January 14, 2014
Welcome Ben Shapiro to Seattle

We welcome Ben Shapiro to the Seattle airwaves - on KTTH AM 770, weekdays 3 to 6 PM. And streamed over the internet.

Ben gained national fame when he calmly took apart Piers Morgan on live CNN in January, 2013, over motivations of people after the Sandy Hook massive shooting. See Ben's previous column at Townhall.

When you read more about young Shapiro you will see he has a remarkable track record of books and media appearances. MyNorthwest.com Also his own web site.

Posted by Ron Hebron at January 14, 2014 08:32 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Listened to Ben today.

Ben is well spoken and grounded in solid conservative values.
I'm sure many that come here to SP will studiously ignore his program.

Welcome Ben!

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 14, 2014 05:59 PM
2. Nice to hear a younger person making some sense.

Posted by: Independent Voter on January 14, 2014 07:08 PM
3. I suspect the folks over at Horsesass.org might have a slightly different opinion as to whether Shapiro bested Piers Morgan in a debate.

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. on January 14, 2014 07:22 PM
4. Shapiro's most moving contributions observe the clear and obvious "strategy and tactics of leftist thuggery."
He clarifies the left's central organizing core placing partisanship ahead of everything that matters including decency, integrity, and even basic survival.
All else follows the blind quest for power.

One of the most compelling arguments Shapiro makes is that the left has so effectively perverted the discourse in America that the notion of truth has become meaningless. This provides cover for Barack Obama to openly lie over and again on the supposed basis that GW Bush lied when Bush never lied.
And if we disagree or question his lies, we are supposed racists, even if we are black conservatives. How perverse can we get?

As a conservative I don't know anyone on my side of the aisle that approved of the foolish things Bush did, but he never, ever lied, and those who accuse him of lies so thoroughly torture the meaning of "truth" and "lies" that in essence "anything is everything and (in the words of Hillary Clinton) what difference does it (the needless death of our ambassador in Benghazi, refusal to act responsibly to defend our interests and willingness to openly lie to re-elect a scoundrel President) really make."

Given democrats believe in things that do not exist and reflexively follow leaders that routinely lie, what future can we have?
The only future is conservatism -- i.e. reality and truth.

God please help us, America is in for a terrible collapse.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 14, 2014 07:41 PM
5. Who cares?
An issue like whether Shapiro bested Piers Morgan in a debate is always subject to the bent of any given observer and the folks over at Horsesass.org are certainly different.
Other than the pretense that Piers Morgan can debate, do you have any point?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 14, 2014 08:00 PM
6. Just pointing out that the "victor" in any political debate Is dependent on the politics of who is declaring the "winner."

Posted by: Ten Years After - Roger Rabbit is just a liberal progressive troll. on January 14, 2014 08:16 PM
7. I have a difficult time putting much stock in what a so-called progressive (actually statist) says, as they are practiced at denial and rewriting history. Even if CNN, MSNBC talking heads do that all day long, what they say is invariably debatable. IMO, Shapiro handed Piers Morgan his a$$ re:gun control in that one appearance - not saying it would always be that way. Shapiro has a keen wit and has street cred. Anyone who was praised by Andrew Breitbart has cred anyway.

Safe to say that he would not appeal that much to low information voters with their finger up their tuckus and their mind in Arkansas...

Posted by: KDS on January 14, 2014 08:31 PM
8. "Ben gained national fame ..."

That's like an obscure restaurant putting "Famous" in its name. There's nothing bad about being un-famous, but this goes to your credibility.

"... when he calmly took apart Piers Morgan"

Ten Years After correctly notes that this is a matter of opinion, not fact. I just watched the video of that exchange and think Morgan won handily.

And since you've closed comments on your previous post, I'll note that while you changed the post to admit that your central claim (gas costs would go up by $1-1.20/gal) was fabricated, you failed to correct related claims, such as "Inslee is sure it will be worth pay (sic) $1.20 per gallon". You're no longer sure, but somehow you're sure that Inslee is sure.

Somewhere there are conservatives making intelligent points without making up stuff, but not here.


Posted by: Bruce on January 14, 2014 10:40 PM
9. "As a conservative I don't know anyone on my side of the aisle that approved of the foolish things Bush did"

Apparently you don't know any Republicans. Or read this very blog. I remind you, your problem with us in the not-to-distant past wasn't that we were commie-fascist-statists. That was yet to come, during the era of Bush Disownment Syndrome. No, back then your problem here with us was that we were "anti-Bush moonbats". My God, man, that was even the subject of blog posts. And after Bush started a senseless war, took his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, and racked up huge deficits, your side of the aisle nominated him a second time, with folks here cheerleading all the way. Is that how you voice disapproval? Cheerleading? That wasn't terribly effective, now was it?

"Other than the pretense that Piers Morgan can debate, do you have any point?"

