The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Remember when the Dixie Chicks said this about the President?

"We're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas".

The statement offended many country music fans, who thought it rude and unpatriotic, and the ensuing controversy fanned by politicians and mass media led to the eventual cancellation of their American tour that year. The incident led to hate mail, death threats, and the public destruction of their albums in protest. A Colorado radio station suspended two of its disc jockeys on May 6 for playing music by the Dixie Chicks

Remember when Ted Nugent said this?

In a Romney stump speech at the 2012 NRA Convention in St. Louis, Nugent said, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year." He also compared the Obama administration to coyotes who needed to be shot, and encouraged voters to "chop [Democrats'] heads off in November.

Where is the entertainment industry outrage? Where are the protests?

They learned to be more understanding of diverse points of view.
 
 ;D

I think the fact that Bain Capital (company that Romney founded) owns Clear Channel radio has a little to do with it. That is the same media conglomerate that broadcasts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

There is more than Clear Channel radio in the entertainment business.

Yes, but they dominate. They own 850 radio stations and broadcast programming on 5,000 radio stations in America. They claim 238 million listeners. They also own 400 television stations.

I'd say that is more than a little influence.

I know we aren't supposed to swear on here, (who knows why...) but part of the merch that I made for my old punk rock act was sticks that said, "love Clear Channel" <----- It's in quotes, see!

That takes a bit of the punch out of owning 850 stations. Programming on 5000 stations is not insignificant but it's about 35%, not an overwhelming majority. 

I don't see the parallel. The Dixie Chicks, on the eve of war in Iraq and less than 2 years after 9/11, said what they did across the ocean. They are/were a country & western act and, I hate to stereotype much, but their target market is perhaps a bit right of center. To their credit they apologized. Nugent, on the other hand, did not have the same circumstances as the DC--although he did have to answer to the SS (unsure if hookers were involved). Still, while I disagree with both camps, speaking out is their right  and whatever the consequence is on them.

With that said, the memory loss which has occurred in here since Bush left needs to me evaluated by professionals.

No memory loss here.  I like to go after both of them.  It's just that Bush had SO much more, for SO much longer a time!  But Blowbama is gonna catch up here if he wins re-election with his plans to gut the US Constitution, so am looking forward to really getting to go after his BS, too.  Big problem as of today is that he has just been entirely too moderate Republicontin to get much traction.  Kind of a Joe Lieberman/John McCain kind of guy, so really don't have much to go after right now.

I think it has.  The professional consensus is that not enough memory loss of the disrespect for both the man and the office during his term has occurred. 

You must be looking east toward the California Pacific (left) coast to say that.  Obama may not be as far left as some of his supporters would have liked but to call him a moderate Republican is a bit too much literary exaggeration.

He's being Reagan!

Hell, compared to today, Reagan was a moderate!

Gee, I was wrong.  You are looking at the west coast of Maui, not California.

I was going to list all the things that Obama has done that follow Reagan's example quite closely, but I realized it would be easier to list the things that are different. Then I realized that the one thing I could think of, signing Romney's health care bill into law, isn't any more left wing than the one that requires hospitals to provide emergency care to the indigent.

We got the crappy undeclared wars (now with drones!), we got the tax cuts, we got the massive public works expenditure, and the list goes on. Next, it'll be the All New S&L Show.

Ok, ok, to be fair he appointed a couple of Supreme Court justices who will probably turn out to be slightly to the left of Reagan's appointees.

The basic philosophy differences of what government should be doing between Obama and Reagan are not insignificant.  After all is said and done, Republicans are not always successful in promoting pollution, killing Granny......

Just wildly successful at it during the Reagan, Bush, Bush era's.

Philosophy is just noise (reference - Richard Roberts).  Actual actions and activities are what determines the reality (reference - Jerry Falwell).

Both Obama and Reagan are good little moderate Republicans.  That's pretty much the only way I can stand either one right now.  From this point on, Obama is more likely to change than Reagan, though.  And not for the better.

