Top 25 Radio Hosts

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican. Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist. Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Here's the kicker. Liberal radio stations don't want to be called "Liberal", they call themselves "Progressive"?

NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts and I've listened to most of these at sometime and I doubt I've listened to more than 15 minutes of any one of these, they usually get to ranting about something after 10 minutes.

1. Rush Limbaugh is more than America’s most widely listened-to talk-radio host (“the most listened-to radio host on the planet,” he likes to say).
Take almost anything he says with a shot of JD, about 15% of anything he says is worth listening to and if he gets on a rant, which will usually happen about 2 minutes into a topic, change the station.

2. Bill O’Reilly has established himself as one of the nation’s top media personalities. Every week he finds occasions to agree with something a prominent Democratic politician has said, although O’Reilly has also remarked that “the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left.”
By that standard he will say something "Nice" about something from a Democrat about one in 5 times, again about 20%, but for the most part I consider about 40% of anything he says as worth listening to, until the ego trip.

3. Don Imus is the most curmudgeonly of America’s major talk hosts. Although "slightly" liberal, Imus’s sharp tongue slashes Republican and Democratic politicians alike.
He likes to rant a lot, which means I will change the station after about 5 minutes. Maybe 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

4. Michael Savage is individualistic, iconoclastic, and eclectic; a passionate populist who sometimes sounds like a shock jock.
He yells a lot and may even start off in a rant about something which I don't care about! I usually can't listen to him for more than 5 minutes. Again about 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

5. Sean Hannity is a talk host with a pugilistic demeanor who polarizes issues into contests between good guys in white hats and bad guys in black.
I can usually listen to him longer than others, I may have listened to him for more than 15 minutes at any one time, but not often. About 30% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

6. Laura Ingraham, whose insider knowledge of government, droll humor, and feisty, fervent conservatism keeps her at the top of Conservative Talk Radio.
I can listen to her for about 15 minutes, or until she goes on a rant about her views on abortion. I can sometimes stand her for more than 15 minutes, but only about 20% of anything she talks about is worth listening to.

7. Glenn Beck’s relentless good humor can make important topics seem less urgent.
He can get into a "holier than thou" attitude, then it's change the station. I even have one of his books, about a Christmas Sweater. Again, usually 15 minutes is about all I can take, but about 25% of anything he talks about is worth listening to for me, until the God rant starts - and sometimes he starts with it.

8. Dr. Laura Schlesinger is seen as a cultural and political talk host because she — sin of sins — judgmentally asserts that some politically correct behaviors are wrong.
I think I've listened to her for more than 20 minutes and think about 30% of her topics are worth listening to.

9. Neal Boortz, “the talk master,” is America’s most popular Libertarian talk-show host.
I can take maybe about 2 minutes and less than 10% of what he talks about is worth listening to.

10. Al Franken, the brightest star of Air America Radio, is the left’s latest attempt to create its own Limbaugh.
They admit it's a Leftist radio station and host, not just liberal, which means right away it's over the top and extremely bent. Let's see, Minnesota had Jesse Ventura (R) as a governor and decided to tip the scales back to center with Al Franken (D) as a Representative in Congress. They overtipped. As soon as I hear his voice, I know about 2% of his topics would be worth listening to, for maybe 30 seconds.

11. Mike Gallagher a talk host in the Hannity style who sees right vs. left as right vs. wrong,
and as far as extreme views go, he's half right. I can actually stand him for about 20 minutes and think about 30% of his topics are worth listening to.

12. Erich “Mancow” Muller is known for his wild behavior. His show features a large cast of characters, adolescent pranks.
Not a serious show, so unless you really want to screw up your head, don't bother unless you're an airhead.

13. Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed “king of all media,” is a talk-radio superstar whose audience once rivaled Limbaugh’s.
A real shock jock with nothing worth listening to, again don't bother unless you're an airhead. 
OK, here's the deal, when is the last time you actually ate at a restaurant with a "B" rating? And Howard is a "C", at best.

