I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.



Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:


1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 28, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.



Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:


1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules

I appreciate your help. I had hoped to get more sites like Breitbart, conservative tree house, they're nothing more than news agrgating opinion sites with Discuss.
Sites like Rush are pretty innocuous n that they're merely a circular repository file for his daily bloviating, and most people never post his stuff, just repeat what he said on the air that day.

But don't stop, I will make a list. Hanniity is another, as well as O'Reilly.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on January 28, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
I can see I'll get no help with this and nobody cares anyway, so less pressure on me to be thorough or organized about it. I'll just post these from time to amuse myself. Better than cluttering up the main forum with complaints all of the same sort.



Opinion Journalists COMPLETELY in the Tank for Donald Trump:


1. Rush Limbaugh. The instances are ubiquitous, of course, so her's just the latest:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules

Hardly. He just explains the news of the day. Your witch hunt is silly  Next you'll target Levin since he doesn't come out endorsing Cruz. I don't understand it, but the top radio guys never endorse anyone in the primary. They WILL endorse the nominee over Hillary.

This witch hunt is beneath Conservatism. Some of you sound more the the Politically Correct left -- or college students demanding their "safe space."

Quote from: carlb on January 29, 2016, 12:41:03 AM
Hardly. He just explains the news of the day. Your witch hunt is silly  Next you'll target Levin since he doesn't come out endorsing Cruz. I don't understand it, but the top radio guys never endorse anyone in the primary. They WILL endorse the nominee over Hillary.

This witch hunt is beneath Conservatism. Some of you sound more the the Politically Correct left -- or college students demanding their "safe space."

Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.

Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2016, 05:24:52 AM
Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.

Over the last week or so I sense he is leaning to Cruz although he says he will not endorse anyone for the nomination

Cruz... and Dr. Henry Kissinger are the only two live interviews that Rush has hosted in over a decade.

Yeah, sounds like a real Trump supporter.  -Considering DT has been averaging 2-interviews every 10-hours since last September.  But none on Rush.  Hmmmm.  How'd that happen?

Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2016, 05:24:52 AM
Do you even listen to Rush?
I have listened since his very first show, long before he went national, listened over the years, seldom disagreed with what he had to say, but a little over a month ago, when it became the trump show, that was it for me.
Rush was promoting a lib over a Conservative, I haven't turned him back on since and never will again, and I'm not a alone,, he's lost more than a million listeners just like me.

Yes. DAILY.

But you just said you don't. But you believe you know what he says and I don't?

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 29, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
Cruz... and Dr. Henry Kissinger are the only two live interviews that Rush has hosted in over a decade.

Yeah, sounds like a real Trump supporter.  -Considering DT has been averaging 2-interviews every 10-hours since last September.  But none on Rush.  Hmmmm.  How'd that happen?

  exactly. But that won't stop the PC witch hunt

Quote from: carlb on January 29, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
Yes. DAILY.

But you just said you don't. But you believe you know what he says and I don't?

No, I said I turned him off after it became the Trump show.
The fact that Rush is even discussing the lib is all the evidence a person needs to see that Rush bailed on Conservative values.

It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!

Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought...  I'm in Carl's corner on this one.

But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker.  I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?

Where do you stop?  Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?

I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives.  Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality.  IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it.  Please reconsider.

Quote from: Hoofer on January 29, 2016, 07:30:31 PM
It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!

Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought...  I'm in Carl's corner on this one.

But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker.  I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?

Where do you stop?  Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?

I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives.  Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality.  IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it.  Please reconsider.

Well said, Hoofer.  We are just as human as liberals and thus vulnerable to making the same human mistakes.

Quote from: Hoofer on January 29, 2016, 07:30:31 PM
It's. not my forum, these moderators have a tough enough job as it is - espically when it's busy!

Disagree with banning quotes or links to another site is not something I'd do without some forethought...  I'm in Carl's corner on this one.

But the real fallout is the hassle inforcing rules like that, fairly, not alienating the new curious or casual onlooker.  I think the moderator job is tough enough, without this, why start banning quotes / linking and add to the workload?