Fairness Doctrine argument in 3...2...1...

The slurs hurled at Bush during his Presidency by all sorts of liberal entertainers was quite staggering.  I think you are entering mental pause.

He gave them more material.

Red, Clear Channel does dominate. Though their 850 stations are not a majority number of stations, they are the stations that have the widest reach and the most rating points. That makes them the most profitable as well which means they can endure the types of advertiser defections they so richly deserve.

Mike's original point is still the best one made in this thread. The war had to be fed to the public and not everyone enjoyed the meal.

I went out a bought a Dixie Chics CD at the time even though I know nothing else about them.  Never listened to it and probably won't - not a country fan at all.  And will never buy a Toby Keith anything, nor visit his restaurant.

Law of supply and demand does work....

You have quite a way to go to convince me that Obama is anything right of a regular Democrat.

References to Richard Roberts and Jerry Falwell are wasted on me.  I have no respect for either of them.

Maybe Bulk Erase.

Me meither.  It would require going down to bricktown which would require going to OKC.  That's not going to happen.

The left doesn't do very good playing up outrage over speech. 
What the Dixie chicks said was not up to this level.  These comments imply violence against the President. Clearly just hyperbole, but I didn't even here about it.

Perhaps there is so much hyperbole from the right it just doesn't register anymore.  Rush, hannity, et al make a living from hyperbole... I think we are on the 15th MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER.

I don't see a need for the outrage in either case.  But there does appear to be an over reaction one way and no reaction the other. I don't think clear channel has anything to do it, they just cater to their audience.  the audience wants outrage one way and not the other.  Music and conservative talk is what clear channel owns... no outrage over Obama bashing.

Same thing I said to the Dixie chick freaks ans the if bush wins I'm leaving people... get over it.

The sold all their television in 2008 to concentrate on billboards and radio.
You can measure their influence by traveling north and hearing all the artists that are blocked by CC here.

Online music.  Who listens to radio other than NPR?

People who aren't latte-sipping elitist lib'ruls.

"Latte"?  psshhht...that's too murican for me.

Might as well drink that and eat your freedom fries.

It’s called market research not “blocking".  They play what resonates well within an area’s primary listeners.  That’s how they successfully sell advertising. 

Then someone please tell me how you replace Michael Savage with Clark Howard ?

Bumpski....!!!

Dude, if you are struggling with a coke habit, help is available.

I'll bite.
Calling out the president's racism is not in the same ballpark as saying racist things

Let's see. Disagree with policies of the Obama administration  and the left calls you a bigoted  racist hater suffering from white privilege.

Support Trump or any of his policies and the left calls you a bigoted racist hater suffering from white privilege.

And strangely, 90% of this forum is apparently "left."   


I just keep telling myself,  "Don't worry.  Some day they will grow up, pay taxes and learn what really happens out in the world."

I'll assume you're referring to Trump and the like. 
Not paying taxes makes him "smart"

1. Technically (if you believe the leaked version) he paid 25% taxes.
2. By "not paying taxes" I assume you mean avoiding paying any more taxes than you have to like 99.9999999999% of the population does.

You mean how those left leaning blue states pay taxes that subsidize red states in their refusal to do anything to improve? Those kind of taxes?

https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c


-Polls have shown that Republicans hated Obama's policies and yet when those same policies were promoted by Trump they support them. Whereas Democrats tend to support or disagree with policies no matter who is in charge (see Syria).
-Kinda like how Republican voters felt the economy was just awful during Obama but a month after Trump was in office (and had little to no effect on the economy yet) they felt they were in a much better place economically.
-Or how they refuse to believe the 2009 bailout Obama signed when first in office gave bigger, more meaningful tax cuts to ordinary Americans than the welfare for the rich tax bill that Trump passed.

