Re: Why they listen....
Case in point---this is from Boortz.com today...Neal blasting the President and GOP for overspending...
Would you now like to revisit your original post?
"The Washington Post reports that just before members of Congress snuck out of town for their August recess, they approved $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks. Is the Republican party...the party of Ronald Reagan...the party of supposedly limited government...ashamed of this? Hardly! As a matter of fact, the Congressional leadership is instructing the members to actually promote how much bacon they have brought home to taxpayers. You need look no further than the massive $286.5 billion highway spending bill that was passed just before the August break. Loaded with hundreds and hundreds of pet projects, it makes an absolute mockery of President Bush's calls earlier this year for spending restraint. But even Bush's calls for spending limits are a joke. George W. Bush is the biggest spending U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson. And not just Homeland Security-related spending either. How about expansion of entitlements like the prescription drug benefit for Medicare? No Child Left Behind. Billions and billions of dollars in new debt, all waiting for your children to pay when they grow up. So what's the problem?..."
> > Thanks for your response.
>
> ----You're welcome.
>
> > I won't insult you, or resort to 3rd grade name-calling
> > since I believe this discourages the marketplace of ideas.
>
>
> ----Your original post was devoid of any "ideas"...it was
> just a flame. No problem with that, I just thought I'd flame
> back a little. We're all big boys, right?
>
>
> > In fact, I will even agree with you on several points:
> > Boortz is highly successful, gets monster ratings, and is
> a
> > legendary radio personality whose success speaks for
> itself.
>
> ----Yes.
>
>
> > My original post never questioned whether Mr. Boortz is
> > popular or successful. My post merely questioned whether
> > his show is ENTERTAINING, and whether using every second
> of
> > your program to reiterate support for President Bush
> carries
> > any intrinsic entertainment value.
>
> ----And if you ever really listen to Boortz, and as others
> here have pointed out, the basis of that statement is
> invalid. He criticizes both political parties at
> length...which you would know if you really listened to the
> program. The "entertainment value" you speak of is apparent
> in the fact that he is #1 in the market, with double-digit
> ratings, book after book after book after book. Enough
> people are "entertained" by him to have made him the
> successful for this long.
>
>
> > Also, a show can be very popular without being
> entertaining.
> > In the case of the right-wing talk shows, listeners tune
> in
> > for validation of their political views. Most people in
> > this country are on the right-wing these days (just look
> at
> > the last presidential election), and these people seek out
>
> > radio hosts who can validate their views of the world. We
>
> > want people to agree with us, and tell us we're right.
>
> ----How is that not "entertaining" to a core audience who
> seeks that out? Just because *you* don't find it
> entertaining, I again say that the numbers speak for
> themselves.
>
>
> > In my case, I encourage dissent and alternate viewpoints,
> > but I wonder whether these views can be expressed without
> > vitriol and Ad Hominem attacks.
>
> ----Not counting the one with which you started this thread?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Let's listen in...to what's going on in the brain of
> > someone
> > > who calls himself "SexyVirileStud":
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (crickets chirping)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > For fascinating, entertaining and compelling
> Talkradio,
> > > > let's listen in to this week's Neal Boortz Show, shall
>
> > > we?:
> > > >
> > > > "The Republicans are always right. The Democrats are
> > > always
> > > > wrong."
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Case in point---this is from Boortz.com today...Neal blasting the President and GOP for overspending...
Would you now like to revisit your original post?
"The Washington Post reports that just before members of Congress snuck out of town for their August recess, they approved $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks. Is the Republican party...the party of Ronald Reagan...the party of supposedly limited government...ashamed of this? Hardly! As a matter of fact, the Congressional leadership is instructing the members to actually promote how much bacon they have brought home to taxpayers. You need look no further than the massive $286.5 billion highway spending bill that was passed just before the August break. Loaded with hundreds and hundreds of pet projects, it makes an absolute mockery of President Bush's calls earlier this year for spending restraint. But even Bush's calls for spending limits are a joke. George W. Bush is the biggest spending U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson. And not just Homeland Security-related spending either. How about expansion of entitlements like the prescription drug benefit for Medicare? No Child Left Behind. Billions and billions of dollars in new debt, all waiting for your children to pay when they grow up. So what's the problem?..."
> > Thanks for your response.
>
> ----You're welcome.
>
> > I won't insult you, or resort to 3rd grade name-calling
> > since I believe this discourages the marketplace of ideas.
>
>
> ----Your original post was devoid of any "ideas"...it was
> just a flame. No problem with that, I just thought I'd flame
> back a little. We're all big boys, right?
>
>
> > In fact, I will even agree with you on several points:
> > Boortz is highly successful, gets monster ratings, and is
> a
> > legendary radio personality whose success speaks for
> itself.
>
> ----Yes.
>
>
> > My original post never questioned whether Mr. Boortz is
> > popular or successful. My post merely questioned whether
> > his show is ENTERTAINING, and whether using every second
> of
> > your program to reiterate support for President Bush
> carries
> > any intrinsic entertainment value.
>
> ----And if you ever really listen to Boortz, and as others
> here have pointed out, the basis of that statement is
> invalid. He criticizes both political parties at
> length...which you would know if you really listened to the
> program. The "entertainment value" you speak of is apparent
> in the fact that he is #1 in the market, with double-digit
> ratings, book after book after book after book. Enough
> people are "entertained" by him to have made him the
> successful for this long.
>
>
> > Also, a show can be very popular without being
> entertaining.
> > In the case of the right-wing talk shows, listeners tune
> in
> > for validation of their political views. Most people in
> > this country are on the right-wing these days (just look
> at
> > the last presidential election), and these people seek out
>
> > radio hosts who can validate their views of the world. We
>
> > want people to agree with us, and tell us we're right.
>
> ----How is that not "entertaining" to a core audience who
> seeks that out? Just because *you* don't find it
> entertaining, I again say that the numbers speak for
> themselves.
>
>
> > In my case, I encourage dissent and alternate viewpoints,
> > but I wonder whether these views can be expressed without
> > vitriol and Ad Hominem attacks.
>
> ----Not counting the one with which you started this thread?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Let's listen in...to what's going on in the brain of
> > someone
> > > who calls himself "SexyVirileStud":
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (crickets chirping)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > For fascinating, entertaining and compelling
> Talkradio,
> > > > let's listen in to this week's Neal Boortz Show, shall
>
> > > we?:
> > > >
> > > > "The Republicans are always right. The Democrats are
> > > always
> > > > wrong."
> > > >
> > >
> >
>