Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) I don't recall pointing out any racist comments or positions that you hold. pretty sure you did with the whole "you just hate brown people" response in the immigration debate, but i could be wrong

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 07:49 PM) she was asking for it! the whore! He's excusing and joking about sexism. This is not surprising because Rush is sexist. Your last sentences are also incredibly sexist. Jesus you're a piece of work. By the way, so far, according to you, i'm a sexist, racist and bigot. Anything else you want to add?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) You're going to rise to the defense of locker room sexual harassment of a reporter? I'm asking if you're seriously holding it against Rush Limbaugh (and the way you did it) because he jokingly says she has ass-ets? And that she's booty-licious? So a major pop icon can write an entire SONG with that line, but god forbid the Evil Conservative One says it! And I dunno if I'd argue that she was asking for it, but come on. She dresses like that in front of 50 or so 20-30 year old, uber-testosterone filled football players. What did she think, they were going to be awed by her reporting skills? GMAB. Doesn't mean what they did was appropriate, but you she should have had common sense to know what kind of reaction she was going to get.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) For a good long part of the day, I thought it was going to be harder for anyone to look stupider talking about the incident between the sideline reporter and the Jets than Clinton Portis did today. Man...I underestimated this guy. What? How is this stupid? Are you being serious here?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:28 AM) I listen to public radio every day. And they report a three to six minute news summary every half hour, followed by in depth stories, many of which are not examined by everyone else. If you want to say NPR isn't news, you'd have to exclude pretty much everything outside of generic AP summaries, because its the same format that network newscasts use, as well as things like the Fox Report on FNC, etc. No, i'm not saying they're not "news," i'm just saying the format is so different that when you're discussing why people gravitate towards one news organization over another that has to be a factor. Most people get their news from the tv or internet, not the radio. The majority of NPR's coverage is news about random topics (I listen to it to, all those fancy sound bites included). I dunno, I mean I also listen to WBBM every morning. They give 3-4 minutes of headline news too, but you can only get so much information in that format. It's not the same as an hour long show with a host on TV where they can cover 15 topics.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) If you're driving, the rules of states require you to have permission to use the automobile on you while driving. However, while walking or while in your own home...etc...unless the police have at least a reasonable suspicion that you're committing a crime, you have every right to ref.use to provide that identification and ask what suspicion they have that you're actually committing a crime. That's why the "check your papers" line is so commonly used in references to the Soviet Union...they had the full right to check your papers no matter what you were doing, just to make sure you were being good. Right, and under that law the cops had to have suspicion of wrongdoing (if not an actual act, if i recall correctly). They couldn't just go up to random brown people and ask for papers. They can do exactly what they can do to white people - make up a reasonable suspicion, go ask for ID, and take them in if they don't like their answer. There's little difference except some irrational fear that the Arizona police will become the SS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:10 AM) The conservative message as sold by Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc. is not diverse. The Republican party typically can stay 'on message' and votes more cohesively than Democrats. On talk radio and talking head TV, opinions and positions are dictated, not discussed. It is more cohesive to an authoritarian philosophy than to "free thought" or progressive philosophy. The opinions expressed by Limbaugh, Hannity et al are right-wing authoritarian in nature. Compare this to some show on NPR that may blather on and on in a round-table feel-good discussion of ideas. For whatever reason, the conservative message sells well via the "shout things at you and tell it the way it is over the airwaves" model. While you do get intelligent conversations from people like the late William Buckley, actual conversations and discussions (not having someone parrot what you believe or bring someone on to berate them) are the exception and not the norm. The inability of liberal talk radio to catch on may be somewhat self-fulfilling, since the people who would typically be the target audience of liberal talk radio is also going to buy into the idea of "intellectual liberal" and will not value a talk radio host as much as an NPR round table. The above may or may not make sense. I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now. Also libertarians are libertarians, not conservatives, at least imo. I think they'd describe themselves as "classical liberals" more so than associate with modern conservative movements. 1) have you actually watched those shows? The "message" of O'Reilly and Beck are not the same. You've lumped them together for no other reason than because they're under the umbrella of Fox News. 2) As discussed with Rex, how does this differ from the "liberal" talking heads like Olbermann or Maddow? Or, 2 of the 5 "sources" for news from liberals, the daily show and the colbert report. Apparently the "liberal" message sells just fine in that arena. And I think NPR doesn't even belong in this discussion. They pick so many random bits of news to report that it's hardly an up-to-date look on the days news, which is what most of the shows we're talking about provide (in addition to the fact that it's radio v. tv) Funny too how CNN is considered "neutral" in these discussions, even though they provide the exact same format. Entertaining host, viewpoints from one side or the other, opinion piece by host, commercial. It's the same exact process, only with a different emphasis depending on the issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) That one's easy and you ought to know it. Although I'll admit I've managed a full thread derailment and I apologize....it doesn't require papers to live in the country. It requires papers and permission to use roads. If I choose to not be driving and I'm not breaking any other law, by every standard of "government intrusion into my life" having to produce papers at the request of authorities is the definition of a government intrusion into people's lives. I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are.

