Howard Stern vs. George Bush

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-23 02:28am

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Lazy Raptor wrote:8 million? Does anyone know how that compares to the O'Reillylimbaughannity crowd?
Rush Limbaugh has something on the order of twenty million listeners (most of whom are already right-wing dittoheads who'd vote for Bush regardless.) Mind you, both Limbaugh and Stern are known for being bombastic windbags, so their cumulative effect on the outcome of the election (in spite of what the pundits may think) could be described as a
very, very small number.

I disagree; Stern has always been at heart a Republican as are many of his listeners. Do not make the mistake to think that only Democrats like Stern's brand of humor (which I personally find childish, but to each his own) and Stern has a great deal of influence with his listeners. This is a much more serious blow then the Republicans might think, because it sets in motion the notion that the Bush administration is trying to surpress the media.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-23 02:39am

Stern is actually more of a libertarian, he's certainly more prone to take the Republican side of the argument on economic and foreign policy issues than the Democratic one.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-03-23 02:49am

The Kernel wrote:It also helps that the Marshall plan was to rebuild nations that already had a strong first world economy; something that Iraq lacks. The problem with most of these Middle East nations is that their economies are almost totally oil driven, which means that for all intents and purposes, they were NEVER first world countries. There is a significant difference between rebuilding (as in Europe) and just plain building (as in Iraq).

And what about Afghanistan? I think there sitll may be people complaining that we didn't finish rebuilding Afghanistan before we went for Iraq. It isn't as though there was anything to rebuild. Now, if you want to create a country from the ground up, that's an entirely different arguement. And it's almost that bad with Iraq as it is now.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-23 02:50am

Alan Bolte wrote: And what about Afghanistan? I think there sitll may be people complaining that we didn't finish rebuilding Afghanistan before we went for Iraq. It isn't as though there was anything to rebuild. Now, if you want to create a country from the ground up, that's an entirely different arguement. And it's almost that bad with Iraq as it is now.

Exactly right, it is the building up of a nation from scratch that is the difficulty.

And you do realize that Afghanistan has returned to its position as the number 1 Opium grower in the world since the fall of the Taliban right?

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-03-23 04:56am

Vympel wrote: That was Europe- it has Europeans . It also helps that Europe was invaded by Germany. America invaded Iraq, it doesn't matter how disgusting the leader was.

IIRC there was a negative correlation between money received from the Marshall Plan and economical success.
I will have to dig out the numbers one day.