No mistake about it: The left hates talk radio. With a blinding passion.

Liberals have finally realized that they can't enjoy widespread success in the talk radio format. They've spent millions trying, and they've failed. A number of the left's most visible icons have given it a shot, people like former New York governor Mario Cuomo. They've failed miserably. Leftist entertainers who know their way around a microphone, Hollywood stars like Alec Baldwin, have tried it. Not good. Not just not good . . . but hideous and laughable.

Liberals know—because they have consultants, who are usually smarter than they are—that talk radio is going to belong to libertarians and conservatives as long as the format is allowed to exist.

Talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh, enabled the 1994 voter revolution. Sure, the Republicans had their Contract with America, but that contract was worthless if the people didn't know about it.

The Contract with America was taken to the people by talk radio. Intrigued by the idea of a hundred-day voting agenda, the conservative jocks yakked it up. Not that these hosts necessarily agreed with every point in the Contract. They just felt that it was a unique approach; it captured their imaginations. As a result, the American people got an in-depth education in the principles behind the Contract and the probable effect of its passage:

Bye-bye Democrats.

Democrats are dedicated to making sure that such a disaster never befalls them again. They're back in power now, and in power is where they intend to stay. They will do everything in their power to make sure a ragtag and unelected band of radio talk show hosts don't weewee in their Cheerios again.

The only way, then, for liberals to deal with this threat to their continuing power is to get rid of it. Murder is the preferable option. And the most likely murder weapon will be something called the "Fairness Doctrine."



By: Boortz
"Somebody's Gotta Say It" HC, an imprint of Harper Collins. Debuts February 20, 2007

With one exception, I don't like talk radio either.

Nor do I, and I'm not a liberal.

I listen to it about once a week... there are some good arguments on there, and then there is complete garbage too.. you just have to be able to sort it out.

If you want to talk about Democrat vs. Republican though.. Rush has so much dirt on just about every democrat its not even funny.

that talk radio is going to belong to libertarians and conservatives as long as the format is allowed to exist.Is someone going to ban talk radio? There is a big difference between Libertarians and Conservatives.

Is someone going to ban talk radio? There is a big difference between Libertarians and Conservatives.

they do have some similarities.. now if you say radical conservatives than yea.. but most conservatives are pretty simliar to libertarians.

Is someone going to ban talk radio?

Not an outright ban, but there are things that can be done to make a conservative talk radio show too much of a hassle for a radio to want to air it or to threaten a broadcaster to not show things the democrats just don't like for that matter.

The "fairness doctrine" was mentioned. What that doctrine basically states is that if one side of a particular controversial/political issue is given, then "equal time" must be given for people to present the opposing view of that issue. What can happen, if the "fairness doctrine" is re-applied is that people everywhere can haul a radio station owner to court and sue them because a lack of "equal time" given to their particular point of view. At the very least, it would mean that a radio station would not only have to run a talk show that does generate income, but they'd have to give air time to a show that no one wants to listen to. The worst case scenario would be that no matter how "equal" equal time is given, people could still harass a radio station and bring them to court because the equal time isn't equal enough. A radio station owner would then wind up in and out of court wasting money on lawyers fending off lawsuits. Rather than do that, radio stations would go back to playing music, sports and "talk radio" would then consist of how best to grow petunias or why your girlfriend don't love you anymore.

I can also point out that it was radio that took the brunt of the "fairness doctrine" law. Newspapers, magazines and television, although in theory were under the same laws the "fairness doctrine" was rarely enforced against THEM.

Another way of killing talk radio was done by a couple politicians who didn't like what a radio jock was saying about certain laws that were about to be passed in the legislature. My memory is somewhat sketchy here, but this happened out in the Northwest U.S. and it used the "campaign finance reform" law to quell a loudmouth radio jock. Anyway, a couple politicians decided that this radio jocks tirade against whatever law it was constituted a campaign, therefore it fell under the "campaign finance reform" laws. They estimated this jock was really airing campaign commericials for a particular law and since the time spent "campaigning" on the radio was worth about $20,000, that is what they sued for. I KNOW I gave a very thumbnail picture of what happened, but the details are accurate and it goes to show how the first amendment can be circumvented under various laws, be it the "fairness doctrine" or the "campaign finance reform" statutes.