I mean, no offense man, but this kind of strict policy is just going to kill debate in here, which is nearly dead anyway. I think posters can handle themselves. I don't see any of the above posts as being "personal" attacks. My post specifically re Balta, I'm sure, was not taken by him as a PERSONAL attack, but rather an attack on his way of arguing/responding in other posts. He and I have had a back and forth enough to know that.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 08:56 AM) I think an argument can be made here that a bill like SB 1070 in Arizona changes the prism of the government from presumed innocent until found guilty to the other way around. Please. It's yet another technical requirement in our law books. Apparently having to provide a drivers license, proof of insurance, SS card, blah blah, is all the government assuming I don't have them. Why can't they just take my word for it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Frankly...if the goal is protection of individual rights against government interference...it really starts to ring hollow when you say "it's protection against government interference in my pocketbook, with exceptions for funding additional police presence, border patrols, the defense department...drug enforcement...big business...corn subsidies..." and whatever other exceptions you want to add on the list. Kinda like the liberal viewpoint that all groups are equal, discrimination is bad, yadda yadda.....unless you're 1) a tea party member, 2) rich, 3) religious (christian specifically), etc. No policy view is 100%. There are always exceptions. I think protecting the state from terrorism and from illegal immigrants is a job for the federal government. And I have yet to hear how providing proof of citizenship is in anyway different than me having to provide a drivers license and proof of insurance. Oh the humanity for having to come up with those two pieces of paper. Again, you don't hear tea partiers crying foul over that either.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 11:21 PM) Way to put words in my mouth. I don't think that "conservative" listeners are morons. In fact, as an unapologetic Democrat, I honestly wish that we had a stronger echo chamber similar to what the Republicans have. It would make for a much stronger position this November, because the party's message might actually get some traction in pundit land. But the demographics of the "liberal"audience are different, because the "liberal" audience is frankly more diverse. I don't have the numbers, but I'd wager that the average Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, random Conservative pundit audience is pretty much the same - white and primarily male. Not making a judgment call on what that means, that's just what the audience appears to me to be. On the other hand a "liberal" audience is more female than male, and is more likely to consist of multiple minority communities, each of whom have their own narrative. "Liberal"audiences don't maintain the kind of ideological purity that "conservative" audiences tends to have, because so many communities come from completely different places. And that audience doesn't tend to be attracted to political talk radio - at least partially because its not marketed to those people, partially because its not created with those people in mind, and partially because they aren't inclined to that kind of format. I think this is the point I was trying to make earlier. Bulls***. The conservative party is just as diverse, but you all like to define conservatives as one crazy religious racist homophobic rich (though sometimes hillbilly) group. Again, you have fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, the hardcore right, etc - all different groups with diverse viewpoints. And while "liberals" might be more diverse, I dunno that it's THAT much more. I'll defer to Balta to find a study on that. But either way, it's not like Republicans are 99.9% white males over 40.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) But sir...the reason why the racial angles and everything else comes up is that "limited interference in all aspects of their lives" is a slogan that goes away the moment that it becomes inconvenient. By far the best example I could ever give of this effect is SB 1070...which, whether you want to admit it or not, is by definition a gigantic government interference in people's lives. "I'm from the government and I'm here to check your papers to make sure you're not breaking the law" is about the most classic oppressive government line you can come up with, yet, that bill has gotten virtually zero anger out of the tea party. I can come up with a solid variety of continuing examples from the past couple years as well. "I'm from the government and I'm listening to your phone calls to make sure you're not breaking the law" would be one of those things that would get a legimate "limited government interference" group riled up, but because the Terrorism excuse gets applied...no one cares. I'm from the government and I'm here to torture you until you talk, or I'm from the government and you don't get a trial because I say you don't...same exact line. The center of the Republican party is no more hands-off than the center of the Democratic party, it just picks different issues to be hands-off about. You don't think there's a difference between government action to combat illegal acts and needless government action mandating how Americans should live their lives (and how to spend their money)? I haven't heard the Tea Partiers claiming that we don't need police departments either, but that doesn't make their message of limited government interference invalid.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 09:35 PM) No. It's really not that simple, like I said you could write an entire book for all the different reasons. That's just fantasy thinking, and frankly kind of lazy actually. Really there is not necessarily a "liberal narrative" to oppose whatever conservatives might be talking about (it's really not a coincidence that all the different outlets are roughly talking about the same thing at any given time either) and there is not usually a unified message (see the Democratic Party). It's just not how that crowd works. Only recently did liberals start to define things as "us vs. them," it used to be like a world with a bunch of different opinions but now it's two entirely different worlds. Conservatives felt that the status quo wasn't adequate so they just went out and made their own. Liberals haven't even attempted to do that sort of thing (for every Maddow you can name at least 5 conservative pundits) It's probably not that simple, but you're naive to think that the answer is some complex mystery. The democratic party does have a message - it's protect the little guy and let the government help you. That works for some people depending on circumstances, but not always. Most of the time the majority of the country doesn't like government, doesn't trust the government, and doesn't want the government telling them what to do. And you think the Republican party always has a unified message? Look at the "republicans" versus the "libertarians" versus the "tea party." I'd hardly call that a unified message. You make it sound like liberals have been a minority power during its history, with no strategy. It was the majority for a long, long time. They absolutely attempted the "status quo isn't good enough" mantra, what do you think the message was during the Bush years (and now)? Top 1% holds all the wealth, society has left you behind, wall street has failed you, blah blah. And there's 5 conservative pundits for every one of Maddow because, again, the message sells. They're the same people with different opinions. If those opinions resonated with the public, they'd be popular (see, the daily show, colbert report). I'd consider Obama's campaign "liberal," and he caught the attention of a lot of people, including moderates and republicans. Just because liberals haven't created a Reilly (who's really more moderate that people think) or Beck (who is creepy, no lie), doesn't mean that anyone who follows those guys are just morons like Rex thinks.

