Comments on: Pol Watching

By: Capitol Watchblog » Archive » Pol Watching, Part II

Capitol Watchblog » Archive » Pol Watching, Part II — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:56:52 +0000

[...] month I did a state-by-state analysis of the Presidential race using data gathered from Pollster.com. Since we’re expecting [...]

By: Pol Watching, Part II | Indiana Barrister

Pol Watching, Part II | Indiana Barrister — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:53:30 +0000

[...] month I did a state-by-state analysis of the Presidential race using data gathered from Pollster.com. Since we’re expecting [...]

By: Rico43

Rico43 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:23:51 +0000

You say ‘progressive’, and I say ‘oppressive’.
Your progressive party want to demand of radio station owners that they give ‘equal time’ to opposing viewpoints. Ever hear of the free market? Air America is an unmitigated disaster. Liberal(not progressive) fails virtually every time it’s attempted. Why not let listeners decide through a station’s rating? You progressives love government intervention.
So-called progressives want to tell us what we can listen to, what we drive, where we smoke, what kind of light bulbs we use, etc., etc., etc. If that’s progress, then our founders must be rolling over in their graves.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:54:29 +0000

Rico, honey, it’s not anti-American. It’s progressive. Try to pay attention, huh?

It’s needed for a little thing called balance.

If we have to have Sean Hannity, that radical nutjob, and e have to listen to Rush, who’s clearly psychoic, then a balance to their views is needed.

I’m in the car a lot, and listen to talk radio a lot. I listen to right and left. Again, I have to observe: lately, AA has been correct far more than Sean and Rush, et al.

By: Rico43

Rico43 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:00:11 +0000

Why is AA “….so badly needed on the radio…” when you already have CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., etc., etc., to tell us how awful this country is?

Simply agreeing with their anti-American rhetoric, does not make it truthful.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:29:28 +0000

A peer? What an interesting observation, JH. I’d never thought of that.

For 95% of Americans, who have an IQ above room temp, that would eliminate our incumbent.

Both current candidates are smart, and, I’d suspect, peer material. In other words, won’t embarrass me on the world stage.

Nu-kle-yar indeed.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:18:52 +0000

I would like a president who’s a peer, for a change. That’s the sort of change I could believe in.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:15:19 +0000

Rico, I listen to Rush, too. Stoped listening to Hannity–he’s just ignorant. Try opening up and expanding your menu. It keeps the cranial arteries from clogging.

Just FYI, my quick listens to all kinds of radio, tell me that Air America is right about as much as Rush is. And none of the AA jockeys, to my knowledge, have to filter their opinions through oxycontin.

Whether I’m “the one” or not, AA is badly needed on the airwaves. I listened to one of their jocks, Randi Rhodes, on a local talk show in SE Fla. nine or ten years ago. She’s fresh, usually correct, and funny. Kinda like Rush was 15 yrs. ago before the drugs melted his brain.

By: Moneyguy

Moneyguy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:25:45 +0000

Come on Melyssa people said that about Kennedy! “I don’t want a damn Catholic as president!” I guess we will say “Look how far we have come!”, or will it be “We still have a long way to go!” Time will tell!

By: Melyssa

Melyssa — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:12:59 +0000

I would love a person of color as president…just not Obama.