LMFOA! When the subject is debate, most especially debate, you really should consider using propositions, premises and conclusions instead of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. Just saying.

"approved of the foolish things Bush did, but..."

As far as "buts" go, that was a good one. After claiming that you didn't know anyone from the Republican side, etc, with that "but" you immediately launched into a defense of the foolish things he did before even finishing the sentence. That was seriously funny. Sorry if you didn't intend it that way.

"as they are practiced at denial and rewriting history"

Really, KDS, I seriously doubt if they're any better at it than what your friend, Amused by Liberals, has shown us in this thread and the last. And why is he so angry? I must admit that I don't pay much attention to his blather. Compared to my prefered prey like Purge, he doesn't have much meat on his bones. Is he always this way, so angry?

"Anyone who was praised by Andrew Breitbart has cred anyway."

LMFAO! The humor from the right here is always unintentional, but still quite funny.

Posted by: Zatoichi on January 15, 2014 01:10 AM
10. I listeneded to Shapiro yesterday. He certainly is more eloquent and more sensical than Bruce, tc or tensor. But that is a very low bar.

Posted by: Mike on January 15, 2014 08:39 AM
11. Mike,
That would be an ad hominem attack. Since, I haven't posted anything to this point on the post's subject, you can't debate what I wrote on the subject. Therefore, you attack the person.

On Ron's post, I don't have much to say. Ron is reporting news with some opinion (e.g., who won a debate). Ron is perfectly free to express his opinion. My issue with his previous post was Ron's changing of meaning meant to inflame. He has corrected this mostly and doesn't display the same tendency here.

I don't know Shapiro, don't care for talk radio (either side), and think Piers Morgan can be a blowhard. He may be fine as a judge for a TV Reality Show, but as a news show, ho-humm! About the only thing I watch on CNN is Anderson Cooper. I am not going to bother watching the debate, because I am not interested in either participant and feel the subject has been thoroughly debated already.

Posted by: TC on January 15, 2014 08:58 AM
12. Listened to Ben yesterday interviewing Nick Hanaurer. It wasn't the best interview I have ever heard, Mr. Hanaurer seemed to present arguments Ben couldn't deflect as well as a researched host would have done. All in all Mr. Shapiro held his position but he didn't win over any converts with his lack of preparation.

Posted by: R Knight on January 15, 2014 11:26 AM
13. I figured this would turn into a boring low-content thread but this is pathetic.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 11:32 AM
14. "I figured this would turn into a boring low-content thread but this is pathetic."

I'm sure that your tired ad hominem attacks, your laughable revisionist history and the fact that you posted over 28% of the comments here leaves you entirely blameless.

Posted by: Zatoichi on January 15, 2014 01:50 PM
15. Ben's been scraping along at the bottom of the wingnut-welfare food chain for quite awhile now, so perhaps he got his ticket punched and made the medium-sized media market radio level for reals.

Being a liberal, I lack expertise in rating right-wing gas-bags. Perhaps the peanut gallery here can help. On a scale from, say, Medved, all the way up to the pinnacle, Multiply-Divorced Drug Addict, how would Ben rate? Do tell.

This merely opens the larger question: why is a scarce public resource (the airwaves) being squandered on right-wing opinion-mongering, especially in Seattle, where we have so little demand for it?

Oh well. Perhaps someone can warn Ben not to pick a local target who might fight back. Ask Mike Seigel for how bad that mistake can get.

Posted by: tensor on January 15, 2014 02:42 PM
16. "I lack expertise in rating right-wing gas-bags"

I can't type out the equation properly here, but it's expressed as volume of gas divided by station wattage, times toxicity of gas squared.

I always thought of Shapiro as being to the right-wing what child preachers are to evangelicals, a child novelty act that doesn't age well.

OMG! Child preachers. Remember Marjoe? See what I mean? Kind of like Shapiro.

Posted by: Zatoichi on January 15, 2014 03:41 PM
17. At #8,

"I just watched the video of that exchange and think Morgan won handily."

Of course Bruce did.

Bruce never uses rationale or reason but personal vitriol here at SP so what other take would anyone expect him to have?

Intellectually, point for point, Shapiro won hands down. The sum total pretense at an argument Morgan offered was to demonize Shapiro and then try to over-talk him. Shapiro brilliantly personally attacked Morgan out of the starting gate and put Morgan off his game, but the difference in personal attacks was that Shapiro's attack against Morgan was factually true.

In the fray, where Shapiro answered every question, Morgan answered nearly none -- only countering with diversionary side issues (pseudo-ephedrine) and personal attacks.

Of course, as I wrote earlier, whether or not Shapiro bested Piers Morgan in a debate is always subject to the bent of any given observer." I enjoy arguments where real facts and points are made. I will learn even from an emotional argument if it is valid.