Lol, speaking of cheating: An elite eight trip to be voided from the record books? I'm sure Calipari will be able to slime his way from this one too.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 05:55 PM) True about Doyel. He will blame anything on Illinois. Honestly though, NCAA should come down hard on Pearl. They won't though. Jimmy Collins should come out with regards to him and ask how this is getting little pub considering what Pearl did to the Illini program. Not sure that I agree with the lack of coverage. As a proud Illini-homer, I think he's been all over the news. One thing for sure, if I were a Vols fan I'd be really questioning my school. The Kiffin mess, now Pearl? How's that AD keeping his job?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) Nice. But I'm not saying anything that ratings and surveys don't already play out. Pew Research did a survey on people's media habits when it came to where people get their news and news type programming from. The top five news and opinion sources for the average NRA supporter are - 1. Rush Limbaugh, 2. Sean Hannity, 3. Glenn Beck, 4. Bill O'Reilly, 5. Fox News The top five news and opinion sources for the average gay rights supporter are - 1. The New York Times, 2. Colbert Report, 3. NPR, 4. Daily Show, 5. Keith Olbermann You can call me smug all you want, but I think there is a reason why Fox News is so popular with conservatives - and its because their flagship programs (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck) all focus on opinion making rather than news reporting. http://people-press.org/report/652/ Perhaps the obvious answer (bringing this back to the poster's question about why there isn't much of a liberal radio presence), is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the message isn't all that popular? The fact is there's very little difference between talking heads like Limbaugh/Hannity or Olbermann/Maddow other than the viewing numbers. They all give you the good zingers, they often interrupt people and pretend like they're the smartest person alive, they attack the other side and speak in ridiculous hyperbole (all to a varying degree, sure, but they all do it). The only difference at the end of the day is the message. Clearly we know your view on that - the fox news audience is just a bunch of morons. But maybe, MAYBE (i know, big stretch since conservatives are the racist, homophobic idiots), the liberal message isn't all that popular? That (gulp) even intelligent people don't care for it? Maybe? (also, I find it funny that 2 of the 5 news "sources" for liberals are comedy shows. If that doesn't scream irony i dunno what does)

