• 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

FINNERAN ENABLER OF ALLEGEDLY DRUNK AND DRUGGED FIREMAN?

Don't you think you undermine the conservative point of view when you do otherwise?

Hey Finn...nice little trick. Nothing like a rhetorically loaded sentence to position a debatable statement as a fact while using the rest of it as a 'come, let us reason together' smokescreen..

1. What 'conservative' point of view? You mean the Yahoo point of view? He has never posted anything which would lead you to believe he is an ideological conservative, just a knee jerk reactionary who bases everything on a hatred for newspapers and advertising and whatever he gleans from Maloney. Nothing particularly 'conservative' about that. Just your way to sneak in broad brush slam on conservatives as shallow nitwits.

2. Designating someone as a conservative because they hate Finneran is non-sequitur, since Finneran isn't a liberal. What he is is a Democrat. His entire time in office the Globe used to beat the bejeezus out of him because of his political and, especially, social positions. By your definition, does that make the Globe a conservative newspaper?

3. Just because someone attacks liberals, even imaginary ones, doesn't make him a conservative, just someone who doesn't like liberals. He's gotten his political guidance on talk radio in general, and Finneran in particular, from Maloney at SaveWRKO, who doesn't run a conservative web site, he runs a Republican one, which some folks haven't been able to figure out. Not that sailing under false colors is anything new to the bloggosphere.

4. You knew he didn't have any facts, because he never has any facts. And, you knew that nobody, especially conservatives, could come to his support without putting themselves in a box, because they don't think any more highly of his positions than you do.

5. Designating one of the reigning board twits as a conservative representative is a little like me naming Casablanca as representative of the liberal point of view, and in which case you'd be on me in a heartbeat with accusations comparing me to Goebbels.

Nice try, though. You do bear watching ;D

Regards,
TSB
 
Don't you think you undermine the conservative point of view when you do otherwise?

Hey Finn...nice little trick. Nothing like a rhetorically loaded sentence to position a debatable statement as a fact while using the rest of it as a 'come, let us reason together' smokescreen..

you mean that ChrisNH is conservative? Since I was addressing him specifically, I used the term because I believe that he self-identifies as conservative. Had I been referring to him but addressing you, I probably would have qualified the term or at least put it in quotes.

1. What 'conservative' point of view? You mean the Yahoo point of view? He has never posted anything which would lead you to believe he is an ideological conservative, just a knee jerk reactionary who bases everything on a hatred for newspapers and advertising and whatever he gleans from Maloney. Nothing particularly 'conservative' about that. Just your way to sneak in broad brush slam on conservatives as shallow nitwits.

First, ChrisNH has in the past posted a few things that suggest he considers himself to be a conservative - he and I exchanged posts about school funding in NH. He was lauding the system in NH where schools are funded from local property taxes so he knows how the money is spent and he isn't supporting other people with his tax dollars like he believes happens in Massachusetts. (Which I thought was actually kind of nice, since he doesn't present a policy issue without resorting to name-calling and insults.) I asked him if he was writing checks to property-owners in his area who don't have children since he was benefiting from their subsidies. He never responded.

I actually wasn't trying to slam conservatives with the statement, in fact, I was acknowledging that there is a conservative point of view that can be supported by facts. I don't happen to end up with the same conclusions, but I was suggesting that he was undermining the cause. This suggests that there IS a cause to be undermined. I do think that people who identify themselves with a particular point of view who forward poorly thought out arguments undermine the cause they are trying to advance. Of course, if things get bad enough, they don't actually have that much of an effect because they aren't taken seriously by anyone. For what it's worth, I have said so to Casablanca directly and indirectly on this board - I believe it was before you arrived. There are others who make the same mistake, and yes, some of them are self-identified liberals. See, I don't think I'd say they aren't liberals. I am more inclined to say they are liberals with bad arguments which undermine the cause. And by the way, this doesn't mean that I think I always have great arguments. However, it is a goal of mine!

2. Designating someone as a conservative because they hate Finneran is non-sequitur, since Finneran isn't a liberal. What he is is a Democrat. His entire time in office the Globe used to beat the bejeezus out of him because of his political and, especially, social positions. By your definition, does that make the Globe a conservative newspaper?

It wasn't because of how he feels about Finneran, it was other things he's said about fiscal issues. And, I am glad you agree about Finneran being a conservative. It was Republicans who made him Speaker.

3. Just because someone attacks liberals, even imaginary ones, doesn't make him a conservative, just someone who doesn't like liberals. He's gotten his political guidance on talk radio in general, and Finneran in particular, from Maloney at SaveWRKO, who doesn't run a conservative web site, he runs a Republican one, which some folks haven't been able to figure out. Not that sailing under false colors is anything new to the bloggosphere.

Agree. Although I was fascinated how talk show hosts shifted from calling themselves Republicans to conservatives last fall. And, the fact that many self-described conservatives are appalled at what Bush/Cheney are doing... Like these guys: http://americanfreedomagenda.org/; and these guys: http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/; or this guy: http://polcentre.com/about/.

And, when friends of mine who self-identify as conservative took this political quiz http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html, they sometimes found themselves coming up more libertarian or even statist than conservative (well, the statist ones were more likely to be acquaintances than friends).

4. You knew he didn't have any facts, because he never has any facts. And, you knew that nobody, especially conservatives, could come to his support without putting themselves in a box, because they don't think any more highly of his positions than you do.