Going a bit further afield there was the story about how, I think it was ABC, was going to air "The Path to 9/11" which threatened to make the Democrats look lax on preventing that attack. WELL the democrats "urged" ABC to pull the plug on that show because it was "biased" and not fair. Harry Reid reminded Disney that they've got a free broadcast license but have a "duty" to be "truthful", or something like that. I'll put the quote from Reid's letter here;

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

You can see the threat here, no? Either broadcast "truthful" docudramas or your license just might get pulled. I can also point out that scholastic magazine, which were to supply comapnion workbooks to schools airing that docudrama dropped the whole project.

The point being, the democrats aren't above trying to silence opposing views and they do have a number of tools available to them. Whether it's talk radio, or unflattering TV shows, the Dems have both the will and the means to silence opposition, it'll be interesting to see what they do next, dammit.


http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=2SpamSpamSpam24&&year=2006&

http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/

http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/3346

they do have some similarities.. now if you say radical conservatives than yea.. but most conservatives are pretty simliar to libertarians.Similar with their economic ideas, not social. Libertarians believe in the freedom of the individual. Conservatives want to legislate morality.

Im a Liberal and i LOVE "LEFT WING RADIO"

Yea Jerry Springer was a big hit, i remember :rolleyes:

NPR? Who said NPR?

Not all conservatives. Just the religious right.


Similar with their economic ideas, not social. Libertarians believe in the freedom of the individual. Conservatives want to legislate morality.

You and about two other people.


Im a Liberal and i LOVE "LEFT WING RADIO"

I'm a liberal and I hate talk radio, so I guess I fit the mould. But I hate it because it's nothing but a bunch of partisan idiots bitching about the other side with nothing positive to contribute to society.

NPR? Who said NPR?

I listen almost exclusively to public radio. Wisconsin Public Radio carries much of NPR's programming, but also produces much original programming as well. Anyone who wishes can find it streamed on the web as well.

http://wpr.org/

The main differences between it and such programming as Rush is that many different viewpoints are presented, and that all callers are welcomed and not treated rudely. No one is shouted down or cut off.

I know that some will say it is just liberal, and a decade ago they would have been correct. Now there are discussions of issues from more diverse points of view. Often there will be a guest on one side of an issue in one hour, and a different guest on the other side the next hour or next day. They make a great effort to represent all the diverse opinions out there.

The main differences between it and such programming as Rush is that many different viewpoints are presented, and that all callers are welcomed and not treated rudely. No one is shouted down or cut off.

I know that some will say it is just liberal, and a decade ago they would have been correct. Now there are discussions of issues from more diverse points of view. Often there will be a guest on one side of an issue in one hour, and a different guest on the other side the next hour or next day. They make a great effort to represent all the diverse opinions out there.
All in all, you're right. I'm pretty conservative in my political leanings, and even I enjoy NPR (with the exception of their music choices - I mean, egads, what were those idiots thinking?!?).

Of course, there are times I want to reach through the radio and tear out some moron's throat, but whatever - it's still enjoyable for the most part...

All in all, you're right. I'm pretty conservative in my political leanings, and even I enjoy NPR (with the exception of their music choices - I mean, egads, what were those idiots thinking?!?).

Of course, there are times I want to reach through the radio and tear out some moron's throat, but whatever - it's still enjoyable for the most part...

Actually, there are many conservatives who listen to NPR. It is not a liberal bastion as some would have argued (with some justification) a decade or two ago. In fact the quality and balance have improved remarkably as subsidies have been reduced. Those subsidies were important in getting it started, but need to be ended now. It is strong enough, and valuable enough, to thrive without them.

I like the Thom Hartman show, Ring of Fire and the occasional Al Franken. I used to like Springer when he was on in this area.

I don't see progressive talk radio going anywhere any time soon.

I find it interesting how desperately some people want to see it fail though.

Springer was a hack.. just jumped on the "anti-bush" train, and used buzzwords to appear intelligent.