Where do you stop?  Who or what political persuasion gets the axe next?

I really despise liberalism for the way they want to regulate and legislate every aspect of our lives.  Even more an oying is this one size fits all legal mentality.  IMO, this could be starting down the same road, completely unnecesary - because you've already got a good idea here, and great facilities supporting it.  Please reconsider.

Did you not see the qualifier regarding news aggregating sites such as Breitbart?
Basically they are nothing more than sites that post news articles from around the web and add discuss, no different than what we do here.
As I said, it is policy on this site to always go to the source of and given story for credit, and if everyone did this here, Breitbart would be eliminated via attrition.
Man I wish people would pay more attention on occasion. And you wonder why Trump supporters exist?

Quote from: Solar on January 30, 2016, 04:59:35 AM
Did you not see the qualifier regarding news aggregating sites such as Breitbart?
Basically they are nothing more than sites that post news articles from around the web and add discuss, no different than what we do here.
As I said, it is policy on this site to always go to the source of and given story for credit, and if everyone did this here, Breitbart would be eliminated via attrition.
Man I wish people would pay more attention on occasion. And you wonder why Trump supporters exist?

At times, missing the extra "spin" can be make a better point than the original article.

If Hillary says, "What difference, at this point in time, does it make?" - go ahead and use that, correct?
But, if the liberals use the same quote, and proclaim, "She owned the MSM, showed her brilliant intellect, and left the conservatives scratching their heads, wondering what to do next!" - nope, can't quote that.

Yeah, man, I wish the news was just the nuts-n-bolts stuff (who-what-where-when).  Those days are long gone, it's all SPUN right or left like God Himself is speaking through the Prophets, there is rarely an original source because the "WHY" spin IS the news.
... and that's what we're all talking about here.   Why burden yourself, and the folks with it?

Quote from: Hoofer on January 30, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
At times, missing the extra "spin" can be make a better point than the original article.

If Hillary says, "What difference, at this point in time, does it make?" - go ahead and use that, correct?
But, if the liberals use the same quote, and proclaim, "She owned the MSM, showed her brilliant intellect, and left the conservatives scratching their heads, wondering what to do next!" - nope, can't quote that.

Yeah, man, I wish the news was just the nuts-n-bolts stuff (who-what-where-when).  Those days are long gone, it's all SPUN right or left like God Himself is speaking through the Prophets, there is rarely an original source because the "WHY" spin IS the news.
... and that's what we're all talking about here.   Why burden yourself, and the folks with it?

Seriously? When people post links to these site, you boost their outreach and credibility.
Not to mention, you help deliver their warped message which is usually opinion in the title of the article.
Posting the original source gives us the strength of opinion in titling the article the way Conservatives view a given issue. Remember, you aren't just posting to a hand full of members, but thousands of readers looking for our take on a given issue.

Take the time, and I know, those few extra seconds can be stressful in looking for the source which is generally in the first paragraph of the article.
But this gives you the opportunity to voice your opinion, and not those of leftist trolls with an agenda.
Like I said, it's always been policy here regardless. There's no excuse for lazy.

Quote from: Solar on January 30, 2016, 05:56:37 AM
Seriously? When people post links to these site, you boost their outreach and credibility.
Not to mention, you help deliver their warped message which is usually opinion in the title of the article.
Posting the original source gives us the strength of opinion in titling the article the way Conservatives view a given issue. Remember, you aren't just posting to a hand full of members, but thousands of readers looking for our take on a given issue.

Take the time, and I know, those few extra seconds can be stressful in looking for the source which is generally in the first paragraph of the article.
But this gives you the opportunity to voice your opinion, and not those of leftist trolls with an agenda.
Like I said, it's always been policy here regardless. There's no excuse for lazy.

Point well made, and taken.

My perspective is the quality of the forums, policing foul language & personal attacks -ought- to elevate the value of the whole system above those others, and attract that many more viewers and participants.  I had not though the "hits" to other sites mattered as much as you've pointed out.  (still in BBS land here, the forums on web is largely new to me).