liberalTXN's blog

Not like this has anything to do with whether or not one's policies are what's best for the american people, but anyways...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccainsons.asp

What the hell is wrong with the folks at Air America?

Kuby puts me to sleep faster than Lionel does! It's a bore-fest!

What happened Sam? What was the reason they gave you for not giving you a show?

So, for no good reason whatsoever, I decided to pick up one of my old Philosphy books from back when I was taking Philosophy and browse over a few things. I came across an essay titled, "On Liberty," by John Stuart Mill, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill) and gave it a read.

Now keep in mind that this came out in 1869. Now read this passage from the essay and tell me if it seems familiar to the ongoings of our government today. I know it’s lengthy, but do yourself a favor and read it:

But, in political and philosophical theories, as well as in persons, success discloses faults and infirmities which failure might have concealed from observation. The notion, that the people have no need to limit their power over themselves, might seem axiomatic, when popular government was a thing only dreamed about, or read of as having existed at some distant period of the past. Neither was that notion necessarily disturbed by such temporary aberrations as those of the French Revolution, the worst of which were the work of an usurping few, and which, in any case, belonged, not to the permanent working of popular institutions, but to a sudden and convulsive outbreak against monarchical and aristocratic despotism. In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth’s surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the "self-government" spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Yeah, that was written 139 YEARS AGO!!!

Does Sam plan on doing anything to ruffle the feathers of the Republicans this year?

Let me preface this by saying that I am Agnostic leaning towards Atheist. That being said, let me begin:

1. Who really cares about this guy? Why does the media insist on blasting sensationalism instead of policy?

2. Who is to say that Barack Obama isn't like the millions of Americans that file into church every sunday, go through the motions, and walk out the doors not remembering a single thing that was said. I am of the opinion that most Americans, while at church, would rather be watching football on their couch.

3. I, like many others, am very happy that Senator Obama has distanced himself from Reverend Wright. As you can tell with the history of George W. and the Christian Coalition, we really need to re-focus more on the seperation of church and state in this country.

I'm new to the whole talk radio world. I'm also new to blogs such as crooksandliars.com and thehuffingtonpost.com. I am a white male from Texas, 26 years old, manufacturing plant employee, and a single father. So I don't even know what kind of demographic I'm considered to be.

I began my journey into talk radio by downloading Bill Maher's Real Time podcasts, and noticed that other subscribers also subscribed to several Air America podcasts.

Anyways, it is my opinion that AAR should sign Sam on to the Randi Rhodes spot.

Although I am new the the world of talk radio, I've been listening for about two months now, and of all the talk hosts I've heard Sam is my favorite. I have gotten so wrapped in talk radio that I now listen to Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, and Chuck D while I'm at work instead of the music that I have on my newly purchased $250 iPOD, which I bought for the sole purpose of listening to music at work. I listen to all of the talk shows via podcast, because I don't get liberal AM talk stations in my area, and I don't work with a computer that grant me the ability listen to shows streaming live.

Anyways, I'm new to all of this and would like to know how to have my voice heard that I would like to hear a Sam Seder show more than once a week. Also, what other sources of information should I check out.

I usually just watch MSNBC, and CNN. But I've gotten so fed up with the corporate run news media, that it makes me sick.