However being liberal, Bruce emotes that Morgan won because he buys into the bullshit notion that Morgan wants to ban guns to protect children against demons like Shapiro. Of course factually speaking "liberal" means someone who has no point -- only "feeelings" backed with bullshit tactics.
And any real solutions are diminished behind foolish irrelevant appearances.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 04:40 PM
18. At # 15,

"Perhaps someone can warn Ben not to pick a local target who might fight back."

That's certainly amusing

And specially since he is up against the likes of you and the other leftist mental giants here (see brilliant repartee at #14), we can all be certain Ben is quaking in his boots.
He reads this thread and he'll probably be on the first multi-gazillion dollar light rail ride out of town.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 04:51 PM
19. HEY THERE BEN SHAPIRO!!!

BRACE YOURSELF THERE DEMON-CHILD

Golly whiz there Ben, we feel it our duty to warn you that the nucular scientist liberals here at sound politics and other mental giants like Gov. Inslee, Seattle Mayor Murray and communist party County Councilperson Sawant might just fight back (see post # 15).

YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 05:01 PM
20. What's this gas bag's future?

A) Shall he become the Chairman of the WA GOP and lead the GOP further into the ditch?
B) Shall he become a GOP candidate for governor and get slaughtered at the polls like every other GOP whose run for that office in 30 years?
C) Shall he flop in the ratings and sink into oblivion like dozens of the 3rd tier rightwing gas bags before him?

Posted by: nyezhov on January 15, 2014 05:13 PM
21. At # 20,

Maybe Ben should check with someone formidable like you to figure his prospects.
Why not give him a call and offer to help him get "it?"

That would be very amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 05:23 PM
22. Reichert just voted for the budget.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/house-passes-1-1t-omnibus-spending-bill/

Of course you will be silent about it. Because you have no creditability. No true conservative see Sound Politics as conservative.

It's just partisan. And Partisanship is so, so over. You are so irrelevant.

Posted by: TheTruth on January 15, 2014 05:38 PM
23. At # 22,

Who is "you?"

And what does this have to do with Ben Shapiro?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 05:47 PM
24. "What's this gas bag's future?"

We now have a great crystal ball:

"He reads this thread and he'll probably be on the first multi-gazillion dollar light rail ride out of town."

If he doesn't read this site, there's a ghost of a chance he might someday obtain some minimal influence over local conservative politics! :-D

Posted by: tensor on January 15, 2014 05:55 PM
25. "nucular scientist"

Funny.

Is there any hope for us at all that you'll move past your ad hominems? Just curious. And why are you so angry?

Posted by: Zato on January 15, 2014 05:58 PM
26. tensor at # 24,

"If he doesn't read this site, there's a ghost of a chance he might someday obtain some minimal influence over local conservative politics!"

You sure nailed ole Ben there!!
And man o man, what a coup on the GOP.
How crafty.
Great job.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 06:04 PM
27. Dedicated to Bruce;

"Ten Years After correctly notes that this is a matter of opinion, not fact. I just watched the video of that exchange and think Morgan won handily."

I see that Bruce is in denial and trying to rewrite history, you and the rest of the contrarian statists. No, I'd say that Shapiro frustrated P:iers Morgan and he wasn't able to call him an idiot like he did to John Lott, David Pratt and other pro-2nd amendment advocates who came on his show. That's because he was tripped up by his own stupidity and foul logic and Shapiro made mention of that - funny but with a pathetic host.

When are the Republicans going to stand up to the leftwing media and tell them to get their heads of out their collective a$$es ?I won't hold my breath, but when that happens, the juvenile denial and lies from those on the left will be rendered ineffectual. Ignorance is bliss and the leftists are among the most blissful.

Posted by: KDS on January 15, 2014 06:10 PM
28. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/


It has nothing to do with Ben Shapiro and quite frankly I don't give a damn about Ben Shapiro.

Talk is cheap. One can talk as conservatively as they want but as long as they keep on supporting RINOS in the end nothing will change.

I had to post the comments about Reichert here because indeed they didn't post anything against how Reichert voted. Now, if it was only Democrats who voted for it they would have. But because they had to "protect their own" their lies by omission continue.

And people have had it. They have had it with Sound Politics and they have had it with the Republican Establishment they protect.

Oh, this year WILL be a tea party year if only for the tea party to turn and VOTE OUT all these RINOS. The Tea Party was never as a partisan as the Republicans hoped they were and this year they are going to find out what it's like to be on the Receiving End of Tea Party Anger.

This 1,582-page "omnibus" proposal who even could read such a document? Remember when Republicans would criticize Pelosi for "voting for the bill to see what's in it". No, people are sick of this. Let us hope this year the Green River Congressman will go down. He has almost gone down in the past but someday it is going to just be too much for him to lie his way out of!

By the way talk shows reflect what we think. They do not dictate what we think. If Shapiro goes all rah, rah, rah Republican like Sound Politics would like him to go well he will not get high ratings indeed. Beck, Limbaugh, hell even Hannity is beginning to realize that if they don't start attacking the Republican establishment their ratings will suffer.

Forget Sharpiro. Turn to AM 1590 AM and you will get REAL CONSERVATIVE TALK from a FREEDOM perspective.

http://www.freedom1590.com

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 06:10 PM
29. At # 25,

"Is there any hope for us at all that you'll move past your ad hominems? Just curious. And why are you so angry?"

When you disagree with others, do you frequently feel this way?
When they told you there was no Santa, did you think your Mommy and/or Daddy were angry?
Do you have a secret imaginary friend that no one else can see that tells you to do things?
Do you have feelings of doing harm to yourself or others?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 06:23 PM
30. Oh, by the way, the last post by Jim Miller. Gosh, he doesn't even allow comments. How courageous. Had he allowed comments I would mention that although he criticizes our current Governor for his cap and trade policies, our very own Green River Congressman Dave Reichert voted for cap and trade.

See this partisanship doesn't work anymore. Something being bad when Democrats do it but good when Republicans do, that doesn't play. If it is bad, which cap and trade is, it is bad because it is bad, not because a Democrat supports it.

You may think the Tea Party isn't sophisticated, but they get it. They get the hypocrisy and they do not tolerate it.

The Republican Party has turned the Tea Party into its enemy with tactics like this. And they are not going to win them back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6s-bCkD5s4

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 06:24 PM
31. At # 28,

O.K. Steve . . . I'll be sure to do that.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 06:28 PM
32. Sound Politics doesn't want to remind you of its long term support of Jane Hague. Just look at her public disclosure records.

So, no, Sound Politics really doesn't have much credibility anymore for good reason!

Four County Council members -- Council Chair Larry Phillips, Jane Hague, Joe McDermott and Rod Dembowski -- joined Constantine at a press conference on Tuesday to voice support for the initiative.

Sound Politics talks the talk, but talk is cheap!

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 06:31 PM
33. "YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED."

Someone had better warn him, as there is little evidence he's bright enough to figure it out on his own.

In the deliciously-brief interlude between then-Mayor Rice's defense of his family (yep, Seigel really was that low) and Seigel's very public termination, callers to Seigel's show bawled lengthily about how disturbing they found the very thought of accountability for right-wing radio. The hiring of Mr. Shapiro indicates how little has changed.

Posted by: tensor on January 15, 2014 06:35 PM
34. At # 33,

Wow that is really something.
Ya gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get anything by a crafty feller like tensor.
Tensor can teach ole Ben a thing or two.

Very amusing indeed

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 06:58 PM
35. "Is there any hope for us at all that you'll move past your ad hominems?"

Apparently not. Don't worry, I wasn't holding my breath.

For my part, I'll gladly and formally debate anybody here. I'll start by challenging any Sound Politics poster who has the balls to take me on to a debate about the ALEC/ALU legislative template for abortion clinics.

How about you, Ron Hebron, are you ready to take me on? Not here, buried in the threads, but in a running post for all to see. The challenge is put to you. I await your response.

Posted by: Zato on January 15, 2014 07:19 PM
36. At # 35,

I'll see you and raise you a public duel.

Let's meet tomorrow at noon in the middle of Elliot Bay; you can bring any of the weird friends of your choice and I'll bring a pencil drawing of Ben Shapiro.

If I lose I will not post on SP for a year and if you lose you can simply let us realize that you are a moron with no point.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 07:30 PM
37. At # 35,

BTW you probably noticed that I wasn't worried if you were holding your breath.
Idiot.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 07:34 PM
38. "I just watched the video of that exchange and think Morgan won handily."

Of course you did (snerk).

Posted by: alphabet soup on January 15, 2014 07:35 PM
39. At # 38,

Correct.
Morgan won the sneer continuous sneer contest while accusing Shapiro of sneering.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 07:43 PM
40. Zato at # 35,

Are you currently in therapy?
If so, we can give you a break.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 07:51 PM
41. Tensor, tha thing about Rice was true. It was a well known "open secret" among those in political circles back then.

And Siegel did not release that information. He had a talk show host on from East of the Mountain who vaguely said something about it and as a result Siegel was fired. It was then I knew Fisher Broadcasting couldn't be trusted.

If Siegel said anything (and I don't think he did) it was something like "yeah the rumor is out there" without even clarifying what the rumor was. But I don't don't he even said that. The guest made his vague comment and Seigel let it stand. So if you are going to blame anyone blame his guest.

But tell a lie long enough, and you think it will stick. Well the only problem with that is over time people lose interest. Few even know who Siegel is anymore.

Kind of like me talking about Kay Trepanier and Sid Morrison. For me, something that deeply shaped my feelings towards the Republican establishment, though I know for most these days, they don't even know who these people were.

But as long as I am around I am not going to let you get away with the lie. First, it was true about Rice, and second Seigel never released the information to the public. Our side of the mountain (except again if you were in political circles) never heard about that rumor. The left was successful in covering it up, like they cover up so much.

Those who know the players know that their behavior in the intervening 20 or more years confirms everything.

And again, no one now really cares about who Seigel was. You are growing old and with age can come irrelevency. Even if what you said was true, which it wasn't it was one talk show host one time with immediate consequences. If you want to make what you say relevant Seigel would have to be one of many examples (like I have with the betrayals of Mainstream Rockerfeller Republicans).

So, yeah, spread your big lie. No one cares about the players anymore and you can't really link that to what is going on these days because unfortuntely you have been successful in killing the effect of local talk radio in our area.

Fisher went after Carlson next. Not that I was too much a fan of his but still.

From Hot Talk to ho hum

If you want Hot Talk today you need to go to 1590 AM and specifically to Steve Deace. And you can't stop him Tensor because he is NATIONAL!

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 07:57 PM
42. "Idiot."

The challenge is to Ron Hebron. You, Amused by Liberals, have proven yourself to be utterly incapable of engaging in debate. Argumentum ad hominem. Attack the opponent. That's all you've got. If you ever find that you have more than that in your sorry little quiver to work with, perhaps you could try again. Until then, I laugh at you. Why?

"nucular scientist"

LMFAO! You debate with Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon? He who slices and dices? I suggest you don't get your hopes up. Like I said before, you have no meat on your bones.


Posted by: Dr. Zato on January 15, 2014 08:08 PM
43. At # 41,

O.K. Steve . . . I'll be sure to do that.

And golly whiz, ole tensor is a reel force to be reckoned with eh?

Anyone must be so intimidated by the force of his intellect, and won't know fer sure what to do to keep up with the scintillating dialogue and rapier-like wit of his contributions here over and again.
Snerk.
My Dog.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 08:10 PM
44. For some reason the link didn't work.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980609&slug=2755136


Talk radio hasn't been the same in our area since 1997. There was a time when hosts would call out our local politicians by name, but no more.

Steve Deace doesn't mind calling out people by name. Now they are national politicians, but still at least he does it. 6PM on FREEDOM AM 1590!

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 08:20 PM
45. One name that needs to be called out is our own Green River Congressman Dave Reichert who voted for this monster of a bill!

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/appropriations-chairman-giddy-over-bipartisan-omnibus-vote/

The Tea Party will remember this vote, I promise you that.

Especially in the internet age when all one has to do is GOOGLE the final vote. In the past I have actually had politicians lie about which way they voted, but with the Internet now if they lie you can immediately prove that they did lie!

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 08:25 PM
46. At # 42,

Wow, ---- Dr. ---- Zato now eh?
How crafty and what a genius move.

And gee I wish I knew what might "ad hominem" mean?
Maybe someday I coot be smart like you.

Obviously you don't realize how idiotic and foolish you are. This is a blog idiot.
If my comments are so irrelevant, why bother?

Or wait . . . might this be a double-Dog dare?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 08:27 PM
47. We must hold OUR POLITICIANS to account or just expect them to continue to spend us into obvilion.

It's not just "the evil Democrats". It's US too. In fact look at all the names of Congressmembers from WASHINGTON STATE!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/house-passes-1-1t-omnibus-spending-bill/

It's just like that complaints on Sound Politics about the governor. It's not that people don't care. It's that people don't believe the Republicans would do much differently.

And given this vote - WHY SHOULD THEY! No, Republicans might try to hide this vote, but we will remember. Can't complain about runaway spending if you are the one voting for that very spending. Well, you can but you look pretty stupid and you actually make people angry when you do.

Posted by: Steve on January 15, 2014 08:32 PM
48. Doctor Zatiochi, Doctor Zato, and all of those liberal doctors like Doctor tc and Doctor Bruce,

Take it from Doctor Amused by Liberals, graduate of the universe of intellectual exactitude and perspicacity, Ben Shapiro is a mensch and he could easily kick any of your asses on any issue of politics whatsoever like he did Piers Morgan several times.
You will claim otherwise, but then you will eat your own.

Especially because you are so intimidated by his productions, you come here and argue otherwise.

Thanks so much, and Ben Shapiro . . . welcome to liberal looney-land.

Dr. Amused by Liberals

Posted by: Dr. Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 09:03 PM
49. "If my comments are so irrelevant, why bother?"

Just killing time pulling the legs off a bug named Amused, waiting for suitable prey to arrive.

I appreciate Steve's comments. I don't agree with his politics but I do appreciate his clarity of mind and his ability to put together a cogent argument. He has some nice take-downs above. He's someone you could learn from, but I suspect that you, Mr. Nucular, would need to take a few remedial courses before you'd be considered a worthy student.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on January 15, 2014 09:14 PM
50. At # 49,

And it is sure obvious to you that you did that eh?
Congratulations there Doc.

And your next great conquest?

Very amusing.

Posted by: Amued by Liberals on January 15, 2014 09:26 PM
51. This is so much fun to stick it in the eye of liberal morons like tensor, Bruce, tc zat- zuti zoto or whatever etc. who believe they are smart but who are really just lazy arrogant assholes.

Shapiro's most moving contributions observe the clear and obvious "strategy and tactics of the leftist thuggery that results from intellectual laziness."

Ben clarifies the left's central organizing core placing partisanship ahead of everything that matters including decency, integrity, and even basic survival.
Liberals follow the blind quest for power -- and like a baby doing whatever he or she can cries to his Momma until they get it.

One of the most compelling arguments Shapiro makes is that the left has so effectively perverted the discourse in America that the notion of truth has become meaningless. This provides cover for Barack Obama to openly lie over and again on the supposed basis that GW Bush lied when Bush never lied.

And if we disagree or question Bongo's lies, we are supposed racists, even if we are black conservatives; how perverse can we get?

No conservative approved of the foolish things Bush did, but Bush never, ever lied, and those who accuse him of lies so thoroughly torture the meaning of "truth" and "lies" that in essence "anything is everything and (in the words of Hillary Clinton) what difference does it (the needless death of our ambassador in Benghazi, refusal to act responsibly to defend our interests and willingness to openly lie to re-elect a scoundrel President) really make."

The left perverted the discourse just so they could murder those they wanted and get away with it. And of course that is why our founders insisted we have the right to keep and bear arms -- so we could defend ourselves against those who insist upon taking our freedom from us.

Given democrats belief in things that do not exist and reflexive fealty to leaders that routinely lie, what future can we have?
The only future is conservatism -- i.e. reality and truth.

God please help us, America is in for a terrible collapse.

God thanks for Ben Shapiro . . . and Ben thanks for standing with us.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on January 15, 2014 09:56 PM
52. Are you intoxicated? I only ask because you seem to be deteriorating with every comment.

Sigh! I'm quite certain I'd hate myself if I were to learn that I've been pulling the legs off a defenseless, drunken lout. At the very least, it'd be bad form on my part.

Posted by: Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on January 15, 2014 10:49 PM
53. Tensor, tha thing about Rice was true. It was a well known "open secret" among those in political circles back then.

Yes, I'm sure a self-described Tea Partier was well-known inside Seattle's liberal political establishment back then.

Meanwhile, a real journalist recalls the downfall of Mike Seigel:

Seattle area media had heard the accusations and checked them out. P-I managing editor Kenneth F. Bunting recalled that "there was little that was credible about the scenario" maintained by Kurt Hettiger, who was fired from the Water Department in late 1993. Said Bunting: "To believe the incident as Hettiger had detailed it, one had to also believe that the police department, the fire department, emergency transport drivers, the hospital and the media had all engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to cover it up."

Seattle Times executive editor Michael R. Fancher wrote in his first column after the Rice press conference, "Our conclusion was that the rumors were false."

Rice said he decided to fight back after Siegel's April 11 show, simulcast in Spokane. During the show, called "The Truth About Mayor Norman B. Rice," a former Seattle policeman repeated Hettiger's claim. Siegel labeled it a "rumor," and said he'd heard it from "a variety of sources who are very credible." He called on Rice to publicly deny the allegation.

Seigel charged ahead anyway, and it cost him. You actually seem to believe Seigel's downfall was a bad thing. You and the Teabaggers are indeed perfect together.

Posted by: tensor on January 16, 2014 06:30 AM
54. 1) Yes, you would be surprised who you might find inside the so called tea party (which by the way I never claimed to be as I always said that I didn't get involved in the tea party because I feared it was doomed to fail just like the so called Republican Revolution.)

2) No one cares about Siegel anymore (yeah I feel old too although I started out in it pretty young).

3) Yes, Siegel's downfall was a bad thing. He would name wrongdoers in BOTH Parties. He would name local politicians BY name, give phone nymbers, encourage people to get involved. I can imagine him totally slaming Reichert over his vote yesterday. Politicians of BOTH PARTIES hated him.

4) Gosh, you kind of in your explanation proved that Siegel WAS NOT the one to reveal the information. Yet Fisher Fired him anyway.

And then they Fired Carlson.

Fisher Communications was the enemy within. Yeah, as long as we just ranted on their airwaves they didn't care. Let the money roll in. But once the rantings turned into positive change they had to put the stop to it.