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) There was a "liberal talk radio" moment, but it kinda fell apart because the people behind it were pretty shady and had some really questionable financial backing. There was a crop of radio stars that I thought could have actually had some staying power and created a really counterpunch to right wing talk radio, and been fairly successful at it. But one became a Senator (Al Franken), one became a TV star (Rachel Maddow), and one went bat s*** crazy (Randi Rhodes). Part of the other problem is that "liberal" audiences tend to like more in depth reporting than they like opinions and rants. So there's NPR for that. And the NPR audience is huge. Rush gets about 12 million listeners weekly, Morning Edition is on the magnitude of 20 million listeners weekly. Are they all liberal? Of course not. But a big chunk of that potential audience is right there. You sir, are a freakin' delight to read. This is what I thought of while reading that sentence: How's it smell?

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Sep 13, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) I think he's trying to change his ways, thinking there might be a future with the doctor. Don has come across as quite an ass in a few episodes. Then last week's episode started showing a change. Last weeks Peggy v. Don was the best moment in the series so far IMO. My complaint about this weeks episode was that it was too neatly wrapped up (along with the other odd stylistic things they did...the voiceover, the weird perspective when Don is drinking at work....add that to the horrible ghost scene from an episode or two ago and they're really making some odd filming choices). We went 7.75 episodes with Betty being this child about everything, hating everything about Don, and then at the very end she's finally ok with it? Just like that? I don't buy it. Don's "transformation" was a little better, but I still feel like we went through a LOT of negative before we got to the quick turnaround. At least with his storyline you could see him slowly climbing out of that hole he dug himself into, and this episode in particular was all about realizing he needs to change and grow. But Betty had none of that. She had a moment at dinner where she acted as she normally would, she was scolded by Henry, encouraged by her neighbor, and then suddenly that line that she has everything and Don has nothing flipped the switch? Meh. Also, I tend to have a strong reaction when anyone gangs up on Peggy. I grew to dislike Joan in this episode, even though I could sympathize with her position.

Boardwalk Empire. That is all.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Sep 12, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) How stupid is this comment? Michigan lost to Iowa 30-28 on the road last year and to OSU 21-10 (and threw 4 interceptions) last year. By every method of math I have ever learned, both of those scores are within 14 points. Michigan still has a lot to prove but winning these first two games as an underdog was a huge step in that direction. Convenient you ignore the 21 and 25 point loses to Wisconsin and Penn State, as well as the loses to Mich St, Illinois and Purdue. And really I meant this year, since I think you probably would agree that last year Michigan was not a top 25 team (at least I hope you would). This year is starting off the same - win against a team you should beat at home and a win against a much overrated and overhyped Notre Dame team. Last year Michigan ended up at 5-7. And I think that except for Penn St, the top of the Big Ten is even better this year. Is Michigan better than last year? Maybe. But still not top 25.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 12, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) The Bears didn't win that game. Arguably the dumbest rule in professional sports history won them the game. That rule is unfathomably stupid. There is not a legitimate reason for that rule to exist. I might be wrong, but I think the rule is actually meant to protect the offensive player to not get a fumble call when they catch it and try to reach for an extra yard. Still, I agree with everyone that it's one of the dumbest rules in sports.

what an awful, awful rule. Bears fan or not, that is a TD. Possession, 2 feet down AND his body hitting the ground BEFORE the ball hits the ground is NOT a TD? WTF?!

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 12, 2010 -> 02:55 AM) That may be, but Michigan is a solid team this year. Definitely top 25 material. Not sure why everyone was so down on them still. They've recruited well enough that once Rodriguez has a few years of his players, it's just like West Virginia again. Based on what exactly? Beating an (always) overrated Notre Dame team that had trouble with Purdue (one of the worst teams in the Big Ten) a week ago? When Michigan can stay within 14 of the likes of Ohio State, Iowa and Wisconsin, I'll consider them a good team. Until then, they're an over-hyped team with a name.

Illinois up 21-3. Where is the guy that said SIU was going to win easy?