Springer was a hack.. just jumped on the "anti-bush" train, and used buzzwords to appear intelligent.

Spoken like someone who never actually listened to him.

Spoken like someone who never actually listened to him.

I actually listened to him almost every morning when i worked in downtown cleveland... i'd click him on as i drove in on my 40 minute drive...

so wow don't you sound like an idiot now... way to go!

No mistake about it: The left hates talk radio. With a blinding passion.

Certainly true in my case.

I despise the rightwing talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage because they spread innumerable falsehoods --blatant falsehoods-- daily to a huge group of fawning listeners that have very poor critical-thinking skills and who have, collectively, a poor grasp of the political realities in America.

I actually listened to him almost every morning when i worked in downtown cleveland... i'd click him on as i drove in on my 40 minute drive...


I don't believe you. If you listened to him you would know better then the nonsense you said earlier about him just being "Anti-bush".
Springer gave Bush more credit than anybody else I listen to on Air America.

so wow don't you sound like an idiot now... way to go!

You know, the way you constantly throw unnecessary insults into every post only makes you less credible.

the way you make assumptions makes you pretty uncredible yourself...

go ahead and not believe me.. every time i tuned in he was ranting about Bush in some way, shape, or form. Were we listening to the same Jerry Springer?

Is this the same Jerry Springer who does those moronic talkshows where the invitees fight?

I listen to talk radio almost exclusively (and I consider myself *mostly* liberal). I learn a great deal of scary shit about politics that never makes the mainstream (corporate) news. If only more people listened to NPR and Air America, maybe they'd stop following George Bush around like a lost puppydog and start paying attention to the hole he's dug - not just for himself, but for the nation as a whole.

Jackass.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jstalgis/TFC/emoticons/shake.gif

Certainly true in my case.

I despise the rightwing talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage because they spread innumerable falsehoods --blatant falsehoods-- daily to a huge group of fawning listeners that have very poor critical-thinking skills and who have, collectively, a poor grasp of the political realities in America.
Limbaugh makes A LOT of decent points, but he's the biggest self-aggrandizing windbag on talk radio. The whole, "with talent on loan from God" thing makes me cringe (and this is ME you're talking to here). Sometimes, his pomposity is flatly over the top, and while there have been hundreds of occasions where I've disagreed with him, I have to admit that I find his show somewhat entertaining.

Hannity is a whining child, and Savage - well, I've never listened to him, so I can't say.

Oh, and spreading "innumerable falsehoods" isn't just unique to the right.

No doubt Prae.. like i said Rush plays the whole democrat vs. republican game better than anyone...

I can easily tell when he's grasping into thin air or when he actually has a decent point... that is when i listen to him, i havn't listened to him in over a month.

And FT... Rush gives his opinion, and it's well known that his show is a conservative talk show, he doesn't try to come off as neutral. If you had your own show, i'm sure you'd say bush lied us into war, and i could easily label that a "falsehood" because you can't prove it. IF that's true, then you are just like the man you claim to hate... basing things off of assumptions theories...

Hannity is a whining child, and Savage - well, I've never listened to him, so I can't say.

Savage is actually a Jew.......but his ideology makes me think that they somehow cloned Hitler. It is hard to imagine a more fascist mf-er than Michael Savage. And I will tell that scum that to his face shoud i ever have the misfortune of meeting him.

Oh, and spreading "innumerable falsehoods" isn't just unique to the right.

What IS unique to the far right is that --in my part of the country--they have an absolute stranglehold on the radio talk shows.

Any time I am in my automobile between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, I can scan the AM radio dial and am able to listen, throughout the day, to about 9 or 10 different radio talk shows. Every one of them is a talk show promoting an extremely rightwing, pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist political ideology.

Number of radio programs I can recieve during the same hours on the same radio hosted by a person promoting an opposing (i.e., an extreme leftwing) political ideology......???? Zero. None.

I love talk radio. I listen to it as much as I can at work and always have it on at home when I'm sitting at the computer. Sunday nights are the best. I listen to Drudge until midnight then fall asleep watching Jack and Rexella Van Impe on the TV. Man, that's living!

