Cutting your callers off

Okay, Dennis, I understand about hard breaks and how callers like the sound of their own voices and so you need to cut them off quite frequently.

What I hate is cases such as when a caller calls up with a hypothesis, you let him get out two of his arguments and even though he's been brief and short you never let him get to the "therefore" half of his sentence. Usually you burst in and talk over him with "That is such a good point" (and it's very easy to see you never let him get to his point), or much worse, you blast over him with some self-gratulatory screaming about, "I know! I've been saying that for years! I saw that when I was in Luxembourg and I know it's still going on!" but you since you didn't let him get his point out (you're too busy thinking his supporting arguments are his point!) your cutting him off is just as rude to us as it is to him.

Please! listen better! let them make that point!

One thing about the left is the throwing around of names and labels

Partly they do it because they don't have real arguments to use in opposition to the opposition. Mostly it's because they don't even want to bother with making arguments supporting a thesis, it's so much more effective to tar the other side. That way "no one" will listen to conservative positions--because the arguments are formed in the minds and issue from the mouths of evil, racist, Nazi, fascist, demonic, demonic, diabolic subhuman demons. Cutting off the argument works so much better than actually engaging the reasons supporting the conclusion. Any idiot can do it, and that's why the left invest so heavily in their name-calling and labeling. That way all the idiots in the country will vote democrat, or so they reason, and the idiots who know nothing about issues beyond "hope", "change", "racist", "oppressive", "exploitative" and all the other leftist terms, do tend to fall in line with the democrat party.