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 07:36 AM
55. Gosh, your most recent statements totally contradict what you previously was trying to imply about the situation.

When you first brought it up it was like look at the false rumor Siegel started against Rice.

Uh, no, he didn't start it.

Oh, but he spread it...

Uh, no he said he heard it from people who he found otherwise credible. As would any one in those circles. The Puget Sound press had totally suppressed any mention of the scandal in the media so the general public didn't know what was going on (similar but worse than what the press does today) but yeah, among those active in politics the rumors were out there.

The way you most recently describe it in the most recent post is more or less what happened. How was what Siegel did wrong? He said yeah, he has heard the rumors. He wasn't there. He didn't know if they were true. But yeah, forget about all this elitist insider crap. If it's true then the people have the right to know!

This story is relevant to modern day, but not the way you are trying to push it. The truth is that local talk was neutered in the Puget Sound Region by oh, around 1997. This was the first shot in that. Then came the firing of Carlson. After that local talk show hosts were well aware that yeah, you can rant, but don't try to do something of substance with your program or you will find yourself out of work.

That's why I have little trust for local talk show hosts these days. Heck, I don't even listen to them.

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 08:20 AM
56. Do you think that the public should have known about Marilyn Monroe's relationship with JFK? I mean back during his administration.

It was TOTALLY kept out of the press. But among those in politics in that time it was much talked about. That's what the term "open secret" means. We in fly over country didn't know back then but yeah, if you were even somewhat connected to the "insiders" you knew.

Is that the kind of society you want?

Luckily this is harder with the Internet existing these days. But back with the Rice thing this was just barely before the internet had hit the mainstream.

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 08:26 AM
57. "When you first brought it up it was like look at the false rumor Siegel started against Rice."

If you're going to critique performance of the media, you might want to start with acquiring some basic reading comprehension skills. Where did I write that Seigel started the rumor? (I did not accuse him of being that creative.) Seigel spread the rumor, on a program he'd dedicated to attacking Rice, during a statewide broadcast. He claimed his sources (note plural) were credible. Only one source has ever been found, a disgruntled former city employee.

Seigel used his program to atack a politican, by spreading ludicrous rumors about the man's family. And you're still witlessly defending his smears, all of these years later. Pathetic.

Posted by: tensor on January 16, 2014 08:58 AM
58. He said that he heard the rumors from many reliable sources. Yes, it was, among political circles the talk of the town.

So of course he would have heard it from more than one of the people he knew in political circles.

And the sources were credible otherwise he wouldn't have used them. And what he heard was that the rumors were out there.

He didn't make up the rumors. Although suppressed by the news media west of the mountain, people were talking about it. Those in political circles. He didn't say the rumors were true. He was just sick of all this insider crap where people on the inside knows all this stuff that really need a public airing.

Spreading the rumors would be saying they were true. He just let us know this is what the elite was talking about. And that's what made them so mad. Insiders like being insiders and they like all the little secrets that go with being insiders. I know I thought it was kind of cool to think "I was in the know" and of course I didn't say a word to anyone "Outside" because I knew if I did the insiders would never trust me with any more insider information. So, yeah, I will admit to some ego on my part. It's like knowing the secret handshake or whatever.

I used to have as saying that if it is in the news then it is no longer news. Meaning the real important news never hit the newspapers. For all the scandals you hear about, trust me, only the tip of the iceberg. Not saying it's a good thing but it's what goes on.

And the news media, they are part of the insiders. There's so much they don't report. SO much, because they want to be on the inside.

But Seigel said, hell with that insider crap. That's part of what's wrong with government. The people have a right to know that the scandal is out there.

You seem to like suppression of the media. Not surprising. Fascists like you always do.

People knew about Packwood too. For years and years it was well known in political circles. But it was forbidden to put into print because it would break the "insider rules". Carlson admitted that he knew about Packwood long before it ever came out in 'the general media' and even warned a female friend of his not to work for Packwood as a result. As a journalist it was his responsibility to make the allegations that he knew about public, but that would compromise his insider status.

So, yeah, I don't see Seigel doing anything wrong. People had the right to know that this was out there!

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 10:05 AM
59. To be fair Carlson never said he was a journalist. He is a political commentator. But others, others who were journalists, they knew about Packwood for years but didn't report about it.

Just like they didn't report about JFK and Marilyn Monroe until years after both of their deaths even through they knew.

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 10:10 AM
60. "And the sources were credible otherwise he wouldn't have used them."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seigel *hated* Mayor Rice. He arranged a special, state-wide broadcast of his radio show, specifically to hurt Rice, who was then a potential candidate for state-wide office. Seigel pushed this rumor on that specific broadcast, fully intending to harm Rice's political career, by attacking the man's wife. That's the behavior you're defending. Congratulations.

"He said that he heard the rumors from many reliable sources."