Any time I am in my automobile between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, I can scan the AM radio dial and am able to listen, throughout the day, to about 9 or 10 different radio talk shows. Every one of them is a talk show promoting an extremely rightwing, pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist political ideology.

9 or 10? wow you get alot of radio stations... i probably only get like 2-3 conservative talk shows at once, during the afternoon.

Number of radio programs I can recieve during the same hours on the same radio hosted by a person promoting an opposing (i.e., an extreme leftwing) political ideology......???? Zero. None.

Yep, noone ever argued that talk radio was ever a liberal fortress.. i guess they'll have to stick with reporters and headlines...

Wow, for dharma to get owned by decka...

That sinks to a new low, man.

Wow, for dharma to get owned by decka...

That sinks to a new low, man.

New low? Hell my name should be imprinted on your forehead, because it's my property.

:D

It should be. Of course, when you're not looking, I'll get "eats poop" put down right under it.

since when do i eat poop? wasn't that your mother who i was referring to?

and since when did you not talk about brash, filth just like i did.. even though i think its funny, don't try to separate yourself from that convo... you were THERRREEE MANNNNN... CHILLLL OUTTTT

Dude, you are never going to live, "Your mom eats poop!" down. It is the most hilarious rejoinder I have ever had pleasure to witness in my many years of shit-stirring.

9 or 10? wow you get alot of radio stations... i probably only get like 2-3 conservative talk shows at once, during the afternoon.

About the same number I get.

As i said before, in the course of a broadcasting day, I can get 9 or 10 programs, not 9 or 10 stations at once.


Yep, noone ever argued that talk radio was ever a liberal fortress....

I am simply refuting the premise that was put forth here that --""Well the Media on both the left and the right spread falsehoods""--, when the messages form the MSM that the American people are bombarded with 24/7 that come from a far right perspective vastly outnumber those coming from a far left perspective.

If there exists --in the leftwing Mediaverse-- a counterpart for the hate filled, murder-of-liberals-promoting, extreme rightwing perspective and ranting of an Ann Coulter or a Michael Savage, I have never heard of them.

NPR is not what consevatives think it is. It does lean left, but not ridiculously so.
Whereas typical radio will mention an important book, NPR will give the author a full hour. Science, and even history, are covered in depth.

And "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is the best thing on radio (every Saturday)

http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/

Savage is actually a Jew.......but his ideology makes me think that they somehow cloned Hitler. It is hard to imagine a more fascist mf-er than Michael Savage. And I will tell that scum that to his face shoud i ever have the misfortune of meeting him.
Just out of curiosity, how is he a "fascist"?
What IS unique to the far right is that --in my part of the country--they have an absolute stranglehold on the radio talk shows.

Any time I am in my automobile between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, I can scan the AM radio dial and am able to listen, throughout the day, to about 9 or 10 different radio talk shows. Every one of them is a talk show promoting an extremely rightwing, pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist political ideology.

Number of radio programs I can recieve during the same hours on the same radio hosted by a person promoting an opposing (i.e., an extreme leftwing) political ideology......???? Zero. None.
I believe you.

NPR is not what consevatives think it is. It does lean left, but not ridiculously so.
Spot on, Brooks. It makes me nuts on occasion, but overall, I guess that's part of the appeal. I could never call in; my acerbic nature would get me booted off the air quicker than beer turns to piss.
Whereas typical radio will mention an important book, NPR will give the author a full hour. Science, and even history, are covered in depth.
That's exactly why I like it.

Decka, don't tell me you drove 40 minutes each way to work at The Cheesecake Factory :D

Poor Decka... We should call him Cheesecake Man now. :D

No, just Man o' Cheese.

Man O' Cheese, a powerful Spanish warship of the middle ages, wait, that was man O' war, sorry :D

Just out of curiosity, how is he a "fascist"?


There are said to be 14 characteristics common to fascists and fascist regimes and those who support them.

Michael Savage --on his nationally syndicated radio show and through his writing-- regularly exhibits support of and/or fanatical devotion to and/or personal demonstrations of all of those characteristics.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism.

