President Donald J. Trump

[Dr. MD MD]

That's not an answer. I identified "the specific issue" and you again refuse to answer. I'll make it easier for you: do you, Dr. MD MD, believe that Conservative Talk Radio qualifies/ranks as Journalism? Yes or No.

Yes, in fact our system depends on a healthy and vigorous battle of ideas both conservative, liberal or otherwise. Therefore our media should reflect that but instead they're just a bunch of mindless ideologue drones like you. You technically could be qualified as a cult now. 

[WOTR]

That's not an answer. I identified "the specific issue" and you again refuse to answer. I'll make it easier for you: do you, Dr. MD MD, believe that Conservative Talk Radio qualifies/ranks as Journalism? Yes or No.

It''s mostly an editorial.  While I am not on the "all media are evil" train- some of what presents itself is traditional "journalism" is nothing more than a thinly veiled editorial.

The American press institute has a very self serving, multi paged definition of what they believe journalism to be (did you know that they are all saints, have no personal biases and crap gold bricks?)  Being as I don't generally trust people to describe themselves, I'm going to go to the dictionary for this one...

1a :  the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
or
1.the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news

Now, you may not like their editing, and you may not agree with what they collect- but by the dictionary definition, I believe MOST talk shows have varying degrees of journalism. I would also argue that there is a facet of journalism to most talk radio shows (not the portion where any jackass in possession of a phone can get their opinion out to a million listeners.)  Journalism is about gathering, verifying and presenting facts.  While there is little doubt that the facts that most talk show hosts present are cherry picked (and, depending on the host, not necessarily verified), often times there is truth to the narrow topic that is being presented and discussed.

*Sorry MD, not all all traditional media is on the level of talk shows... There is still lots that is useful.

[Dr. MD MD]

*Sorry MD, not all all traditional media is on the level of talk shows... There is still lots that is useful.

Name one. 

[WOTR]

Name one. 

Most of them... But you have to sort through it (as has always been the case.)

I have a really tough time deciding between the Huffington Post and Breitbart as the most trusted source in journalism. 

[Dr. MD MD]

Most of them... But you have to sort through it (as has always been the case.)

I have a really tough time deciding between the Huffington Post and Breitbart as the most trusted source in journalism. 

Most of them? Really?! 

You've shown that you can be rational so I gotta figure you're just trolling now. Good one though! 

[Meister_000]

I'll make it easier for you:
Do you, Dr. MD MD, believe that Conservative Talk Radio qualifies/ranks as Journalism?
Yes or No.

Yes

We have an affirmative. MD does believe that Conservative Talk Radio is Journalism.
Thank you.

. . . our system depends on a healthy and vigorous battle of ideas both conservative, liberal or otherwise. Therefore our media should reflect that . . .

“Our system depends on a healthy debate” â€" you say (appearing to recognize and advocate-for this, if not demand it). So which among the top Conservative Talk Radio hosts would you say is “healthy”? Which of them fulfils that vital need?

In the short-list provided below, please add an "x" in front of the name(s) of any you would endorse and recommend for said Health-maintenance purposes â€" i.e. those who you believe do earnestly pursue and purvey truth, fairness, and balance in their presentation of the relevant spectrum of political/social/cultural/moral "ideas".

  Rush Limbaugh
  Glenn Beck
  Mike Savage
  Mark Levin
  Sean Hannity
  Ann Coulter
  Laura Ingraham
  Dennis Prager
  Bill O'Reilly

[PaulAtreides]

It's beginning to look a lot like Nixon.

[Meister_000]

It's beginning to look a lot like Nixon.

√

[Dr. MD MD]

So which among the top Conservative Talk Radio hosts would you say is “healthy”? Which of them fulfils that vital need?