So tired of watching the US have to fall behind because one half of the country is "feels over reals" and ignores facts. The only policies the GOP seem to have is help the rich, destroy the environment to help their buddies and piss off liberals. For 30 years the GOP, with the help of Fox News have gotten crazier and crazier. It didn't start with Trump. He just brought the hypocrisy out in the open. My hope is that if the country survives after Trump the moderates of the Republican party (I'm assuming some still exist) prevail.

Hmm.....for someone who says he's not a Trump supporter....

Already asked and answered.  We know he is.

Yep.  Those.


Truthiness in your comment that will be disparaged, bemoaned, and ignored by the RWRE.


The economy thing happened with Reagan, too.  Even though Carter had made HUGE improvements from the Nixon years, inflation was still high - due to Nixon's ignorance at putting in wage and price controls, but his buddies got a huge boost.   Inflation was instantly transformed in about 1 month into Reagan's term to being half of what it had been - by changing the way they calculated inflation!   Once again, goes to the whole lack of knowledge of history.  Every RWRE dream - remain ignorant and ignore facts!!   As so enthusiastically evidenced by the re-start of this thread!

Liars are liars even when they are lying about liars.

But obviously you are ok with that.

I will say those "left leaning blue states", were not always left leaning blue states. The policies of which are not really responsible for the huge tax base.

Natural resources, manufacturing base, etc are a far better indicator. But whatever. It's because they are Democrat run states I'm sure.

I can't help the fact that people are stupid.  Seriously.   

I can find you a poll where people can't even name one book.   (Alright, it was one of those man on the street videos, not a poll.)

And I can guarantee that I got more from the Trump tax cut (at least temporarily) than I did from the $1000 Obama gave me.

I'm confused why conservatives are so upset.  Comparing black people to primates has been career suicide for TV stars since the 1970s.  It's basically universally considered racist, who doesn't know that?

What we are supposed to conclude is that calling the President a liar (for lying) or calling the President a racist (for showing support for Nazis and KKK) is the same as comparing a black person to an ape? Please tell me you really can spot the differences. It's important that you can. Seriously, like  important  for the sake of representative government that people can tell the difference.

I'm not saying Rosanne should have been fired or not. That's a business decision for ABC, and private enterprise apparently made the decision that it was in the company interest to part ways - maybe because they had other issues in negotiations, because other members of the cast were unhappy, or advertisers, or because they thought they'd lose a larger audience.  The "snowflakes" on the right can whine all they want, but at the end of the day private enterprise did what it thought was in the best interest of its business (or do you think ABC gave up a hit show just because it was "PC" and the Disney Company became a mega corp because its too dumb to make solid financial decisions?). 

As an aside, I don't think Rosanne is a racist.  In her outspoken, obnoxious or conspiracy laden rants she has had plenty of opportunities to make her racism known and I haven't heard that she did.  I believe her that she mad a bad joke. I generally support a wide berth for comedy.  It reveals truths, it broaches subjects, and it forces us to look at things even if it is "too soon."  But she wasn't "just" a comedian anymore, she was back to being a TV star... if your "joke" is seen as racist and misses the mark by a mile, your corporate overlords cover their butts.
- - -


I'd be happy to have an economic discussion on this.  There are many striking and seemingly contradictory correlations in the support for the parties. I'm doubtful your statement is supported by evidence- go forth and start a new thread and I'd be happy to see the data.

Stupid?  No.  But you CAN help that they are uneducated.  Seriously.  FUND EDUCATION.

It's also worth noting that the gap between educated and uneducated is widening.  Also, the less educated you ware, the less likely it is that you will identify with liberal policies.  Sadly, the less educated the population, the better off a conservative agenda is. That can't be good for any ideology.