6. A controlled mass media.

7. Obsession with national security.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

14. Fraudulent elections.

He is particularly devoted to and promotive of (in descending order) numbers 3, 1, 7, 4, 12, 13 and 8.

__________________________________________________ __

When facism came to America, it was wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross.

Free, You act like this exercise is a science.
To assign #'s 2,3,5,6,7,9 and 12 to someone is just opinion on your part and to assign #'s 1,4,8,10,11,13 and 14 is just guessing on your part.

Man O' Cheese, a powerful Spanish warship of the middle ages, wait, that was man O' war, sorry :D


No, Man O' War was a racehorse. Man O' Cheese is a Packers fan. Decka should be known as Man O' Cake.

How about he just be known as a dumbass? Oh, wait...

I love Savage, telling it like it is

I love Savage, telling it like it is
Well, I'll have you know I certainly didn't have a problem with points:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights (when appropriate, of course...:)).

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism - (always a plus).

7. Obsession with national security.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated - (heh, it worked for Rockefeller...).

11. Disdain of .......... the "arts" - (and who doesn't hate "artsy" fucks?).

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

But then again, I'm a fascist, right FT? :)

I drove 40 minutes to House of Blues.. not Cheesecake factory... just to correct the record. But yes i do work at Cheesecake now... However i don't work there much because i'm in school...

And as for FT's little "list"... i don't think he can prove or even REMOTELY associate most of that stuff at all with ANYONE... of course anyone can explain and spin anything the way they want... which is exactly what FT does...

Free, You act like this exercise is a science.
To assign #'s 2,3,5,6,7,9 and 12 to someone is just opinion on your part ...

I have spent many hours listening to the (insane) ramblings of the fascist Michael Savage, sir, and I assure you that he makes NO secret whatsoever of the fact that he holds those precepts (i.e., the precepts described by numbers 3, 1, 7, 4, 12, 13 and 8) dear.

I'm sure that, like Prae, he would be proud to claim those precepts for his own if asked.

Well, I'll have you know I certainly didn't have a problem with points:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights (when appropriate, of course...).

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism - (always a plus).

7. Obsession with national security.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated - (heh, it worked for Rockefeller...).

11. Disdain of .......... the "arts" - (and who doesn't hate "artsy" fucks?).

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

In that case, then yes, you are clearly a fascist.....or at least a person who agrees with the identifying characteristics of fascism.

I love Savage, telling it like it is

Who is "savage"? You mean Michael Weiner?

That is his real name.

go ahead and not believe me.. every time i tuned in he was ranting about Bush in some way, shape, or form. Were we listening to the same Jerry Springer?

Well, your credibility isn't great.

You come out far too quickly with the grade school "insults" to be taken too seriously with your claims.

fas·cism –noun 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


FT, that's what a fascist is. Not all that other crap you added on your list.

fas·cism –noun 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


FT, that's what a fascist is. Not all that other crap you added on your list.
up until "emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." you were describing King of Hot Air and his lackey, D-bum.


whoops! i forgot! they hate white ppl & jews!:banana:

Who is "savage"? You mean Michael Weiner?

That is his real name.


ya thats him, he is great

ya thats him, he is great

Great at making an ass of himself. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180003) :)

fas·cism –noun 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


FT, that's what a fascist is. Not all that other crap you added on your list.

Respectfully, WindWip, I am using a different interpretation of the word *fascist* whenever I call the current political leaders in the U.S. by that name.

Mussolini stated; “Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power”......and that is what I mean by calling, for instance, GWBush and others in his administration *fascists*.

The U.S. is a nation of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. As such it has placed something different from and opposed to the welfare of human beings as its calling and its main priority.

Well, your credibility isn't great.

You come out far too quickly with the grade school "insults" to be taken too seriously with your claims.

You call me out on my credibility for insults.. when you have a picture of our current prez calling him an idiot with a doctored picture of him looking like a retard who can't control his jaw...

doesn't add up.

Decka, when libs make childish insults its clever and smart, when conservatives do it its childish and stupid.