You're easily confused by metaphors. I wasn't using the word healthy as a medical term. What I meant (and what should've been clear to anyone with an IQ above room temp) is that our political system is based on and relies upon a debate of ideas. What you're trying to do is classify ideas you don't like as pathological but what's truly pathological is your attempt to shut down any debate at all. You only want people to hear what you think is good and that's why you're a disgusting fascist piece of shit. 

[Kidnostad3]

*Sorry MD, not all all traditional media is on the level of talk shows... There is still lots that is useful.

There once was a time when I would agree with you.  It seems to me that that since the MSM essentially stood down in its vetting of Obama it has evolved into an agenda driven instrument of left wing globalists and Trump's election has served to dispel any doubt about it.  The recent study conducted by Harvard merely quantifies corporate media's malice towards Trump and demonstrates its willingness to dispense with any pretense of journalistic integrity to cause him damage.  I would be hard pressed to name any major MSM outlet that hasn't jumped on the bandwagon in the effort to nullify Trump's election.  Maybe you can help me with that.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

[Meister_000]

You're easily confused by metaphors. I wasn't using the word healthy as a medical term. What I meant (and what should've been clear to anyone with an IQ above room temp) is that our political system is based on and relies upon a debate of ideas . . .

Adapting for your shortcomings and cowardice, MD, I will here replace my earlier second instance/use of the word "healthy" with the phrase: "most favorably promote and manifest those optimal conditions you would demand", and we’ll try this again (you infantile weasel).

Repeating:
“Our system depends on a healthy debate” â€" you say (appearing to recognize and advocate-for this, if not demand it). So, which among the top Conservative Talk Radio hosts and shows do you think would most favorably promote and manifest those optimal conditions you would demand? Which of them fulfills that vital need?

In the short-list provided below, please add an "x" in front of the name(s) of any you would endorse and recommend for said Health-maintenance purposes â€" i.e. those who you believe do earnestly pursue and purvey truth, fairness, and balance in their presentation of the relevant spectrum of political/social/cultural/moral "ideas".

  Rush Limbaugh
  Glenn Beck
  Mike Savage
  Mark Levin
  Sean Hannity
  Ann Coulter
  Laura Ingraham
  Dennis Prager
  Bill O'Reilly

[Yorkshire pud]

Again with the name-calling. Sure. Putin is corrupt. As corrupt as other historical Russian or Soviet leaders? I don't know, could be argued? As corrupt as other leaders, current or historical, anywhere? Could be argued. But from a amoral, historical perspective what has he accomplished? Heck, by a Clinton or mainstream politician or royal perspective he would be admired for amassing such vast wealth from his position. I'm using the Left's arguments about ends justifying the means and "everything is relative," "if it feels good, do it." What has Putin done that is bad from this perspective: he has more influence than any European leader. Has expanded his country and influence, when at the same time most of Europe accepts losing it and even accepts being invaded by "refugees." And he has gotten crazy rich doing so. I'm not saying this is "good" but like when TIME gave Hitler "Man of the Year," and you lot wanted to appease him.  Nobody can say not influential or successful. Now, if he turns out to be like Hitler and Stalin etc blows the success by crazy wars, pogroms, genocides, etc then history will judge him differently. But, if stands, I think non-partisan historians will say he was a success considering the chaos he took over, the vast/diverse country, and the bad/corrupt economy.

He has murdered journalists, political opponents and anyone who he perceives as being an opponent. Is that enough to make him deeply unpleasent? Same with the Turkish president that Flynn worked for, estimates are half a million killed or imprisoned because they oppose him (non terrorist) so far.

[Yorkshire pud]

This is David Clarke. He never served in the military but likes to dress up, wear medals, and play make believe.  He also has delusions of being a cowboy. He has been known to threaten violence against people who disagree with him on Facebook. On 17 May 2017 he said that he is a designee to become Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Partnership and Engagement.

He can double as the main act when Spicer and Sessions take a night off from fire eating and their trapeze act.

[Meister_000]

Starting soon (LIVE)
President Trump Speaks to Muslim Leaders In Renewed Campaign Against Extremism | The New York Times


https://youtu.be/ByWa-3f6DVc

[Yorkshire pud]

Great man who values country over party.

