally in 2004 to understand what a "fluffer" is supposed to do. Goldberg's childish jabs at Bush were no different than Cunningham's jab at Obama. I'm wondering why the "fair and balanced" media didn't go back and pull out those 2004 tapes.
 
Not to get too political but michigan might be a swing state along with Ohio, they have a good number of middleeasterners and they might be a voting block, McCain will take Florida most likely...

so MCCAIN will distance himself from a lot of talk show hosts...he'll go one Hannity, Ingram, Hugh Hughwit, Michael Medhead and Mike Gullagger (who is a suck up) He will stay clear of Savage, RUSH AND Cunningham.
 
TheFonz said:
brian65 said:
Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.

Cunningham was hired to warm up the crowd for a John McCain political rally. He did his job. We need only to check the tapes of Whoopie Goldberg warming up the crowd at a John Kerry rally in 2004 to understand what a "fluffer" is supposed to do. Goldberg's childish jabs at Bush were no different than Cunningham's jab at Obama. I'm wondering why the "fair and balanced" media didn't go back and pull out those 2004 tapes.

The difference is, the Kerry camp didn't orchestrate Goldberg (AFAIK) to throw the crowd some "red meat" like Cunningham was instructed by the McCain campaign… …and the subsequent "apology" by a fawning McCain is a fraudulent ploy as it all was a setup…
 
brian65 said:
Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.

Is this different than Randi Rhodes exercising her rights of free speech about Mormons and her fears of a Mormon President? Shouldn't she have braced the diversity of religion instead of saying she had concerns over a Mormon President. That was a shrouded attempt at raising doubts based on religion, which as I understand is a big no-no from the liberals.
 
j henry waugh said:
TheFonz said:
brian65 said:
Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.

Cunningham was hired to warm up the crowd for a John McCain political rally. He did his job. We need only to check the tapes of Whoopie Goldberg warming up the crowd at a John Kerry rally in 2004 to understand what a "fluffer" is supposed to do. Goldberg's childish jabs at Bush were no different than Cunningham's jab at Obama. I'm wondering why the "fair and balanced" media didn't go back and pull out those 2004 tapes.

The difference is, the Kerry camp didn't orchestrate Goldberg (AFAIK) to throw the crowd some "red meat" like Cunningham was instructed by the McCain campaign… …and the subsequent "apology" by a fawning McCain is a fraudulent ploy as it all was a setup…

What a man of character McCain is. Go after your supporters (i.e. base) like a bloodhound, yet whisper condemnation for the likes of the New York Times and their ilk.

This is the candidate that believes "Hillary would be an excellent president."
 
mred said:
whoppie..he had his 15 minute of fame...his show is boring compared to Drudge. MCCAIN saw what happened to George Allan of VA after the "Mawcaca" comment. He knows that there could be backlash. How many people with middle-eastern sounding names serve in the US military? in Iraq and elsewhere?
Should a Philly radio station pick up his show like WNTP, WPHT or one of the CC O and Os in Philadelphia since Premiere Radio Networks Inc the company that broadcasts the weekly Sunday night talk show, is a subsidiary of Clear Channel?
 
Jimme said:
brian65 said:
Willie's free speech has simply exposed the current ultra republicans and their childish fear-mongering ways.

Is this different than Randi Rhodes exercising her rights of free speech about Mormons and her fears of a Mormon President? Shouldn't she have braced the diversity of religion instead of saying she had concerns over a Mormon President. That was a shrouded attempt at raising doubts based on religion, which as I understand is a big no-no from the liberals.


No, its not different.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom