Red meat for both sides pretty much constantly
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
I've been thinking about this for awhile. Our country has been roiled up in Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, hard right vs extreme left for a long time. I have watched it grow uglier and uglier over several decades now. The viciousness, the slander, the hatred is reaching a feverish pitch. What do the two sides hope to attain? They may be leading us into a civil war. If that happens it stands to reason that one side or the other will win. But what will it win? What will be left of the country? What purpose do they hope to achieve? Victory for victory's sake? Sometimes the political rhetoric between the opponents remind me of the Bedlam Rivalry. Each side is determined to hate the other, to the point they listen to their opponent only with a mind to rebut, no matter how mindless or trivial the rebuttal. Never give an inch. What has happened to us?
As I said: Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, hard right vs extreme left.
Except when moderns promote government of the ancients thereby making government promoted by ancients appear modern.
I wasn't implying you had a side!!!! It was more a reference to the pendulum and how it swings. You know, the Republicans of today are the Democrats of tomorrow and vice versa.
We are no longer Americans first....truly pathetic and no one appreciates the sacrifices of those that came before us. We align not with a country but a political religion, it is becoming cult like.
A dishonest media is going to create something that is not a democracy, not sure what you call it, but we are headed to be being ruled by elites and we will not know who they really are, and their foot soldiers in the media will have no idea they are pawns because they are brainwashed and we are creating a political fanaticism that reeks of a blind religious following.
Beyond pissed that the truth no longer matters and we have no true journalists that wants to investigate and report the truth and let the public digest it on their own.
A dishonest media is going to create something that is not a democracy, not sure what you call it, but we are headed to be being ruled by elites and we will not know who they really are, and their foot soldiers in the media will have no idea they are pawns because they are brainwashed and we are creating a political fanaticism that reeks of a blind religious following.
Beyond pissed that the truth no longer matters and we have no true journalists that wants to investigate and report the truth and let the public digest it on their own.
Welcome to the 24/7 news cycle. Very little actual news and a bunch of time filled with politically slanted opinion presented as if it is factual.
I do not watch it much....did great ignoring it for the past 12 -14 years until the last debate leading up to the election. I knew it was propaganda but IMO it is even worse than 12 years ago. I channel surf a bunch, especially this time of the year. The bits you get from just channel surfing is awful. I have no idea how anyone can watch MSM news regularly and on large quantities. I watch more local news than national news, weather and sports hard to corrupt.
Liberal versus not a liberal. We are being manipulated by the media to fight over this crap and trump is a big part of it. I cannot stand liberalism and it makes me sick that it will not rest until everyone is a genderless bisexual socialist.
Luckily I'm in rural Oklahoma and we will be the last place this insanity takes hold. Trump could have mainstreamed rational thought but is actively choosing not to. The GOP congress could have cemented their place but they refuse to. It's a game and it becomes obvious that the stupidity of each side is exactly what the media corporations want.
Luckily I'm in rural Oklahoma and we will be the last place this insanity takes hold. Trump could have mainstreamed rational thought but is actively choosing not to. The GOP congress could have cemented their place but they refuse to. It's a game and it becomes obvious that the stupidity of each side is exactly what the media corporations want.
All I know is we deserve far better, we deserve far more from those we elect to serve and we deserve some journalists that either just report what has happened and the facts, or
journalists willing to roll up their sleeves and do some great investigative reporting collobarated with mutiple sources. It is embarrassing, being a journalist has to be the easiest job on earth right now, requires no work or ability.
I feel the same way. I got rid of cable. I can stream the few things I actually like to watch.
What makes it worse is that we have non-journalists masquerading as journalists (or non-news sources masquerading as actual news sources) making up/embellishing stories along partisan lines.
The schism is a function of right wing media and it started when demonizing political figures was good business. Rush Limbaugh kicked it off with his daily political show where he had the daily outrage hour. It was fantastic theater and for the last 25 - 30 years his basic tactic has been copied and broadcast x 1000.
He set the narrative for this shit -- everyone on the other side of the aisle is a nazi, hypocrite, untrustworthy, black hearted, etc. I never heard someone speak the way he did in the early 90's and I tuned in. Hannity, Coulter, Fox, all of it -- their path was paved by Limbaugh and his messaging and political thought now permeates most conservative conversation that I hear. I think he's the most influential political voice since I was born.
He set the narrative for this shit -- everyone on the other side of the aisle is a nazi, hypocrite, untrustworthy, black hearted, etc. I never heard someone speak the way he did in the early 90's and I tuned in. Hannity, Coulter, Fox, all of it -- their path was paved by Limbaugh and his messaging and political thought now permeates most conservative conversation that I hear. I think he's the most influential political voice since I was born.
Honest question.
Are there any examples of someone prior to Rush who was as vocal and degrading toward the other side? Because, I remember being shocked by his antics when he was becoming hugely popular.
My guess is that he wasn't doing anything new, and that the difference was due to timing and advances in media/internet reach giving him a larger audience. But, I don't think it is unfair to consider him a pioneer when it comes to pushing the envelope and outrageously taking the other side to task.
Media bias has existed since before the Revolutionary War. In fact, it contributed to it.
Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine both wrote with a sensational style for political purposes aimed at combating England sympathizing newspapers. Their work was considered very radical at the time. Thomas Paine famously wrote “Even brutes don’t devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families.” His Common Sense was very influential in transforming the colonists views of King George. And now you know where the free speech part of the First Amendment came from.
Limbaugh may have transformed talk radio, but sensational media born from political motive has always been a big part of American history.
In 1969, while a political science major at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton chose to write her senior thesis on Alinsky's work, with Alinsky himself contributing his own time to help her.[27][28] Although Rodham defended Alinsky's intentions in her thesis, she was critical of his methods and dogmatism.[27][29] (Years later when she became First Lady, based upon a White House request, the school did not make the thesis publicly available.[30])
According to Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt asserted that Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky's teachings.[31]Alinsky's influence on Obama has been heavily emphasized by some of his detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Historian Thomas Sugrue writes, "as with all conspiracy theories, the Alinsky-Obama link rests on a kernel of truth".[26] For three years in the mid 80s, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky's work, and he wrote an essay that was collected in a book memorializing Alinsky.[26][32]Newt Gingrich repeatedly stated his opinion that Alinsky was a major influence on Obama during his 2012 presidential campaign, equating Alinsky with "European Socialism", although Alinsky was U.S.-born and was not a Socialist.[33] Gingrich's campaign itself used tactics described by Alinsky's writing.[34]
Pretty much as I stated. Rush's ability to get his message out to such a significant portion of the population is what makes him something of a pioneer. Obviously, actually hearing a statement can be much more impactful than reading the same statement. It has only evolved and worsened since Rush's heyday.
Instead of anonymous Wikipedia authors, here's Hillary's actual thesis on Saul:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/hillaryclintonthesis-ocr.pdf
And here's a 2008 letter from Saul's son:
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
L. DAVID ALINSKY
Source: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglo...hers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/hillaryclintonthesis-ocr.pdf
And here's a 2008 letter from Saul's son:
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
L. DAVID ALINSKY
Source: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglo...hers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315
Imagine if Sam Adams and Thomas Paine had access to radio. I'll bet they would have made Limbaugh blush.
I've never been a Limbaugh fan as he isn't my style of entertainment. I might be mistaken, but he might have been the first talk show person of his kind to get national syndication. But he certainly wasn't the first to use media to demonize political figures as Chief Shitting Bullshys posted. That has been a mainstay of the media since the birth of American media predating the Revolutionary War. His ignorance of history and attempt to "right wing" it has earned him his new name.
There is just no way to have a dialogue with you without it turning into a shit throwing contest. Tell me someone in the last 40 years that has had more influence on political dialogue than Rush Limbaugh.
That wasn't an attempt at dialogue with you. I know better. That was merely rubbing your face in your own ignorance that you displayed in that idiotic mouth frothing post. As they say, don't hate the player...
Exactly right. In addition the election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was more vicious than anything we see today.
In our times it is fair to credit Rush Limbaugh with contributing to the dissonance between the sides. But he was hardly the first. His popularity sprang from people's reactions to being constantly browbeaten by politicians, pundits, and celebrities, particularly comedians.
I don't know if the young comedians of the 60's and 70's considered themselves to followers of Saul Alinsky, but they sure practiced his thesis that ridicule is a powerful technique. Rush Limbaugh was the first person on the right that turned the ridicule back on the left, with his parodies of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. Then Ann Coulter made it the focal point of her schtick. All of which drove the left wing into fits of rage.
Last edited:
You either know nothing of the media during the Vietnam War or have chosen to ignore it. Either way, that's your issue.
That seems unlikely. Maybe it rose to the same level, but "more vicious" is hard to believe, especially when you take into account the inability for them to get their message out to the masses.
Great post sir. Also interesting in history is the suffocation of the newspapers that tried to print anti-federalist views post Revolution. The Federalists were all about free speech provided it didn't go against their narrative.
It's interesting that the *only* area of popular culture where the right completely dominated for decades has been AM talk radio.
Everything else was completely dominated by the left: TV news, movies, sitcoms, music, art etc. (Sports was more of a mix)
Why was the right able to completely dominate AM talk radio? (Embodied by Rush Limbaugh, who I was never a fan of)
I suspect it's because when it comes to debating actual ideas in their purest form (without any mass media theatrics), the left can't compete --- it helps explain why the left has become pro-censorship, anti-free speech, and all about groups shutting down individuals (tribalism).
Everything else was completely dominated by the left: TV news, movies, sitcoms, music, art etc. (Sports was more of a mix)
Why was the right able to completely dominate AM talk radio? (Embodied by Rush Limbaugh, who I was never a fan of)
I suspect it's because when it comes to debating actual ideas in their purest form (without any mass media theatrics), the left can't compete --- it helps explain why the left has become pro-censorship, anti-free speech, and all about groups shutting down individuals (tribalism).
Dang man. History doesn't lie. The 1800 election was considered the birth of negative campaigning. A president ran against his own vice president. They didn't have problems getting their messages out. To say things were very ugly is very accurate. Let me throw some notable quotes out you can compare to today...
Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."
A link for your enjoyment. It talks about Jefferson's hatchet man Callendar and what he did to Jefferson when he got out of prison.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12487/adams-vs-jefferson-birth-negative-campaigning-us
Lol. There's a bunch more out there but that's a great summary. I linked it as well.
Another good article about the 1800 election. They were quite colorful back in the day.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...st-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/
I remember all those Limbaugh Shootings like they were yesterday. Gave rise to the Limbaugh Massacre as I recall.
Pull your head out, son. You're stronger than you think. Introspect yourself and do your party a service.
Similar threads