Unlike Trump who puts himself above anything and everyone else.

[Yorkshire pud]

There was nothing "ad hominem" about it (you mindless fucking parrot).

Here's the definition: "directed against a person, rather than *the position* they are maintaining."

You are maintaining (*the position*) that Conservative Talk Radio and YouTube are Journalism. THAT is what I'm attacking. You've had two or three chances to refute that, but you haven't. Are you telling us now that you hold the contray position and that agree with me/us (i.e. that segment of the population possessing functioning brains) that Conservative Talk Radio (and the bulk of YouTube political content) is NOT Journalism? That requires a very simple yes or no answer MD. Are you man enough to clearify deny/confirm your position on this for us?

Get in the queue. He hasn't said if Bernstein and Woodward were right in exposing Nixon and his goons. I asked him three times. But they didn't use Youtube back then.

[Kidnostad3]

We have an affirmative. MD does believe that Conservative Talk Radio is Journalism.
Thank you.

“Our system depends on a healthy debate” â€" you say (appearing to recognize and advocate-for this, if not demand it). So which among the top Conservative Talk Radio hosts would you say is “healthy”? Which of them fulfils that vital need?

In the short-list provided below, please add an "x" in front of the name(s) of any you would endorse and recommend for said Health-maintenance purposes â€" i.e. those who you believe do earnestly pursue and purvey truth, fairness, and balance in their presentation of the relevant spectrum of political/social/cultural/moral "ideas".

  Rush Limbaugh
  Glenn Beck
  Mike Savage
  Mark Levin
  Sean Hannity
  Ann Coulter
  Laura Ingraham
  Dennis Prager
  Bill O'Reilly

You silly shit.  The reason for the success and popularity of the aforementioned personalities is that their commentary resonates with millions of Americans who feel they have been abandoned by their govermment and the media.  Can you name an equal number of leftist commentators who have anything approaching the following than have the conservative/libertarian commentators you cite.
How do you account for the disparity.  Moreover, how do you account for the trend away from the traditional news outlets towards net-based outlets?

The fact is that the majority of Americans have seen where the neo marxists policies of Obama have taken  the country and they have rejected it.  You and your fellow left wing ideologues do not occupy the high ground in terms of morality or wisdom in the eyes of most Americans as your inane posts suggest.  On the contrary, you represent all that is wrong with America. 

[Yorkshire pud]

You're easily confused by metaphors. I wasn't using the word healthy as a medical term. What I meant (and what should've been clear to anyone with an IQ above room temp) is that our political system is based on and relies upon a debate of ideas. What you're trying to do is classify ideas you don't like as pathological but what's truly pathological is your attempt to shut down any debate at all. You only want people to hear what you think is good and that's why you're a disgusting fascist piece of shit. 

Hey, he didn't mention Alex Jones, that open minded, affable rogue. Oh and has a few in his posse who actively moderate ANY comments and ban instantly any and all who ask awkward questions on his forum. Try it. Register and post a question, such as what happened to all the Americans being herded into FEMA camps... Watch how long before its removed and you can't get back on. First amendment and all that.

[Yorkshire pud]

Starting soon (LIVE)
President Trump Speaks to Muslim Leaders In Renewed Campaign Against Extremism | The New York Times


https://youtu.be/ByWa-3f6DVc

Just look at the expression on his face. Completely disinterested by what the bloke his saying to him. Nothing at all going on behind those eyes.

[Yorkshire pud]

You silly shit.  The reason for the success and popularity of the aforementioned personalities is that their commentary resonates with millions of Americans who don't have the wit of a fucking hoola hoop feel they have been abandoned by their govermment and the media. Can you name an equal number of leftist commentators who have anything approaching the following than have the conservative/libertarian commentators you cite.
How do you account for the disparity.  Moreover, how do you account for the trend away from the traditional news outlets towards net-based outlets?

The fact is that the majority of Americans have seen where the neo marxists policies of Obama have taken  the country and they have rejected it.  You and your fellow left wing ideologues do not occupy the high ground in terms of morality or wisdom in the eyes of most Americans as your inane posts suggest.  On the contrary, you represent all that is wrong with America.

Instead plumping for a self confessed Leninst (Bannon) and a fat oaf who adores dictators, especially ones who routinely have political opponents killed.

[Kidnostad3]

Instead plumping for a self confessed Leninst (Bannon) and a fat oaf who adores dictators, especially ones who routinely have political opponents killed.

Pish tosh. You answer none of my questions and resort to name calling and bromides.

[Yorkshire pud]

Pish tosh. You answer none of my questions and resort to name calling and bromides.

The rest of what you cited as fact has no evidence in reality. Marxist? Go on.....As for name calling, Bannon is a self confessed Leninist and Trump is a fat oaf who adores dictators.

[SredniVashtar]

You silly shit.  The reason for the success and popularity of the aforementioned personalities is that their commentary resonates with millions of Americans who feel they have been abandoned by their govermment and the media.  Can you name an equal number of leftist commentators who have anything approaching the following than have the conservative/libertarian commentators you cite.
How do you account for the disparity.  Moreover, how do you account for the trend away from the traditional news outlets towards net-based outlets?

The fact is that the majority of Americans have seen where the neo marxists policies of Obama have taken  the country and they have rejected it.  You and your fellow left wing ideologues do not occupy the high ground in terms of morality or wisdom in the eyes of most Americans as your inane posts suggest.  On the contrary, you represent all that is wrong with America.

Right-wing talkers keep it simple and adversarial. They don't have any ideas, they just tell you that things would be better if their designated targets were sacked/imprisoned/humiliated or whatever. That sort of thing resonates with the uneducated who need an enemy and don't have the interest or capacity to deal with policy. The majority of comments from Trumpets bear this out, and the rage and bitterness after the election that was shown by a group that actually won was something to behold.

I know you think all your ideas come to you newly-minted but so much of what you say tracks with the right-wing zeitgeist that Rush might as well be be working you from behind. Calling a vaguely centre-left figure like Obama a Marxist just shows that you need to broaden your reading, if you read at all.

Conservatives have a useful role to play, but it's too much work for you. Like many boomers you are incredibly lazy and would much rather throw stones than engage an opponent. Conservatives value continuity whereas you want to tear it all down. You are so full of fear and hatred that you cannot see straight.

[The King of Kings]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bpr3C84GWA

and.........not a jew.

We paying attention yet?

[Yorkshire pud]

and.........not a jew.

We paying attention yet?

I love how the blinkered Trumpers completely ignore that Trump's problems are almost entirely self inflicted. He ignores good and seasoned advice because, well, he thinks he knows more about anything than anyone else, he fires those who don't or won't kiss his ass, he throws under the bus those who do but have outlived their usefulness or he percieves might drag him down even though it was him that put them in that position. He pretends to not have heard of people he hand picked when it turns sour.

He surrounds himself with his family who he makes richer because he's POTUS. He trusts no-one (other than his wifedaughter) because he judges others by his own swamp level standards. He has no idea what a lie or truth is; He simply says or does something for self preservation irrespective of who he hurts or makes some abusive remark about- yes he DID make fun of a disabled journalst, and lied when he said he didn't. Yes he DID admit to sexually assaulting women and lied when he said he didn't. Yes he DID appoint an agent of a foreign country and only fired him because the Washington Post published the story.

But DEEP STATEâ,,¢. UTTER BOLLOX. He's his own worst enemy, and the sooner his ass lickers wake up to that, the better.

[Yorkshire pud]

Pretty boy Roger 'Nixon Tattoo' Stone isn't happy...