Yes. He was lying, twice over. There was only ever one source, and that source was the very opposite of reliable. (Do you even know what "source" means?)

"Yes, it was, among political circles the talk of the town."

The only "talk" in Seattle about KVI-AM was to laugh at the constant stream of lies and smears broadcast constantly from it; we called it "KV-Lie" for that reason. We would pity the fools, dupes, and rubes who took any of it seriously. Some of us still do.

Posted by: tensor on January 16, 2014 10:49 AM
61. "Fascists like you always do."

When I'm called a communist here, I correct the person and inform them that I'm a commie-fascist-Mormon-Jihadist. Same response when I'm called a fascist, a socialist, a statist, a Jihad-lover or whatever. I'm just poking fun at the person applying ad hominems that do not fit. Some of this shit is so damned rediculous. What kind of communist, for example, would put in place or support the ACA, which requires us to buy products from corporations whether we want their product or not? Is there a fascist on the planet who actually wants universal health care, taking insurance corporations out of the picture?

I just hope you're indulging in name-calling and that you don't care whether Tensor is a fascist or a commie, and that you at least you understand that there's actually a f*cking difference.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on January 16, 2014 10:51 AM
62. The truth is the charges were never really investigated by the news media or by any source outside the Mayors office (kind of like this whole IRS thing).

And knowing the players well...Cough, nuff said as you don't get to know the secret handshake.

Government cover-ups are going on today. Why do you think it was any different back then?

It angers people how the media instead of covers things, activate covers up things. Perhaps that is what makes it still relevant. They continue to get away with it. With the whole voting scandals and Gregorie, with so much. I don't read the newspapers because I know that they print so little of what really effects us in our community.

But I guess that's kind of what Sound Politics share with the local news media. After all it doesn't report issues significant to us either. Still silence over Reichert's vote yesterday and they have been under reporting Hague and her doings for years.

But of course these days Sound Politics isn't the conservative's only source of information. In fact it never was and few conservatives even come to Sound Politics anymore because they are sick of the Partisanship. Conservatives today want to listen to sources where something is right or wrong because, well they are right or wrong, conservative or not conservative. This something is bad when Democrats do it but good when Republicans do (or at least not talked about when Republicans do) is so passe. Conservatives are the least partisan than they have ever been. They don't give a Damn about the future of the GOP. They Are too conserved about the future of the Republic.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/10/beck-predicts-massive-changes-for-talk-radio-we-have-had-it-with-the-gop/

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 11:27 AM
63. I knew about the whole Rice thing long before Seigel ever vaguely brought it up.

But you want to live in the world where only insiders know about the misdoings of their colleagues. Yeah, maybe write a book about it 40 years after when all the people are dead but say well "times were different back then" (when they aren't).

Well, I am tired of scandal after scandal being covered up until they no longer matter. IN fact I am going to tell Republican Donors this year that I won't give them money because I am afraid of an IRS audit. That won't be the real reason. If I really believed in them I would risk it, but hell, if they don't fight for us, why would we put ourselves in even a slim chance of that risk.

Too often I have in the past stuck my neck out for a politician only to have that very politician slit my throat. So yeah, if they won't stick up for us like with this IRS thing, why would I ever put myself in such a position for them.

I think it's a good excuse which will make them think that indeed there is practical costs for them not standing up!

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 11:34 AM
64. By the way, Steve Deace is a much better talk show host than this Shapiro guy. It's not so much what Shapiro says, yeah, yeah, yeah conservatism is great but it's not going to change anything by just talking about conservatism yet still supporting RINOS.

FREEDOM 1590 AM at 6 PM. Listen to what conservatism is(but by now I am pretty well educated about all of it), sure but more importantly what are we going to do about it.

http://stevedeace.com

Talk is cheep UNLESS you stop voting for RINOS!

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 11:56 AM
65. I have deleted some spam. Much more and I close comments.

I don't go out of my way to hear Mike Siegel, but every time I hear him I want to call and ask about Norm Rice and him.

Posted by: Ron on January 16, 2014 03:30 PM
66. Is Siegel on locally now?

I did a brief search and I found this archive. But I think it is a national show.

http://www.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/archivespage?showCode=17

Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2014 03:48 PM
67. "The truth is the charges were never really investigated by the news media or by any source outside the Mayors office..."

Yes, that's right: a middle-aged man was shot in the arm at close range, never lost any functionality in the limb, never wore a cast or brace or dressing visible to any of the hundreds or thousands of persons who saw him in his public appearances, and bears no trace of injury to this day.

Please keep telling us what "the truth is," pal. You're far more entertaining than Ben Shapiro, and he's paid to do it!

Posted by: tensor on January 16, 2014 08:03 PM
68. Spammers - 4 in two minutes. (I remove them to deny them their links.) Closing comments.

Posted by: Ron on January 16, 2014 08:17 PM