When Decka makes insults, he's just fucking retarded. When Dharmabum makes insults, he's being the biggest hypocrite Allforums has ever known.

Which would I rather be? The hypocrite.

Decka, when libs make childish insults its clever and smart, when conservatives do it its childish and stupid.

People who see everything as "lib vs con" crack me up.

People who see everything as "lib vs con" crack me up.

The following was one of the first posts you made here:

Conservatives tend to subscribe to the "strict father" ideology because it presupposes that everyone is born wicked and needs a strict hand to force them to behave.

Conversely, Progressives believe that people are basiclly good and merely need to have those good traits nurtured and encouraged in order to get them to behave.

Great at making an ass of himself. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180003) :)
Yeah, I'm not really sure what he means by calling "civil rights" a "con" and asserting: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it".

He should clarify, because I'm lost....

The following was one of the first posts you made here:

If you were to put that in context you would have seen that I was discussing the writings of a particular author, George Lakoff, in that quote.

apples and oranges.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what he means by calling "civil rights" a "con" and asserting: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it".

He should clarify, because I'm lost....

The funniest part about that claim is that Michael Weiner is Jewish.

The funniest part about that claim is that Michael Weiner is Jewish.
He might not be Christian, but he certainly falls under the category of white male. That aside, I see your point, and yes; it was a strange claim for him to make - I'll give you that...

When Decka makes insults, he's just fucking retarded.

And you sound like an intelligent and respectful human being when YOU make insults.. right?

Just the mere fact that any insult is being made toward you automatically means it's "retarded", that isn't hard to see. Pride is a mofo sometimes... I've had good burns on me in my life, and hey i acknowledge them for what they were...good burns.

It seems you are the type of person who, reguardless of the content, will always say the insult "sucked" just to try to save your own ass...

Just my opinion.. i could be wrong

Decka, I am completely not interested in making myself sound like an intelligent and respectful human being. If you've noticed, whenever I care to put labels on myself, it's always something like, "Ignorant Asshole Bum." I would much rather be these things than an intelligent and respectful human being. Being intelligent and respectful is way too much work for me. Takes up too much time, and it isn't worth it. Demeaning and insulting, those are much more rewarding, and far easier to accomplish, especially when the target of my attentions is your beer-fed, ignorant, frat-minded posts.

Decka, I am completely not interested in making myself sound like an intelligent and respectful human being. If you've noticed, whenever I care to put labels on myself, it's always something like, "Ignorant Asshole Bum." I would much rather be these things than an intelligent and respectful human being. Being intelligent and respectful is way too much work for me. Takes up too much time, and it isn't worth it. Demeaning and insulting, those are much more rewarding, and far easier to accomplish, especially when the target of my attentions is your beer-fed, ignorant, frat-minded posts.
There's a certain bit of sincere logic in that. I follow ya, Nap...

Besides, being nice is absolutely no fun, whatsoever. Especially when your target is easy prey.

Seriously, being intelligent and respectful, what does that get anyone? It sure as hell doesn't get you laid, that's for sure. It won't get you a job, it won't save your marriage, it won't get you any money, it's not going to paint your house, cook your food, dig your ditches. It's not going to make you respected, make you be heard, make people like you, or even stop an argument.

Seriously, being intelligent and respectful, what does that get anyone?
That depends on the person.
It sure as hell doesn't get you laid, that's for sure. It won't get you a job, it won't save your marriage, it won't get you any money, it's not going to paint your house, cook your food, dig your ditches. It's not going to make you respected, make you be heard, make people like you, or even stop an argument.
See above answer.

That depends on the person.

That's a ridiculous, meaningless answer. If that's all you can say to the question, then your answer is, "nothing."

That's a ridiculous, meaningless answer.
No it isn't. You're an imbecile if you think that being respectful and intelligent is a combination that does not get you anywhere with your life.

And you're a fool if you think it does.

I'd rather be an imbecile than a fool.

And you're a fool if you think it does.
My life has proven you wrong so far, and I plan to keep proving you wrong as I grow older.

Be my guest.