As President Donald Trump celebrated what he called a "tremendous" first day in Saudi Arabia, his onetime campaign adviser and longtime confidante Roger Stone expressed nothing but aversion for the Gulf nation and parts of the President's trip.

In a litany of tweets, Stone berated Saudi Arabia as "the enemy" and slammed Trump for accepting the Order of Abdulaziz from King Salman bin Abdulaziz.
"Candidly this makes me want to puke," he wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/20/politics/roger-stone-saudi-arabia-tweets/index.html

Isn't Stone on the list of persons of interest too? He's gearing up now because he knows Trump will not defend him anyway..

[K_Dubb]

It''s mostly an editorial.  While I am not on the "all media are evil" train- some of what presents itself is traditional "journalism" is nothing more than a thinly veiled editorial.

The American press institute has a very self serving, multi paged definition of what they believe journalism to be (did you know that they are all saints, have no personal biases and crap gold bricks?)  Being as I don't generally trust people to describe themselves, I'm going to go to the dictionary for this one...

1a :  the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
or
1.the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news

Now, you may not like their editing, and you may not agree with what they collect- but by the dictionary definition, I believe MOST talk shows have varying degrees of journalism. I would also argue that there is a facet of journalism to most talk radio shows (not the portion where any jackass in possession of a phone can get their opinion out to a million listeners.)  Journalism is about gathering, verifying and presenting facts.  While there is little doubt that the facts that most talk show hosts present are cherry picked (and, depending on the host, not necessarily verified), often times there is truth to the narrow topic that is being presented and discussed.

*Sorry MD, not all all traditional media is on the level of talk shows... There is still lots that is useful.

The way it works is evident in the coverage of the pres's speech in Riyadh, specifically whether he would say "radical Islamic terrorism" or not.

Now I think the whole idea that is a magic phrase is silly and that everybody knows what you're talking about no matter what word choices you make, but the phrase the pres used is "islamic terrorism" which, if you think about it, doesn't use the new word "Islamist" to try to identify the politicized religion, or the word "radical" to make sure his audience knew he was only talking about fanatics.  He's indicting the whole thing and, in the current media climate, I am surprised nobody is screeching about that.

Instead, the stories composed beforehand based on drafts say he softened his toneâ€"they were pre-written and ready to go.

[Kidnostad3]

Right-wing talkers keep it simple and adversarial. They don't have any ideas, they just tell you that things would be better if their designated targets were sacked/imprisoned/humiliated or whatever. That sort of thing resonates with the uneducated who need an enemy and don't have the interest or capacity to deal with policy. The majority of comments from Trumpets bear this out, and the rage and bitterness after the election that was shown by a group that actually won was something to behold.

I know you think all your ideas come to you newly-minted but so much of what you say tracks with the right-wing zeitgeist that Rush might as well be be working you from behind. Calling a vaguely centre-left figure like Obama a Marxist just shows that you need to broaden your reading, if you read at all.

Conservatives have a useful role to play, but it's too much work for you. Like many boomers you are incredibly lazy and would much rather throw stones than engage an opponent. Conservatives value continuity whereas you want to tear it all down. You are so full of fear and hatred that you cannot see straight.

I just finished reading "Rising Star, the Making of Barak Obama" by David Garrow who is a self-identified ardent progressive.   (I have included a summary of his background below.). I have also read books on Obama by Bob Woodward and other moderate to left leaning authors who voice the exact same criticisms of him that Garrow does.  All confirm that he was brought up by a mother and grandparents that were admitted communists and that Obama's orientation was decidedly in that direction until relatively late in life when, with the help of Bill Ayers, Valerie Jarrett and others, he became convinced that his manifest Marxist tendancies were extremely limiting with respect to his political viability.  So, according to Garrow, he began taking steps to distance himself from his well known advocacy of Marxist doctrine.  He did the same thing for the same reasons in obscuring his attachment to the Muslim faith by becoming a member of Wright's congregation.  The central theme of Garrow's book is that Obama is an unscrupulous moral and political chameleon.  I would suggest that you read the two books I cite above to facilitate an informed opinion of Obama.  Until then you should not waste the time of others by speaking from ignorance.  (Let me know if Garrow is not left wing enough for you.)