14. Bill Bennett’s radio show, Morning in America, was launched in April 2004. On the air he often exhibits the patience and certitude of a priest.
5 minutes, tops, then that's it and about 10% worth listening to, if you can get past 5 minutes.

15. Opie & Anthony epitomize radio’s new “cringe” shock jocks.
Airheads only, couldn't get past 30 seconds.

16. Ed Schultz a converted “moderate” Republican is now a “progressive liberal.” Schultz describes himself as a “gun-totin’, red meat-eatin’ lefty” out to slay the “right-wing radio dragon.”
So, by his own definition, about 5% of his topics are worth listening to, for maybe 2 minutes, before he goes on a rant.

17. Michael Medved the self-described “cultural crusader on politics and culture” has always enjoyed debating politics.
Good for maybe 20 to 25 minutes max, about 25% of his topics are worth listening to.

18. Randi Rhodes is the main “hit man” at Air America Radio, the liberal network. She has been described as, “a chain-smoking bottle blonde. The Miami Herald says she's mostly, rude, crude, loud, brazen, gleefully scatological.”
Less credible than Al Franken or Keith Olbermann. 30 seconds max and nothing worth listening to.

19. Jim Bohannon describes himself as “a militant moderate”, soft-edged liberal.
Apparently he's retiring anyway.

20. G. Gordon Liddy has brought unique insights about government and the world, and convicted in the Watergate scandal.
I can actually listen to him and Oliver North for longer than most pundits.

21. Diane Rehm is one of the more moderate voices empowered by taxpayer-supported NPR.
But then again, NPR is 100% liberal, if not tipping too far to the left, so I don't listen to them.

22. Larry Elder is America’s pre-eminent libertarian-conservative African-American radio talk show host. He coined the term “Victicrat” to describe those who seek political power by claiming to represent victims of racism or poverty.
I can listen to him for 20 minutes or more and about 45% of his topics are worth listening to.

23. Michael Reagan’s radio show is a forum where Republican voices and conservative values come together.
The son of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, he has a large legacy to live up to. He's also good for about 20 minutes.

24. Tammy Bruce is living with one foot at each end of the political spectrum, she has both conservative and liberal critics. She describes herself as “a pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, openly gay, voted-for-President-Reagan progressive feminist Democrat”.
If she can stay on topic for 5 minutes, without the ego trip, I can listen to about 15% of her topics.

25. Tom Leykis, the poor man’s Howard Stern, used to focus on politics and boasted that his was the only radio show “not hosted by a right-wing wacko or a convicted felon".
Any reference to Howard would make me change the station, but I can actually take him for about 15 minutes on about 20% of his topics.

It's all about the business.

"Some of the progressive or liberal shows had just been sold to Al Jazeera. it's clear that the progressive community and its political leaders have simply not supported the format in the same way that the (conservative format) has. As someone who took substantial personal risk in syndication and station ownership, I can tell you that progressive talk has not panned out as a viable business. Air America's parade of management blunders produced the downward spiral that brought us to this tipping point for progressive talk radio, and most station owners, rightly or wrongly, see that failure as an indication that audiences won't support liberal talk radio."

 Peter B Collins, Truthout

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14355-an-insiders-view-of-the-progressive-talk-radio-devolution

DON'T BE BLUE

The 50 most popular liberal websites

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.
Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.
Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.
These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

 All 50 websites are listed with their Alexa rank following their link. So for example, a “1” would mean the page was the most popular website on the net. A “100,000” would mean the 100,000th most popular page on the net. With that being said, let’s go ahead and take a look at the rankings.
The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.