I didn't think conservatives would need to come to his defense because I wasn't attacking conservatism, I was attacking his tendency to put out statements as fact that are his opinion. The statement "undermine the conservative point of view" was intended to appeal to his desire to actually persuade people with his point of view. I think he genuinely thinks he's being effective. I'm trying to make the case (to him) that he's not. Why? I'm not quite sure why I took the bait this time. Maybe because I'd rather argue against a good argument than a bunch of blather, I guess. And this one seemed so very straightforward. Either he had the facts or he didn't. Either Finneran's ratings are down or they aren't. Seemed simple enough at the time.

As far as suspecting he didn't have any facts - can I take the 5th on that??

5. Designating one of the reigning board twits as a conservative representative is a little like me naming Casablanca as representative of the liberal point of view, and in which case you'd be on me in a heartbeat with accusations comparing me to Goebbels.

Again, I was not intending to say that he is representative of conservatism. If I thought Chris was, I would have said something along the lines of - this is what conservatives do - they put out statements that are based on hearsay or gossip, present them as fact, and then, if they are in New England, they tap their ruby slippers together and repeat three times, "Kennedy...socialism...liberal media."

Nice try, though. You do bear watching

Well, of course I bear watching. We all bear watching! I just LOVE checks and balances. Keeps me in line.

Yr obdnt svnt,*

F




*Well actually, I gave up the servant thing a while back. Not so good at the obedient part either....
 
you fellows have been why too critical of tommy since the beginning. (i have a theory as to why he riles you all up so much, but i wont get into that)

im not a regular listener of his program. from what little ive heard, i cant say it is any worse than d&c.

yes finns has a horrible voice and a repulsive accent. i cringe when he mentions 'amicer' insurance.

you know who else had a bad voice and horrible accent? howard cosell. as i recall he had a pretty decent broadcasting career. not ocmparing the two...just sayin'
 
First, ChrisNH has in the past posted a few things that suggest he considers himself to be a conservative - he and I exchanged posts about school funding in NH. He was lauding the system in NH where schools are funded from local property taxes so he knows how the money is spent and he isn't supporting other people with his tax dollars like he believes happens in Massachusetts.

Not unexpectedly, what Chris may believe and the facts are at odds.

Public school funding in NH comes from the same places it does in Mass, property taxes and state and Federal funds. One of the few distinctions is that lottery revenue in NH is earmarked for education, whereas lottery revenue in Mass can go toward anything a city or town deigns fit.

But, local property taxes make up 40% of school funding in NH, with 56% coming from the state, but more than half, 53%, in Mass is from local property taxes, with 42% coming from the state (the remaining funding in both states is from the Feds). And, since Mass taxpayers have Prop 2 1/2 protection, and since most override attempts involve school funding (or so it appears to me) and most overrides fail, Mass taxpayers have more control over school funding than NH taxpayers do. So, whatever his argument is, it is based on a demonstrably false premise.

Yes, everyone here does bear watching, including me. But you wouldn't think that readily available facts would be a constant bone of contention.

And, I am glad you agree about Finneran being a conservative.

Of course I do. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be involved in a serious discussion of Mass politics.

Although I was fascinated how talk show hosts shifted from calling themselves Republicans to conservatives last fall.

I don't recall much of that, since they always described themselves as conservatives, and then supported Republicans who aren't. They didn't support Weld, Celluci, Swift, Romney, and Healey because they were conservatives, but because they weren't as liberal as Harshbarger or Patrick. On the national level, those labels are pretty meaningless....for example, who's more liberal, a Mass Republican or a Georgia Democrat?

Regards,
TSB
 
Casablanca said:
Interesting that Tom Finneran would only discuss the autopsy reports on those two firemen without revealing what was already published in the Boston Globe and Herald as well on his own WRKO news that is that one fireman had a blood alcohol level over 2.0 % and the other had traces of cocaine in his blood.

His discussion was equivalent to being half pregnant.

If Tom Finneran wants to censor the news than he does not belong in the communications business least of all talk radio.

Perhaps, Finneran went into a reflex action of the days when he was Mista Speaka and he could sweep corruption and illegality under the State House rug never to be seen again.

That is not how talk radio works. At its best talk radio hosts are muckrackers to quote Jerry Williams.

Prior restraint has no place in the courts nor on talk radio.
Click to expand...

Finneran played softball on the issue, just like he did with Tom Brady on being a "baby daddy". I didn't hear Finneran on the fireman, but I'm not surprised. And you are right, talk radio hosts are muckrackers, not spineless like Finneran.
 
ChrisNH said:
The absolute BEST part of Finneran's show is that his bad ratings make it crystal-clear that he's a bad radio host. No curtain to hide behind there; the two go hand-in-hand. Not like the old days when a bad politician could just keep going & going & going thanks to hacks and patronage and political thuggery (See: Kennedy, Kerry, et al).
Click to expand...

I think Finneran would make an interesting guest on talk radio, or a commentator, but clearly not a host.
 
Finneran played softball on the issue

Good point. How exactly would you have hardballed the issue? Demand that the firemen's families forfeit the death gratutity? Demand that people stop abusing drugs and alcohol. Take on the powerful pro drunk and coked out firefighters lobby? Be specific.

just like he did with Tom Brady on being a "baby daddy".

Another good point. How would you have hardballed this issue? Lament that Moynahan didn't have an abortion? Say that unwed motherhood is usually a bad idea? Voice you feelings of distress over the life of a kid who's about to become America's guest for the rest of this life.

Be specific. It should be easy since you obviously know all the facts.

Regards,
TSB
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom