Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

Top 291. Jun 18, 2005 6:40 PM

» poopsie2 - Re: Re: Re: 2005 Talkers Magazine Talk Host Survey

In response to Re: Re: 2005 Talkers Magazine Talk Host Survey posted by bob90245:

Bob, is it possible to listen to Merriman live on radio from the Los Angeles area?

-- posted by poopsie2

Top 292. Jun 19, 2005 7:36 PM

» permabear - Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt?

In response to Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt? posted by F111Star:

"What exactly do you find frightening about Michael Savage?"

How about calling everyone who disagrees with him commiting treason and should be hung. If Michael Savage had any real power rather than just spouting off on the radio, the country would be in big-time trouble. I actually find the guy somewhat entertaining to listen to because he does have personality, but I don't see how anyone can really take the guy seriously.

[ Kirk's Editor Comment: Please take any further discussion of this to our Politics Forum. I want to keep this on investing and What Bob Brinker has to say about investing or Brinker trivia like how many listeners he has according to the surveys we posted. Thanks ]

-- posted by permabear

Top 293. Jun 20, 2005 1:19 AM

» azxcvbnm - Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt?

In response to Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt? posted by permabear:

I think entertainment what separates conservative talk radio from liberal Air America. I've been listening to Air America for the past few weeks, on and off, just to see what they're all about. All they do is whine and complain, but they do it in a manner that is not all that fun to listen to.

The conservative talk show hosts understand that their #1 objective is to entertain those who are on the road, stuck in traffic. Air America is dismal at that.

-- posted by azxcvbnm

Top 294. Jun 20, 2005 10:08 AM

» bob90245 - Re: Merriman live on radio

In response to Re: Re: Re: 2005 Talkers Magazine Talk Host Survey posted by poopsie2:

Bob, is it possible to listen to Merriman live on radio from the Los Angeles area?

No. But HIS WEBSITE says that he broadcasts live out of Palm Springs. (probably too far away.)

-- posted by bob90245

Top 295. Jun 20, 2005 7:46 PM

» permabear - Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt?

In response to Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt? posted by azxcvbnm:

(Kirk, I know this is a bit off topic, but indulge us for a post or two. We're just following up on the flow of the conversation.)

"The conservative talk show hosts understand that their #1 objective is to entertain those who are on the road, stuck in traffic. Air America is dismal at that."

You know as an admitted mainstream Democrat, I have to somehow agree that many of the conservative talk show hosts are entertaining while the liberal ones are dry. Ed Schultze comes as close to the entertaining style as I've heard. I hate to admit it but I think Jerry Springer does a decent job of mixing entertainment with factual opinion advocacy. The problem with entertainment on the conservative side is that a large percentage of the listeners don't see the message as entertainment. You listen to these callers and they are rabid believers, even in the most fascist positions of someone like Michael Savage.

Another problem I have with conservative talk radio is how blatantly they spin the news, even to the point of misleading the audience. For example regarding the Iraq war, you think you're listening to the 1930s propaganda when you listen to the conservatives. There is no problems in Iraq. Everything is hunky dorry.

I respect talk show hosts, of either persuasion who don't follow the party line on every issue. I enjoy listening to generally conservative Mike McConnell on Saturdays because you can never exactly predict what position he's going to take on any given issue. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand are basically just a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. No original thought from either of these guys. The same can be said of some of the liberal talk show hosts as well. Randi Rhodes is pretty much a pretty predictable advocate of most liberal positions.

Bringing Bob Brinker into the discussion, unlike many others on this thread, I don't mind when he discusses politics. I often don't agree with him, but I respect his viewpoint. He is someone you can't pin a liberal or conservative label on. He is pretty predictably anti tax, libertarian on most issues, but he also recognizes the errors that supply side economics have created in recent years.

-- posted by permabear

Top 296. Jun 20, 2005 8:14 PM

» hickfish - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt?

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt? posted by permabear:

Perm: It is tough to characterize Savage as a proponent of Fascism. While he does tend to send a strong message regarding Nationalism it can hardly be considered totalitarian in nature, in fact quite the opposite.

Anyone concerned with the facts can not argue that Rush and Sean are sell outs and wind bags. In fact, it is rather more enjoyable when Rush is not on the air as his guests tend to be more objective and entertaining.

Savage is extremely critical of both primary political parties in the US, however, it does not appear that he would ever let up on one side to focus on the other to benefit himself. This is true too of the situation in Iraq, actually.

Is Brinker really anti-tax? Also, isn't he a proponent of deadlock between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government? What are the errors of supply side economics in recent years?

-- posted by hickfish

Top 297. Jun 21, 2005 7:11 AM

» permabear - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt?

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is Hugh Hewitt? posted by hickfish:

"Is Brinker really anti-tax? Also, isn't he a proponent of deadlock between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government? What are the errors of supply side economics in recent years?"

Brinker has supported every one of Bush's tax cuts, although he has admitted that they have been biased towards the rich and could have done a better job of stimulating the economy by affecting the middle class more directly.

As for supply side economics, supporters like to point out that revenues increased especially in the 80s following Reagan's tax cuts. The problem is with Bush's tax cuts, revenues have actually shrank as a percentage of GDP to the lowest levels since the 1950s. If you want to know what is most responsible for the deficits we see today, it is not the increase in spending, which is matching historical norms as a percentage of GDP. Rather revenues are falling far short of historical norms and are the primary cause of the incredible explosion of deficits. Deficits hurt us in so many ways including increasing our taxes over time (interest on the national debt is running well over $300 billion per year). Because of Reagan/Bush deficits we are totally dependent on the Chinese and Japanese to fund our budgets and if that flow of money ever ebbed, we'd be in deep doodoo. Add to that the changing in demographics with the aging population. We should be running surpluses, as Clinton did, to prepare for the entitlement needs that will be upon is in the coming decades. Instead the Republicans have done the opposite and really dug a huge hole. Eventually the only solution with be a combination of massive spending cuts AND tax increases. They have just dug the country into the ditch with these policies.

-- posted by permabear

Top 298. Jun 21, 2005 11:55 AM

» oldtown4 - Re: Re: " I luckily didn't follow his short time QQQ advice"

In response to Re: " I luckily didn't follow his short time QQQ advice" posted by Kirk:

Wouldn't you loved to have seen Bobbie's face when he learned that the Marketimer lady had released his subscriber numbers, and it was circulated here for the entire world to see. He was probably having chest pains.

I subscribe to a financial newsletter, and this guy has no TV or radio presence, and is rarely in the press. According to the disclosure in his own letter, he has less than 30K buyers.

So 200,000 or so for Bobbie is entirely believable in my estimation. Even after dropping a few million for fulfillment/salaries and postage (and some mail advertising), Web site maintenance which Jr does anyway, a million for his many advisors, and taking out the taxes, he is rich beyond our comprehension.

Well good for him I say. He is on the air most of the time, more or less. And he seems to be honest and well intentioned.

Hopefully someday we will learn that he has been very generous to charities....that would be a good thing.

-- posted by oldtown4

Top 299. Jun 25, 2005 3:44 PM

» iamacamera - Re: Re: Merriman live on radio

In response to Re: Merriman live on radio posted by bob90245:

"Bringing Bob Brinker into the discussion, unlike many others on this thread, I don't mind when he discusses politics. I often don't agree with him, but I respect his viewpoint. He is someone you can't pin a liberal or conservative label on. "

Whatever Bob's other sterling qualities he is not widely known for his political acumen. Libertarians don't have tantrums b/c the minimum wage is too low. They also understand that when people get tax rebates the money does not disappear just b/c they don't spend it at Walmart. Bob seems to believe rich people put their rebates under the mattress.

I am moved to write this b/c of Bob's rant this afternoon against the "right wing" of the Supreme Court concerning the New London decision. He got it exactly wrong. Either he had no idea who voted for what or he believes Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter are right wingers. This will come as news to Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

When someone called and respectfully (very) called him on it, he couldn't understand why left wingers would vote that way.
Earth to Bob: They believe in BIG government.

Bob is essentially a populist demagogue. And it is ALL about Bob. If you see an inconsistency eg he doesn't like unions, it is not thought-thru convictions. It is b/c they have given him a hard time in previous jobs. If you have listened as long as I have, you kncw this b/c he has said it, himself.

As I have said many times Bob is a guy with one area of expertise. Get him outside of this expertise and he's Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man."

OTOH his last 2 calls have made me a not so small fortune, and I'm grateful for that.

-- posted by iamacamera