"Garrow served as a senior adviser for Eyes on the Prize, the award-winning PBS television history of the Civil Rights Movement covering the years 1954â€"1965. He has taught at Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the City University of New York, The Cooper Union (where in 1992â€"1993 he served as Visiting Distinguished Professor of History), the College of William and Mary (where in 1994â€"1995 he served as Harrison Professor of History), American University (where in 1995â€"96 he served as Distinguished Historian in Residence), Emory University (where from 1997 until 2005 he was Presidential Distinguished Professor). Between 2006 and 2011 he was a Senior Research Fellow at Homerton College, University of Cambridge, and since 2011 he has served as Research Professor of History and Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law."

[Yorkshire pud]

The way it works is evident in the coverage of the pres's speech in Riyadh, specifically whether he would say "radical Islamic terrorism" or not.

Now I think the whole idea that is a magic phrase is silly and that everybody knows what you're talking about no matter what word choices you make, but the phrase the pres used is "islamic terrorism" which, if you think about it, doesn't use the new word "Islamist" to try to identify the politicized religion, or the word "radical" to make sure his audience knew he was only talking about fanatics.  He's indicting the whole thing and, in the current media climate, I am surprised nobody is screeching about that.

Instead, the stories composed beforehand based on drafts say he softened his toneâ€"they were pre-written and ready to go.

They rehearsed and rehearsed on AF1 before touchdown. They can't over tax that brain too much.

[Yorkshire pud]

I just finished reading "Rising Star, the Making of Barak Obama" by David Garrow who is a self-identified ardent progressive.   (I have included a summary of his background below.). I have also read books on Obama by Bob Woodward and other moderate to left leaning authors who voice the exact same criticisms of him that Garrow does.  All confirm that he was brought up by a mother and grandparents that were admitted communists and that Obama's orientation was decidedly in that direction until relatively late in life when, with the help of Bill Ayers, Valerie Jarrett and others, he became convinced that his manifest Marxist tendancies were extremely limiting with respect to his political viability.  So, according to Garrow, he began taking steps to distance himself from his well known advocacy of Marxist doctrine.  He did the same thing for the same reasons in obscuring his attachment to the Muslim faith by becoming a member of Wright's congregation.  The central theme of Garrow's book is that Obama is an unscrupulous moral and political chameleon.  I would suggest that you read the two books I cite above to facilitate an informed opinion of Obama.  Until then you should not waste the time of others by speaking from ignorance.  (Let me know if Garrow is not left wing enough for you.)

"Garrow served as a senior adviser for Eyes on the Prize, the award-winning PBS television history of the Civil Rights Movement covering the years 1954â€"1965. He has taught at Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the City University of New York, The Cooper Union (where in 1992â€"1993 he served as Visiting Distinguished Professor of History), the College of William and Mary (where in 1994â€"1995 he served as Harrison Professor of History), American University (where in 1995â€"96 he served as Distinguished Historian in Residence), Emory University (where from 1997 until 2005 he was Presidential Distinguished Professor). Between 2006 and 2011 he was a Senior Research Fellow at Homerton College, University of Cambridge, and since 2011 he has served as Research Professor of History and Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law."

But Trump. What of him? Its quite telling you list verbatim the qualifications of someone you believe has written less than flattering things about Obama, yet completely try to denigrate similar qualified people who give insight into how Trump functions, who its fair to say has no convictions, political or otherwise apart from trying to beat anyone who disagrees with him. Shit is he going to get a wake up in Brussels with the NATO delegates. Well, assuming his brain can digest more than sixty words a minute.

Having Marxist parents isn't a crime in the free world. Honestly. Neither is it having parents who are neo nazis.