1)  CNN: 52
2)  The Huffington Post: 393
3)  Time: 553
4)  NPR: 1,524
5)  Slate: 1,569
6)  Newsweek: 1,690
7)   U.S. News & World Report: 2,408
8)  Politico: 2,470
9)  Salon: 2,455
12) The Atlantic: 8,538
13) The Village Voice: 8,922
16) New Yorker: 12,429
17) The Daily Beast: 12,512
23) MoveOn: 21,786
24) Mother Jones: 22,277
25) Amnesty International: 23,807
27) The Nation: 24,552
28) Antiwar: 24,799
32) Planned Parenthood: 28,207
33) Information Clearing House: 28,605
37) Political Wire: 34,698
39) ACLU: 37,195
40) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 37,494
41) Media Matters: 37,650
44) Drudge Retort: 41,472
45) The American Prospect: 42,082
46) Harper’s Magazine: 42,659
47) Firedoglake: 42,836
48) TruthDig: 44,389
49) Wonkette: 45,704
50) AmericaBlog: 45,195

Honorable Mentions

51) FiveThirtyEight: 46,521
52) The Washington Monthly: 48,238
53) Michael Moore 48,918
55) Air America: 54,928
58) Center for American Progress: 58,713
59) The Brookings Institute: 61,302
60) Zmag: 65,741
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/#ixzz43mb7ZOOy

DON'T BE BLUE

The 100 Most Popular Conservative Websites Of 2015

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.

Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.

Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.

These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.




1) Fox News: 212
2) Wall Street Journal: 294
3) Independent Journal Review 341
4) The Drudge Report: 635
5) Western Journalism: 819
6) New York Post: 870
7) The Blaze: 1045
8) Breitbart: 1,533
9) WorldNetDaily: 2,500
10) Conservative Tribune: 2,555
11) Newsmax: 2,622
12) Young Conservatives: 2972
13) Infowars: 3,133
14) Top Right News: 3,203
15) The Washington Times: 3,241
16) The Daily Caller: 3,328
17) National Review: 4,379
18) Rare: 5,159
19) Real Clear Politics: 5,617
20) PJ Media/Instapundit: 5,799
21) TownHall: 6,643
22) Investor’s Business Daily: 6,930
23) Hot Air: 7,136
24) The Washington Examiner: 7,372
25) Reason: 7,882
26) The Washington Free Beacon: 8,176
27) Qpolitical: 8,564
28) Twitchy: 8,783
29) The Weekly Standard: 9,124
30) Cybercast News Service: 9,154
31) Free Republic: 10,125
32) Right Wing News: 10,545
33) Chicks On The Right: 11,575
34) Newsbusters: 12,674
35) Mad World News: 13,110
36) The American Thinker: 13,279
37) The Gateway Pundit: 14,301
38) The Tea Party News Network: 14,928
39) Glenn Beck: 15,422
40) Freedom Outpost: 15,869
41) The Heritage Foundation: 15,991
42) Lifesitenews: 16,045
43) Buzzpo: 17,949
44) The Federalist: 17,512
45) The Federalist Papers: 17,759
46) Shoebat: 17,976
47) Power Line: 18,615
48) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 19,421
49) Lew Rockwell: 20,179
50) Watts Up With That? 21,357
51) Bizpac Review: 21,506
52) Redstate: 22,625
53) Life News: 22,747
54) Clash Daily: 23,254
55) Truth Revolt: 23,564
56) Lucianne: 23,856
57) Ace of Spades HQ/My Pet Jawa/Rhymes With Right: 24,253
58) Viral Buzz: 24,918
59) The Right Scoop: 27,873
60) Pamela Geller: 28,467
61) Front Page Magazine: 30,367
62) Universal Free Press: 31,314
63) Tell Me Now: 31,221
64) Weasel Zippers: 32,545
65) Louder With Crowder: 30,631
66) Jihad Watch: 33,200
67) Mr. Conservative 33,894
68) American Conservative: 33,952
69) RedFlagNews: 35,048
70) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 35,700
71) Freedom Outpost: 36,794
72) The Cato Journal: 37,900
73) Taki’s Magazine: 40,558
74) Joe For America: 44,530
75) Legal Insurrection: 45,079
76) Steyn Online: 46,174
77) The American Spectator: 49,116
78) American Enterprise Institute: 49,548
79) Personal Liberty Digest: 49,747
80) Allen West: 49,872
81) Commentary: 49,515
82) Bad Blue: 49,522
83) Three Percenter Nation: 50,012
84) The New American: 54,502
85) Judicial Watch: 59,172
86) Washington Weekly News: 62,691
87) Althouse: 66,030
88) Daily Paul: 66,851
89) Bill O’Reilly: 67,480
90) GOP.com: 67,749
91) Canada Free Press: 68,023
92) Human Events Online: 68,967
93) Jewish World Review: 76,215
94) GOPUSA: 71,293
95) Ricochet: 71,358
96) Day by Day: 73,755
97) Numbers USA: 76,280
98) Vox Day: 76,816
99) X Tribune: 76,417
100) City Journal: 84,176
http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-of-2015/#ixzz43md12DPH

DON'T BE BLUE

Left, Right, Left (politics)

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a called a moderate.

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views".

This would make anyone, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who voted the straight party ticket, a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. 

The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices.

This is not about who's better, Democrats, which are often mislabeled as LEFT or Republicans, which are often mislabeled as RIGHT, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, which, as an American, I'd hope you'd do just that. 

My question is about the choice of terms.
The extremes in both parties are most likely to label the other party as either Left or Right, while they,  really think of themselves as Liberal or Conservative.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left has been labeled as anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right has been labelled as fascists, racists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

Interestingly, both categories have contradictions, in my mind, for the same terms.
Both parties have demonstrated that they are NOT open minded as a party, while any person of either party would certainly say that "they" ARE open minded and anyone of the other party is not.

I've seen more racist attitudes and demonstrations started by so called Anti-racists as categorized by the term Left. I've also seen more so called Anti-racists throwing the race card, with the express intent to initiate a confrontation that will lead to open violence.

Keep in mind that the first person or group to throw the race card, is the real racist.

I think no party designation, either Democrat or Republican, is really defined, by either party, as being racist. It is an individual ideology. Most people have forgotten that the Democratic party was originally founded on racism and the Republican party was against it, resulting in the Civil War,

It is also very interesting that while the, admittedly Democrat leaning activist group, "Black Lives Matter", so called Anti-racist activists, openly demonstrates against a black person being killed by a white police officer, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime, BUT there is no outcry by them when a black police officer kills or even shoots another black person, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime.

There has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer shoots or kills a person who is white, hispanic, asian or any other race, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime. Clearly ALL lives do not matter.

And there has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer is killed by another black person committing a crime.

Point of View  Wikipedia Yahoo 

And don't get me started on using insanity as a defense for a not guilty plea.


DON'T BE BLUE

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports

Former Yankees star reliever and current spring training instructor Goose Gossage has shaken Western democracy by denouncing players — home-run bat-flippers, pitching-mound chest-pounders, and the like. 

So the Yankees brought Gossage in for a chat?

Gossage, as per my understanding, said, “Let’s keep some sport in our sport. Bad losers can reasonably be explained and indulged. Bad winners? No way.”

Among the most commonly asked questions by fans who were raised to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad and winning baseball from everything less, has become, “How do managers allow that stuff?”

Baseball players are not the only fools who parade their incivility in this unsportsmanlike manner. Football players ,both American and European, but mostly American Football players, are the most egregious. Basketball is not quite as bad as Baseball or Football, but there is lots of disrespect shown between players in most team sports. Hockey may be the worst in teaching unsportsmanlike behavior to our children, as far as encouraging unsportsmanlike conduct on the ice by allowing fights between players, but Football and Baseball and Basketball are more watched by our impressionable youth.
It appears that most team sports are a parade of fools. 
http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/goose-gossage-absolutely-right-to-call-out-mlb-showboaters/

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports.
And it all starts with how they are brought up.
Being respectful and civil in your social interactions and accomplishments was encouraged as a young participant in school as well as play. It's not being taught by parents or teachers anymore. Generation X and Millennial children are seriously lacking in Civility.

The disruptive conduct of protesters at presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rallies is the latest evidence that protesting in a civil manner is not the hallmark of the current electoral campaign. The protesters were bent on causing as much disruption as possible, mostly physical. In Ohio a protester was apprehended when he approached Trump on stage, perhaps intent on inflicting physical harm to the candidate. 

This protester was an anarchist with blogs and Facebook pages showing his hate for America in his words and actions by stomping on the American Flag. It was later learned that his mother is an extreme left wing protester advocating socialism, his father is a preacher.

Other candidates have faced less physical confrontation, but their opponents’ vocal catcalls have disrupted their efforts to speak to their supporters. “Black Lives Matter” advocates have been particularly disruptive, most notably at a Bernie Sanders event. 

It's interesting that the Democratic supporters that demonstrate at Republican events have the most violent outcomes, while the Republican supporters at the Democratic events have not shown any violence. 

If protesters want to attend the rallies of candidates they don’t like, they can do so in a peaceful, non-disruptive manner while still making their point. Years ago a group of protesters quietly took seats in the front row at a speech by someone they opposed, holding opposition signs clearly visible to the speaker and television news cameras. There was no disruption, but the speaker was aware of their protest throughout his presentation.

Why can’t the citizens of a nation whose First Amendment is a protection of free speech honor the right of their opponents to practice that right without harassment? 

It appears to me that the Left wing can't get their voice heard without resorting to violence, even when they demonstrate against other Democrats, at Democratic events.

George Washington Carver ~ "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these."

Media news bias is ratings driven

Just another reason I rarely watch "Prime Time News" or nationally syndicated news shows like 60 minutes, they bend the news to drive up ratings, in some cases they will just make it up.

Why are the major media outlets content to manufacture or bend the hot news stories in order to drive up ratings?
It's because of the mentality of the old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"! Unfortunately the bastardized news stories last for days or weeks, if not months, and the asking for forgiveness by broadcast media never happens, or in the case of printed news, it's relegated to the back pages or a footnote.

Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be lying mute in an underground box at the age of 17. Nobody does. He committed no offense to warrant such a fate. He was simply returning from the convenience store and chatting on his cell phone with his girlfriend , a scene that could be replicated a million times across America on any given evening. http://themoderatevoice.com/142893/pictures-and-prejudice-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Here’s all we know for certain about the killing of Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman noticed the black teen wearing a hoodie while within the confines of the gated community, tailed him as a suspicious character, stepped out of his car to challenge him (despite instructions from police to keep on moving), exchanged words with Martin and they both ended up on the ground. Someone moaned for help around the moment that the gun went off, and Martin died on the spot.

Was the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman out for blood or just taking his job a little too seriously? 

Why was the only picture used by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and every other major newspaper, from when Trayvon Martin was only 14 years old?
The contrasting photos of cute Trayvon and nasty George undoubtedly contributed to the call for vengeance.
Was the exposure on Zimmerman’s photo altered in some versions to make the half-Hispanic killer look “whiter”?
George Zimmerman is multi-racial. In fact, it’s been said that he has black relatives.

For most of the black community and the left-of-center crowd, it’s an open-and-shut case of a light-skinned racist murdering an innocent African American kid for the crime of “walking while being black.” The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up to make racial politics, just to add fuel to the fire. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has catapulted that essential item of hip-hop apparel to unprecedented glory as a political symbol of unjustly maligned black youth. By now, every Trayvon Martin sympathizer and his brother has been photographed wearing a hoodie. Congressman Bobby Rush was even kicked out of a congressional hearing because he showed up wearing a hoodie. He was kicked out because he did not adhere to the dress code for appearing before congress. Dress code? 'That' is a subject for another day.

NBC altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it seem as if Zimmerman was race obsessed, and every news story used it as part of their coverage. 

Photographs, videos, and recordings can be indispensable clues, but our biases, conscious or not, have a way of tampering with the evidence.
Neither man was all saint or all villain. Both should be given an equal chance to be vindicated or judged by proper authorities.

NBC News has since fired the producer who was involved in the production of a misleading taped segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. On April 6th, 39 days after the maelstrom, it appeared as a blip in the news, but not on any prime time news broadcast.

The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

Of course the damage has been done in the wake of a rioting public driven to the media frenzy,
 just as they wanted.

Sometimes you just can't help but be BLUE!