(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/4-22-2016_01.png)
http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/



Sadly, this too correlates well to education.  If you did not attend college, you are in the highest demographic of people who do not read. Even more troubling, our President proudly proclaims his lack of reading. The decline in reading is widespread:

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/01/Book_Reading_Distribution_78_14/23d9de3c7.png)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/23/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/


That may be, but economists are still dubious about the sales pitch given for the GOP Tax Cuts and increased deficits.  The micro effect is irrelevant, its the macro that tax policy considers.  Giving most Americans $1k results in immediate spending and an economic bump (the merits of such a short term thing can be debated).  Turns out giving more money to the people who already have most of the money doesn't usually do much.

The Trump tax cuts aren’t trickling down yet (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-arent-trickling-yet-152138386.html). Key business spending indicators are actually going in the wrong direction. Instead of investing the money or paying workers more just for fun, the cash is sitting, buying back stock, or going to investors.

Here’s what businesses did with Trump tax-cut windfall. Hint: they didn’t spend it (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-businesses-did-with-trump-tax-cut-windfall-hint-they-didnt-spend-it-2018-05-30).  Tax revenues were down over $100 Billion, but less than 3% of that made its way back into the economy from increased dividends or business spending.  Most of the money is just being hoarded (adding to the piles of cash already on many balance sheets).

Investment Boom From Trump’s Tax Cut Has Yet to Appear. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/the-tax-cut-buybacks-business-investment.html) It turns out lowering the tax incentive to invest money doesn't encourage companies to invest more money.  And if investing money previously would have resulted in greater profits - then they would have invested more money.  "Gee, I know I could make another billion... but Uncle Sam would take 35% of it, so I don't even want to so I'll just sit on a pile of cash.  Wait?  He's only going to take 25%, well golly-gee, then I say we make more money!"

Have The Trump Tax Cuts Supercharged The Economy? The Data Don't Show It. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2018/05/02/has-the-tcja-supercharged-the-economy-the-data-dont-show-it/#2089ae5a2549) The economy is essentially growing at the same rate it did under Obama (recent growth was actually revised down further, but why nit pick?), its just now we have much larger deficits.

It's early.  Things could change of course.  But the longer it takes for the "super charge" affect to take hold, the harder it is to correlate it to the piles of tax revenue given back to the largest companies and wealthiest people.

It's never really worked before, and before the call was always that we just needed MORE tax cuts.  Eventually, our taxes would be so low everyone would be rich and the government would be stocked full of cash.  It worked for Kansas, Oklahoma, and the USA - right? Another round or two of tax cuts for those that have money and we will finally have enough tax revenue to be fiscally conservative.

@cannon. I obviously haven't looked into it thoroughly except to say that I understand economic and migratory patterns/timing and population likely have far more to do with the wealth of an area much more than political leaning.

I just hate the lazy blue states fund red states "logic". There is no data to support that because state A is left leaning, it is able to raise more taxes.

So did they:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/harley-davidson-workers-stunned-plant-closure-after-tax-cut-n876901

Well, it is a fact that the blue states kick in tax money that goes to subsidies the red states, but the reasons are legion.  

I'd guess the heart of it goes to education - the economies in most of the blue states (and blue cities for that matter) rely on and attract an educated work force.  From silicon valley tech to NYC finance.  From the research triangle to Austin.  From Amazon and Microsoft in Seattle to the multinationals in DC.  And educated people tend to make more money as well as favor liberal policies. Where there is an educated workforce, there tends to be more blue.

There is also a race based component.  Non-white people, Hispanics and immigrants have tended to feel uncomfortable with the GOP for the last 65 years or so, so where there are more such people there tends to be more blue also.

Of course, living with a large and diverse group of people also correlates to a liberal leaning. Probably a combination of the education and race reasons, coupled with simply being around many different groups of of people. Monocultures tend to be more conservative than diverse groups.

Then there is an inherited attribute to political leanings as well. Either because the values are passed on, or they simply choose to cheer for the same team. Upstate NY and the tri-state region of Iowa/Wisc/and Minnesota is Democratic in spite of being rural, white, and not reliant on a highly educated work force.

