I had intended to finish and post Pt. 2 of the "Neal Boortz is a moron" series on Friday, but I didn't for several reasons:
1. I got sidetracked by other pursuits
2. I ended up writing more than I had initially planned on writing
3. (The biggest reason). I am on medication now to cope with/alleviate the depression and anxiety I had been experiencing. It has helped tremendously in that regard, but an unfortunate side effect is that it seems to mellow and sedate me to the point where I don't mind not finishing posts, where as before I would spiral into a panic attack if I didn't get one done. I've actually half-done on about ten posts that I haven't gotten around to finishing ...
So I hope to be done with part 2 in a day or so, but here's a sample of the very typical brilliant analysis from Boortz's radio program. Today I turned to Boortz to hear a Senator (from his voice I believe it was James Inhofe, who is a delusional man - church/state separation and global warming are two of the greatest hoaxes in US history, according to Inhofe - that the state of Oklahoma should be embarassed to have representing them in the Senate) saying that the report on the structural imbalance of talk radio produced by the Center for American Progress* was actually ochestrated by Hillary Clinton (and Bill) as a conspiracy to end the careers of conservative talk radio hosts. Both Inhofe and Boortz agreed that the Center for American Progress is a holding tank for future Clinton appointees and that it is doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton, and that the report would not have been released had Clinton not believed that the Democrats had enough power in Congress to begin their covert assault on talk radio and then given the Center the go-ahead. Paranoid, much?
Then Boortz explained that the report (which he has apparently not read, more on this in my Pt. 2 response) is nonsense because its been proven that liberals are not commercially viable in talk radio. He gave three reasons why. I didn't have my notepad with me, so I might be off a bit, but this is what I recall him saying were the reasons that "liberals" can not succeed in radio:
1. Liberals have no sense of humor.
2. Liberals are factually challenged.
3. Liberals are emotional and irrational. Liberals can not or do not think logically.
Ok, other than a movement conservative ideologue, is their anyone to whom I actually need to bother responding to that?
Let me throw out some names at you: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Melanie Morgan, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, ...
Would you say that funny, factually accurate, and rational, logical argumentation are characteristics that describe this group?
*Actually co-produced by the CAP and Free Press, but conservative movement pundits like to leave that out so as to better promote their conspiracy theory
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world
5 hours ago