There are tons of studies out there on the topic and they can't fully agree - so I surely can't pretend to have it figured out.  Just my musing. But the correlation is strong for whatever reason and one struggles to find an affluent, highly populated area that is bright red).

(https://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2012/11/15/chris%20map__.jpg)

Look at the red circles around your "affluent, highly populated" areas. I found them for you. They are called the suburbs, where many of those well educated, well to do people live.

Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, San Antonio, Charlotte, Seattle, Philly. They aren't that hard to find if you are looking.   ;D

If you can zoom in a bit, you often see them in incredibly affluent areas like Orange County and Greenwich CT which have both been known to lean right.

Convervative used to mean you were better educated but that has gone out the window.

(https://media.npr.org/news/graphics/2016/04/pew-growing-shares.png)

Lol...Its all they have....!!!

Lol...Are you going to cry next or what..???

Uhhh...What the love...???

If one looks at Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, San Antonio, Charlotte, Seattle, Philly and even Salt Lake - they are blue (probably some hue of purple really).   Yes, you can find less densely populated and less diverse suburbs that are more red - it isn't a revelation affluent white suburbs lean more Republican.  That goes hand in hand with the correlation data.  The data doesn't mean that all of any group have one view or another, but the correlation between educated and wealthy areas and DNC votes is well established.  The only interesting thing is trying to extrapolate the reasons.

Both Orange County and Greenwich are high on independent voters.   Both voted against Trump. Both are currently Democratic on the national level with an apparent history of voting for who they think is best, not party allegiance, and mixed in local races.  Seem like healthy politics now that I look at them.

 

Good post. Enlightening as always.

So in effect your correlary evidence that wealth and smart equal DNC votes is better than my evidence that wealthy smart people don't vote DNC... because??? you say so.

Outside of a few pockets of gentrified areas in major cities, the major urban areas are largely filled with less affluent, more minority based populations. This literally flies in the face of your hypothesis. Unless you are suggesting that what I just said is actually incorrect, and the city centers are actually filled with the most affluent educated populations in the country.

Personally I think your "theory" has some holes in it and kind of smells like the old "my side is smarter than your side" thing. Personally I think both sides are more or less equally smart (or stupid). Call me cynical.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-brooke-baldwin-rips-samantha-bee-in-fiery-monologue-conservatives-often-right-to-claim-double-standard/

Brooke Baldwin @ CNN touches on this double standard that she admits seems to exist.

Hmm....how people forget.  Ted Nugent called Hillary a 'toxic c**t'.  Also called for the execution of both HRC and POTUS Obama.

You prove the point well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ted-nugent-threatens-to-kill-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-during-vicious-onstage-rant-20070824

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/samantha-bee-on-ivanka-trumps-inaction-amid-migrant-crisis-w520938

I doubt you notice a difference in the tone of the headlines.

Party first everyone, don't you know. I guess no side wants to be the first side to practice what they preach (consistency).

Oh I forgot about the whole Laura Ingraham whiny comment that completely blew up for a few days. Yeah, leg to stand on when demanding consistency.

Please, quit clutching pearls. This has been going on since Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. John Adams, who was a Unitarian MINISTER said that Jefferson was "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." Jefferson said that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

A least Bee didn't say that Ivanka "had blood coming out of everywhere".

Political insults happen, and Donald Trump is one of the most vicious. Ivanka became fair game when she joined the administration. But go to racist insults anymore, and game over. Correctly so in my view.

Are you still violating Protective Orders...???

Are you still beating your wife?

moron.

LoL...You must have...

As previously stated, I do not think any data says more intelligent people favor one political view over any other.  The data on income that I have seen is fairly consistent (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/), income correlates to GOP voting, but the other factors are more predictive. The correlation is strong with education, ethnic group, and where you live - with those three factors you can predict a vote with high accuracy.  As far as I am aware, no data supports the notion that it has anything to do with intelligence - I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Nor did I attach a judgment to the data.  It's just statistical analysis.

I get, I get it. I'm ridiculous for pointing out the ridiculous nature and appearance of double standard of the screeching from the left because, well Trump does it. You have stooped to your own low.

I can't remember at the moment, but the expand on this point, and confuse the matter even further, I think it was 538 that was showing the education correlated with support for Clinton, however wealth did not. When most people would think that the two would go hand in hand.

Statistics.

You are unable to see the difference between racism and being a big ole meanie. Sad!

If the insults are based on reality and not race or stupid conspiracy theories. Sure.

The ONLY reason Trump was able win was because of the vitriol of his insults and hate. And he often traffics in hate based on sex, race, religion and place of origin. He deserves no sympathy. The high road with him and his administration means not trafficking in hate based on sex, race, religion and place of origin. And working for him, in his administration, means you are complicit in his criminal activity and his trafficking in hate. Even his daughter.

Bee went too far and was wrong. But not close to the level of Barr or Trump. Bee should quit or be fired right after Trump quits for things he has said about many women since he's been president.

So you completely discount the criminal actions and general unease about having Hillary in the White House?   Absolute statements are rarely if ever true.   

Who was being a racist, Ingram or Nugent?

I by no means am supportive of Barr. She has been a loon pretty much hew whole life. ABC had to know what they were signing up for on that one. That's on them.

Regardless of what the hordes of Trumpflakes think. Hillary in the White House would have been far more preferable to the dolt currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  That is, when he's not in Maralago, golfing.  But Goebbels always said, tell a lie enough times....

Keep up the lie then, wouldn't want this gem to die either.  ;D

You mean like the 3 million illegitimate votes cast that he won't let go of?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

TDS must cause people to literally bring stuff up that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim they are making.

Both are. Badly.

After Ted Nugent called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and a "chimpanzee" (which is sickeningly racist all on its own) Native American protestors in Idaho got the casino owned by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe to cancel a concert of his. In response he said "I take it as a badge of honor that such unclean vermin are upset by me and my positive energy.... By all indicators, I don't think they actually qualify as people, but there has always been a lunatic fringe of hateful, rotten, dishonest people that hate happy, successful people."

He also called Treyvon Martin a "Dope Smoking, Racist Gangsta Wannabe" and that he was "the same mindless tendency to violence we see in black communities across America."

Here's another good quote of his "Jesse Jackson and Al Not-So-Sharpton would be lisping their ebonic mumbo-jumbo that the policy and the president are racist and bigoted."


There's lots, lots more from that a**hole.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174


Laura Ingram said Lebron James' is a "cautionary lesson" And "This is what happens when you attempt to leave high school a year early to join the NBA.” and  “He's paid $100 million a year to bounce a ball,” but he should “keep the political commentary to yourself, or as someone once said, shut up and dribble.”

She also said "Now the price they have to pay for multiculturalism is the risk that you’re walking on the sidewalk and a man will — or a woman, will purposefully mow you down,” Ingraham said. “And then while you’re maybe finishing your cappuccino in a cafe, or having a drink, someone will put a knife to your throat and slit it with the attempt, perhaps, to behead you.”

Here's a quote on illegal immigrants "By the way, the jails are what, 27 percent illegal immigrants? Why don't we ship them back home and say you come again, and you'll be shot crossing the border? Why don't we ship them out of this country, why are we paying for these horrific individuals? They do their time, get out of the country, never coming back. Never coming back. You come back, you'll be shot."

Good people.

You mean like the birther's...

Or people talking about the Clintons "corruption"...

Or any of the other Fake Fox News items talked about every day...

He is too busy with the nitrous oxide and ammonia....

 
Classic projection - where people defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (especially negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. 

Your Fake Fox News Script rehearsal is showing....attributing criminal activity to Hillary, which has been investigated and dismissed repeatedly.  While in denial about Trumps, much of which played out in courtrooms over the decades and resulted in large fines.  Over and over.   And let's see who gets indicted first... but then Trump can just give himself a pardon, can't he?